Archive | Wakefield RSS feed for this section

A look at the financials for Generation Rescue and the Strategic Autism Initiative

15 Feb

Generation Rescue is a well known charity with a focus on alternative therapies for autism and promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism. The Strategic Autism Initiative was formed by Andrew Wakefield after he left Thoughtful House (now the Johnson Center). Many of these organizations have close ties and, in fact, GR helped SAI get started with a $100k grant its first year.

The most recent tax forms are from 2011 and are below:

Generation Rescue IRS form 990Strategic Autism Initiative IRS form 990

Generation Rescue pulls in a great deal of money, nearly $1.2M. Of which about $240k goes to the “rescue grant” program. About $125k goes to running their website. Another $125k to pay their executive director.

Under grants, Generation Rescue (GR) has two:

$25,000 to the Strategic Autism Initiative
$20,000 to Jackson State University

Both “for researching causes of autism”. We see again the link between GR and SAI. Jackson State is the institution engaged by Generation Rescue and the SAI to perform a vaccinated/unvaccinated study using homeschooled kids. I’ll point out that when I reviewed the GR and SAI tax forms last year, I speculated that they were starting to fund the vax/unvaxed study.

Now consider the SAI’s form 990. SAI pulled in $284k. They paid out $250k in salaries and other compensations. Yep, 88% of intake went to salaries. Luckily they had a bit of a war chest from the year before to draw on. But let’s look at those salaries. Andrew Wakefield is compensated $200k/year for a reported 30hours/week. That’s $270k/year (his salary at Thoughtful House). Terri Arranga ( of AutismOne) was paid $28.8k for reported 15hours/week.

But, as I said, they had a war chest from 2010 (due in big part to a $100k donation from GR). How did they spend that? Well, they appear to have a grant of $25k to Generation Rescue for “research related to the vax/unvax study”. Which strikes me odd as GR gave SAI $25k, so it looks like the money went in a circle.

That said, what expenses did SAI report?

$158k to Dr. “Lenys G. Gonzalez” to work with Arthur Krigsman and Stephen Walker on “molecular and clinical signatures of inflammatory bowel disease and adverse vaccine reactions in autistic children.”

Lenny Gonzalez is a researcher in Venezuela who was funded by Wakefield at Thoughtful House in one of the supposed “independent” replications of Wakefield’s findings. Arthur Krigsman is a former colleague at Thoughful House, with a colorful history. Stephen Walker’s name comes up periodically in regards to a study he presented at IMFAR but never published which supposedly confirmed Andrew Wakefield’s finding of measles virus in intestinal tissues of autistics.

$43k for a study on “vaccination status and health outcomes among homeschool children in the United States”, with Anthony Mawson of Jackson State. Mr. Mawson was named as the lead researcher for this project back when GR was seeking funding from money left over from a class action lawsuit to fund it.

$86k for an “IRB approved” (are the others not?) investigation using the Florida Medicaid database. And, no surprise, this is to look at vaccines. (1) acute adverse reactions to vaccines as predictors of neurodevelopmental disorders and (2) age of vaccination and risk of adverse outcome.

I am curious if the Florida project is the same one the Geiers were attempting to get pushed through approval a few years ago. A t that time a vaccine-causation focused chiropractor and heavy political donor was pushing both access to the Florida medical records and for things like changing a bill to improve access to services for families with autistic children into a vaccine bill.

Many people might be wondering how Andrew Wakefield managed to gather half a million dollars in under two years. I can’t say for sure but I can put out some information for speculation.

One of his board members is Elizabeth Avellan. She also serves on the board for Mr. Wakefield’s “Autism Trust”, which lists her accomplishments as including ” highly successful film producer and co owner of Trouble Maker studios “. Troublemaker Studios has the “Spy Kids” franchise.

Another board member is Phil Rawlins. There was a Phil Rawlins in Austin who owned a soccer team. He has since moved to Florida.

