And of course you'll be man enough to make a full retraction and apology for that statement should it ever turn out to be incorrect, won't you?Originally Posted by TheDemonLord
Forum whore
And of course you'll be man enough to make a full retraction and apology for that statement should it ever turn out to be incorrect, won't you?
Forum whore
(Just a little sideline lol).
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/...utbreak-on.htm
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Why?
He's been Struck off (passed tense).
Thus, that statement is and will always be correct.
I might apologize for calling him a Fraud, but it would take some serious evidence that he wasn't trying to scam the system and get rich quick to convince me otherwise. And to be frank, given the weight of evidence against him, I don't think such evidence would be able to be produced without going back in time and being able to see his thoughts/intentions (because all of his actions say otherwise)
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Forum whore
So is Dr John Walker-Smith also a fraud?
'Cos he was struck off too.
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Well, it is funny, but only because it shows that Conspiracy theorists don't appear to be able to read properly.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Was he included in my statement? No. No he was not.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
111000101000100010011110
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Hardcore Biker
The Walker Smith reinstatement does not exonerate Wakefield. Walker Smith was named as the lead author on the original paper; Walker Smith successfully (in this narrow context) defended himself by pointing out that he wasn't aware of the conflicts of interest that Wakefield possessed, especially in regard to Wakefield's ability to profit from the consequences of his research, when he (Walker Smith) agreed to co-author the paper.
The GMC’s decision focused on the treatment of children subjected to invasive procedures without ethics approval and on misrepresentations related to conflicts of interests and ethics approval. The paper stated there was an Ethics Committee approval when there wasn’t one; and that the paper – and Wakefield and Walker-Smith – represented the children’s referrals as routine when they were not. This finding was justified.
"Professor Walker-Smith should not have allowed a paper to be published under his name without ensuring its accuracy. Whether or not that amounted to professional misconduct should have depended on the panel’s view of the truthfulness and accuracy of the evidence of Dr. Murch about the meeting between him, Professor Walker-Smith, Dr. Thomson and Dr. Wakefield after the discussion between researchers and clinicians of the last draft of the paper seen by Professor Walker-Smith. If it was, Professor Walker-Smith’s omission could properly have been characterised as an error of judgment: it was not misconduct for him, Dr. Murch or Dr. Thomson to invite a research colleague, Dr. Wakefield, to correct a misleading statement in the draft and leave it to him to do so. Because the panel made no finding on that issue, its reasoning is inadequate."
In other words, if the panel believed Walker-Smith’s claims, his behavior was not misconduct, just misplaced trust: it was an error to trust Andrew Wakefield to properly change the misleading statement. The problem is that the panel did not make a clear finding on whether it believed Walker-Smith’s version. But the implication is clear–if the panel accepted this version, it would exonerate Walker-Smith from misconduct, but not Wakefield, who took on himself responsibility for accuracy and then published an untrue statement. Quite the converse: it presents Walker-Smith as a victim of Wakefield’s untrustworthiness.
Walker Smith's successful appeal was successful not as a result of an proving himself innocent of all the charges, but because he convinced the appeal board he was not the guilty party. Ex-Dr. Wakefield’s purposes were research-and-profit: he set out to demonstrate the link between MMR vaccine, regressive autism and gastrointestinal disorders (which would result in personal profit; an interest he did not declare).
The critical question in the case of Professor Walker-Smith was whether that was his primary purpose as well - and his evidence was that his purpose was to attempt to find out what was wrong with a particular patient – something which no previous investigation had achieved; his part in the broader implications of the Wakefield paper was as the judge said "much less clear".
Thus, the appeal found that the ((original) panel did not properly explain why they found that Walker-Smith did research rather than medical practice, and may have used the wrong standard to do so. The reason for overturning the panel’s decision here, too, was incomplete explanation; they did not believe Walker Smith's motivation was Wakefield's - they believed his motivation was more clinical.
To summarise, the appeal found that Walker Smith was not as culpable as he was earlier declared to be despite the fact that he agreed to co-author a paper on research that he did not sufficiently participate in nor investigate that it deserved his endorsement; the appeal in no way walked back the condemnation of Wakefield.
In summary:
Does Walker-Smith’s decision exonerate Andrew Wakefield? The decision, if read generously, can cast doubt on one set of findings against Wakefield – that he subjected some of the children to invasive tests that were not clinically indicated. It leaves untouched, however, the rest of the charges found proved against Wakefield, and does reinforce several of the allegations – for example, that Wakefield conducted research without ethics committee approval, that Wakefield included misrepresentations in the paper, and that Wakefield did not disclose conflicts of interests. It’s anything but an exoneration of Wakefield, and the charges against Wakefield, as the GMC continues to conclude, amount to serious ethical violations.
Forum whore
So Andrew Wakefield wasn't struck off for producing fraudulent test data.
Bogeyman
More fuckwits.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/heal...-street-school
But at least their kids are OK.
Oh, wait...
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Anorak
On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.
The General Medical Council ruled he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in doing his research.The Panel is satisfied that your conduct at paragraph 32.a would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest.The verdict, read out by panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar, criticised Dr Wakefield for the invasive tests, such as spinal taps, that were carried out on children and which were found to be against their best clinical interests.The panel said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London’s Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests.He also said Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/...lete-CorrectedIn reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest.
money from the UK legal aid fund: run by the government to give poorer people access to justice. Wakefield charged at the extraordinary rate of £150 an hour - billed through a company of his wife's - eventually totalling, for generic work alone, what the UK Legal Services Commission, pressed by Deer under the freedom of information act, said was £435,643 (then about $750,000 US), plus expenses. These hourly fees - revealed in The Sunday Times in December 2006 - gave the doctor a direct personal, but undeclared, financial interest in his research claims: totalling more than eight times his reported annual salary and creating an incentive not only for him to launch the alarm, but to keep it going for as long as possible.
In addition to the personal payments, Wakefield was awarded an initial £55,000, which he had applied for in June 1996, but which, like the hourly fees, he never declared to the Lancet as he should have done, for the express purpose of conducting the research later submitted to the journal. This start-up funding was part of a staggering £26.2m of taxpayers' money (more than $56m US at 2014 prices) eventually shared among a small group of doctors and lawyers, working under Barr's and Wakefield's direction, trying to prove that MMR caused the previously unheard-of "syndrome". Yet more surprising, Wakefield had asserted the existence of such a syndrome - which allegedly included what he would dub "autistic enterocolitis" - before he performed the research which purportedly discovered it.
http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-deer-mmr-tables.pdf
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Forum whore
Did you notice how there was no mention of fraudulent test data?
Hardcore Biker
Can you think, parse sentences, construct a logical argument, base your statements on facts? No? Then, begone.
Hardcore Biker
Can you think, parse sentences, construct a logical argument, base your statements on facts? No? Then, begone.
No8 Wire Extraordinaire
So I'll type this slowly.
A study with 12 people is not Science. That is not following the Scientific method. It is merely some, at best, ill considered observations.
There is no basis to draw conclusion from and indeed no actual study has. That is where the science is pointing. Overwhelmingly. Why are we talking about this guy?
Don't you look at my accountant.
He's the only one I've got.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks