I need to find a source for militaryp-spec irony meters.
Here’s the comment that blew the irony meter:
Imagine if a US journalist sued a doctor for libel or misconduct, and then went to the NY Times and asked to be hired as a freelancer to cover the trial that they themselves had instigated in the first place. It wouldn’t happen.
So, David, you wrote “Evidence of Harm”, massively fanning the flames of the mercury causation theory.
You are now blogging on the Age of Autism blog.
Are you paid for that effort?
I haven’t seen a lot of non-vaccine/autism bylines for you in the past few years. So, if AoA is paying you, it would be a sizable fraction of your “journalist” salary.
If so, couldn’t it be well argued that you created your own “journalist” job?
Ah well…as long as we are discussing Mr. Kirby, here is another of his comments:
In his writing, Deer claimed that Wakefield had made up results about severe MMR reactions in the children just days after receiving the shots, had ignored signs of autism in some kids before they received their MMR vaccine, and changed lab reports on the gut biopsies – among other alleged infractions that have been covered in the two year trial in London of Wakefield et al.
The accusations printed in the Sunday Times are, frankly, outlandish. And they are false.
Hmmm, false? Do you have the facts to back that up? Have you seen the medical records that Mr. Deer has reported on? It seems highly unlikely to this observer.
Let’s look at some of Mr. Deer’s claims:
Supposedly, Dr. Wakefield found measles RNA in the guts of his subjects. From Mr. Deer’s report, the father of child 11 from the Lancet study has stated that he had no fewer than 3 separate tests for measles RNA from the same gut biopsies that Wakefield tested. Three negative results.
Dr. Wakefield claimed that the children were developing normally before the MMR. According to the Deer article, another child from the original 12′s story:
The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.
Dr. Wakefield claimed that the 12 study subjects were presented sequentially to his hospital, indicating that they were randomly selected. And, yet, none of them were in the Royal Free Hospital’s catchment area–or even the greater London area. That’s one fact that doesn’t take access to the GMC’s records. And it demonstrates a clear non-random nature to the subject choice.
How about the report by Dr. Wakefield that the subjects had regressions shortly after their MMR shot? Again, from Mr. Deer’s article:
This was Child Two, an eight-year-old boy from Peter-borough, Cambridgeshire, diagnosed with regressive autism, which, according to the Lancet paper, started “two weeks” after his jab.
However, this child’s medical records, backed by numerous specialist assessments, said his problems began three to five months later.
A pretty major disconnect between Dr. Wakefield’s story and the medical records.
How about the measles-in-the-gut theory? Dr. Chadwick, working in Dr. Wakefield’s own hospital, testified in the Omnibus proceeding that he told Dr. Wakefield pre-publication that the PCR data directly contradicted the results Dr. Wakefield was publishing. Dr. Wakefield knew when he published that there were good data that showed he was incorrect. How did you sweep that under the rug, Mr. Kirby?
Did Dr. Wakefield fabricate results or is there another reason why he got a lot of very important facts wrong? I don’t know, but I do agree with Dr. Fitzpatrick who asked why Dr. Wakefield’s papers have not been retracted. They should be.
(And I thought Dierdre Imus wrote the worst blog post of the day!)
post-publication note: Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick has written an excellent article on Dr. Wakefield’s studies, including the recent information from Mr. Deer.