So whatever skills he had, Mr. Wakefield is basically now a fundraiser. He’s good at it, you gotta hand it to him. I can think of a lot of ways that money could be better spent, though.

—
By Matt Carey

What has become of Autism Science Digest?

26 Dec

Autism Science Digest was an effort by AutismOne to publish their take on autism science in a magazine format for a general audience. AutismOne is best known for their annual parent convention which focused largely on alternative medicine and vaccine causation.

It is about the time that AutismOne should be publishing their speaker list for next year’s conference so I checked their website. For those interested, the speaker list reads like most past lists.  Andrew Wakefield, the former researcher who promoted the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism, will speak. So will Keri Rivera, who last year gathered much criticism for promoting forcing disabled children to ingest bleach or undergo bleach laced enemas. Interestingly, neither Mark nor David Geier are on the list. The Geiers have been frequent speakers at AutismOne and other venues favorable to their failed ideas about mercury in vaccines causing autism, as well as bizarre proposals that using drugs to shut down sex hormone production can be used to treat autism.  While not a regular at AutismOne, Luc Montagnier will not make a return visit.  Last year Dr. Montagnier brought the prestige of a Nobel Laureate to the convention. While his presence was touted strongly by supporters of AutismOne, Dr. Montagnier’s ideas were lacking the scientific rigor one might expect from a Nobel laureate (to put it mildly). Of course Jenny McCarthy returns, perhaps to tell us all once again that those who don’t follow her ideas wish for our children to remain disabled so we can bask in the sympathy of our acquaintances.

That all said, while perusing the AutismOne website I noted that the cover for their “Autism Science Digest” hadn’t changed since my last visit.  That was some time ago. The cover informs readers about the then upcoming 2012 AutismOne convention (last April), so my interest was piqued and I checked the page for the “Digest” and found this announcement: Autism Science Digest is temporarily unavailable.

One is left wondering how “temporary” temporary is in this case. Autism Science Digest was launched in August 2011 so the lifespan (should temporary=permanent) seems a bit short.

—
By Matt Carey

Andrew Wakefield, who sparked the unjustified MMR controversy, wins the Golden Duck Lifetime Achievement Award for his contribution to quackery.

23 Dec

Andrew Wakefield, the person most responsible for propagating the now failed notion that the MMR vaccine causes autism, has been awarded the “Golden Duck” award for 2012 by the Good Thinking Society. The announcement begins:

Good Thinking launched its annual Golden Duck award for quackery in 2012, which seeks to recognize those who have supported or practiced pseudoscience in the most ludicrous, dangerous, irrational or irresponsible manner. It was decided that the inaugural award should be for lifetime achievement in any field, and the winner is Andrew Wakefield. His nomination statement can be found here…

One of the members of Winchester Skeptics in the Pub is quoted:

We were very keen to team up with the Good Thinking Society to help choose the winner of the inaugural Golden Duck.

“All candidates fared well in the voting, but it became clear that the one thing the good thinking people of Winchester really can’t stand is a doctor who blatantly abandons and abuses the scientific method.”

Further reading at The Guardian in Struck off MMR doctor handed award for ‘lifetime achievement in quackery’

—
By Matt Carey

Prof. Walker Smith’s memories perhaps not so enduring

12 Nov

Prof. John Walker-Smith was a pediatric gastronterologist  (now retired) who worked with Andrew Wakefield on the research that formed the basis for the now retracted 1998 article in The Lancet that sparked the public fear over a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Multiple studies since have demonstrated that the MMR does not increase autism risk and even Prof. Walker-Smith has stated through his attorney that the Wakefield autism/MMR hypothesis is without merit.

Prof. Walker-Smith was found guilty of misconduct and stripped of his medical license by the General Medical Council (GMC), but that ruling was quashed on appeal. In the appeal decision the judge ruled:

It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician.

Prof. Walker-Smith and Andrew Wakefield took the position that the work they performed was not research driven, but was clinically indicated tests on children later collected as a case series. That the study for which they received ethical approval was not performed. So there was no problem in that children were seen before the approval was granted.

