Comments on: Wakefield Monkey Study Withdrawn by Editor

By: impfblog.de » Blog Archive » Der tiefe Fall des Andrew Wakefield

impfblog.de » Blog Archive » Der tiefe Fall des Andrew Wakefield — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:51:48 +0000

[...] Ebenso verwiesen die Anhänger Wakefields, unter ihnen auch Prominente wie das Ex-Playgirl Jenny McCarthy und ihr Lebensgefährte, Dumb and Dumber Schauspieler Jim Carrey, auf eine Studie an Affen, die die Schuld der Impfungen an Autismus beweisen sollte. Diese Studie, seit Oktober 2009 “im Druck” bei NeuroToxicology war schon länger wegen offensichtlicher Fehler im Studiendesign kritisiert worden (Orac, Prometheus, Just the Vax), ein Blogger rief sogar zum Boykott des Verlagshauses Elsevier auf. Anfang der Woche hat die Editorin von NeuroToxicology ohne nähere Angaben über ihre Gründe die Studie zurückgezogen. [...]

By: Science Mom

Science Mom — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:26:55 +0000

Thoughtful House has pulled it’s links to the Neurotoxicology study but the link to the 1998 retracted Lancet paper remains, even though the PubMed link shows its been retracted.

http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/publications.php

By: David N. Brown

David N. Brown — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:31:32 +0000

“the power of the corporation (in this case one whose former boss had important pharma and media interests) gaining ground over science.”

Then why didn’t the corporate types squash the “monkey study” sooner? Presumably because media magnates don’t generally know or care much about the publications they theoretically manage.
I suppose someone could try to put credit/blame on me, but I suspect this evelopment is comparable to a “Saving Pvt. Ryan” scene where a tank blows up as Tom Hanks empties a .45 at it.

By: blog-thing : Andrew Wakefield, the never ending story

blog-thing : Andrew Wakefield, the never ending story — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:31:22 +0000

[...] instead. His most recent paper, an attempt to diversify into mercury and vaccines has been withdrawn by the editor. no reason was given. It may the undisclosed conflict of interest from lead author [...]

By: sheldon101

sheldon101 — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:01:34 +0000

The taint of Wakefield?———————————-
I see nothing illegitimate with the journal reacting to the GMC decision finding that Wakefield had been dishonest, beyond a reasonable doubt, in the paper he submitted to The Lancet in 1998.

Considering he was under investigation for this and with a decision only months away when the paper was accepted by the journal, the prudent thing would have been to hold off until the decision was rendered.

But once it is rendered, withdrawing the paper seems proper. If an author of a paper, especially where other authors work or are connected to, is found to have committed scientific fraud, that calls into question the accuracy of his reporting in this paper.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:44:55 +0000

Editors of scientific journals are academics. Where’s the connection to corporations?

By: Visitor

Visitor — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:43:09 +0000

Janet: You can peddle your conspiracy theories if it makes you feel good, but why not be a little clearer. What are you saying? Are you saying that some official in the chief executive’s office of Reed Elsvier issued a memo, or made a phone call, saying that his/her ex-boss would like papers by Wakefield withdrawn or something, so as to assist a company he used to be on the board of?

Get real, for godsake. Do something for the good of children. Put your labour to a proper use, or if you are so consumed with hatred that you really believe what you are saying, go for some kind of spiritual or emotional counselling.

By: Janet

Janet — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:14:26 +0000

Together with the Lancet retraction of Wakefield’s 1998 article, the withdrawal of the primate study from another Elsevier journal – Neurotoxicology – shows the power of the corporation (in this case one whose former boss had important pharma and media interests) gaining ground over science. How many more of Wakefield’s 150 publications do you think will fall? A snowballing effect might please some, but what does it say about the integrity of the corporate science?

By: _Arthur

_Arthur — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:50:47 +0000

Sullivan,

“Phase II is investigating more closely which vaccine(s), or vaccine combinations”

That seems almost reasonable. They should have had 4 (equal) lots of monkeys
-Vaccine alone
-Thimerosal alone
-Vaccine+Thimerosal
-Controls (placebo)

Instead, they had a (small) group with vaccine+thimerosal (they added the th since the current vaccine doesn’t contains it anymore), and 2 odd smallish control groups (one with … saline!).

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:11:29 +0000

In a 2008 IMFAR abstract, they mention 9 more macaques for an MMR study—7 vaccinated, 2 unvaccinated. It appears all were killed at 14 weeks.