Prof. Walker-Smith wrote an autobiography (Enduring Memories). Two autobiographies, really. One in 2003 (before Brian Deer exposed the ethical lapses involved in the Royal Free Hospital’s research program) and another in 2012 (after the GMC hearings).

Mr. Deer has contrasted some excerpts from the two versions. Here is a snippet fro the 2002 edition:

The centre piece of the research however would be first a study to see if there was significant bowel inflammation in these children which could be treated. A secondary but important question would be whether measles virus, especially the vaccine virus strain, was present in any inflamed tissue which might be found. ”

The inflammation study-the Lancet work-was the center piece of the research with the measles virus work as a secondary project. The first measles virus effort was unpublished.

According to Prof. Walker-Smith in 2003, ethical approval was obtained and a pilot study went ahead:

My own role in all this was permissive as Andy Wakefield was the research leader, the conductor of the orchestra, a classical role in research for a gastroenterologist. A team was assembled, an ethical committee application was obtained and a pilot study went ahead.

The 2012 version differs notably from the above. The center piece is no longer the inflammation study, but the measles virus study and the work was not part of an ethics board approved study, but as a byproduct of routine investigation:

The centre piece of the research per se would be to determine whether measles virus, especially the vaccine virus strain, was resent in any inflamed tissue which might be found in these children and to investigate a pathogenetic hypothesis. This research could only be contemplated as a by-product of routine investigation.

Where the ethical approval statement from 2003 says a study went ahead, in 2012 the statement indicates that the project “was not implemented”.

A team was assembled, an ethical committee application was developed to investigate an hypothesis and was submitted by Andy Wakefield but based upon our clinically indicated diagnostic approach. The Ethical Committee approved the application but in the event the study was not implemented.

More modest studies based upon ethically approved research biopsies went ahead

The 2003 version is basically consistent with the GMC charges and the story unearthed by Brian Deer. The 2012 version is consistent with the failed defense Prof. Walker-Smith and Andrew Wakefield gave to the GMC. The decision against Prof. Walker-Smith was quashed.

For many reasons the argument that the quash of the GMC decision somehow exonerated Andrew Wakefield was not convincing from the start. From where I sit, it is even less so in light of a 2003 account clearly setting out the work as a research project.

Brian Deer: VanDerHorst-Larson: misinformed mother scatters food for the birds

19 Oct

Brian Deer recently lectured at the University of Wisconsin La-Crosse on his journalism involving Andrew Wakefield’s research efforts and the improprieties found in those efforts. Not surprisingly, this led to a response by Mr. Wakefield and his supporters. I’ve pretty much given up on fact checking their complaints. Or, in this case, even really reading them.

But, complaints were made and, in this case, Mr. Deer has responded. His written response as VanDerHorst-Larson: misinformed mother scatters food for the birds.

Mr. Deer introduces his article with these paragraphs:

After the collapse of what was only ever a fringe campaign in the United States, claiming that vaccines were responsible for an epidemic of autism, small groups of ill-informed, misguided and sometimes frankly malicious, people became desperate for attention. This led to a barrage of emails – often abusive or crammed with hate speech – to university staff following my October 2012 lectures in Wisconsin.

The complaint below by one Jennifer VanDerHorst-Larson, who said she was founder of something she called the “Canary Party”, was one of the few that didn’t ooze with personal bile. But even she hadn’t checked her facts.

Ms VanDerHorst-Larson’s complaints are numbered, and I respond beneath each.

An example of such a complaint, with a partial quote of Mr. Deer’s response is given here:

8. Mr. Deer also failed to disclose that there were no complaints against Wakefield by the children’s families, most of whom very strongly support him, and many of whom credit his team with a diagnosis that led to effective treatment of their children’s bowel disease.

The father of the only child in Wakefield’s series who was not entered in (failed) UK compensation litigation described Wakefield’s reporting in the Lancet as “a clear misrepresentation of my son’s history” and “an outright fabrication”.

If you wish to read a point by point response, again, the link is VanDerHorst-Larson: misinformed mother scatters food for the birds.

A breach of privacy

10 Oct

Privacy is an important point for all of us. I blogged for a long time under a pseudonym in order to protect my child’s privacy. The subject is important enough to me that when I noticed what I considered to be a breach of privacy by Andrew Wakefield and his “Dr Wakefield Justice Fund”, I wrote to them with the information in order to give them the chance to correct this. To explain: the “Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund” posted documents from Mr. Wakefield’s defamation suit filed against Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee. One of those documents includes the full names and birthdates of seven of the patients seen at the Royal Free Hospital in the 1990’s.

I sent the following email to one of the contact email addresses for the “Dr Wakefield Justice Fund” (info@drwakefieldjusticefund.org).

Hello,

if you aren’t already aware of this, you may want to know that in this document:

[link redacted by me for this article]

You have made public the full names and birth dates of seven patients seen at the Royal Free. Given the complaints levied against Mr. Deer for, as I recall, publishing the first names of the Lancet 12, I thought you might want to take the effort to redact that document.

Matt Carey

I sent this Friday of last week and so far have received no response and no correction has been made. I have not made an effort to find and remember the names of the “Lancet 12” so these names are unfamiliar to me (with the exception of two last names). I did a quick internet search on some of the names and did not find them linked to Mr. Wakefield or MMR in a relatively brief search, so this seems like a true breach of privacy. I’ll note that in the GMC hearings names were occasionally spoken but the court kept to a standard of anonymizing child and parent names in the transcript.

I would encourage the “Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund” to redact that and any other documents which contain such information.

—
By Matt Carey

Andrew Wakefield tops the “Retraction Epidemic”

5 Oct

We recently discussed a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. A reader sent a copy to me and there are a couple of interesting points (OK, there are a number of interesting points, but a couple specific to the autism communities).

First, consider the abstract:

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3%of retractionswere attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes

Yes, the “retraction epidemic”. My guess is the use of “epidemic” here will rankle one or more of Mr. Wakefield’s supporters.

One point that I discussed previously was that Mr. Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper tops the list as the most cited retracted paper. The list of top cited retracted papers is shown in this figure (Click to enlarge):

The figure lists the reasons for retraction. The reason for Mr. Wakefield’s paper? Fraud.

As many readers will recall, Mr. Wakefield sued the BMJ and Brian Deer and editor Fiona Godlee for defamation for calling Mr. Wakefield’s paper fraudulent. Which begs the question: how can one call something defamatory when it is a generally accepted fact within the research community?

At present Mr. Wakefield is appealing the decision that stated he doesn’t have the standing to sue in Texas. As always in this case, it isn’t enough to show that his reputation is poor. He has to show that someone other than himself is at fault for his poor reputation. And that is a tough hurdle to cross.

—
By Matt Carey

Christian Science Monitor: Fraud in scientific research: It happens, and cases are on the rise

4 Oct

The Christian Science Monitor has an article out today: Fraud in scientific research: It happens, and cases are on the rise

Of 2,000 retractions of published scientific papers since 1977, 866 were because of fraud, a new study finds. Another 201 were plagiarized. But it’s hard to know if more scientists are cheating, or if detection is simply better.

Is it a real increase, or just better awareness…

Who is their prime example of science fraud? I’m sure you’ve guessed it: Andrew Wakefield. Ironically, on the day when Mr. Wakefield is giving a faux press conference in a public park, the Monitor uses a photo from Mr. Wakefield’s public park appearance during a past AutismOne convention:

Why use Mr. Wakefield as the example? Many reasons come to mind, but the fact that he is probably the most publicly recognizable that the Monitor could have chosen. Also, the Monitor states:

One of the most high-profile examples involved the issue of childhood immunizations.

That paper, which the PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] study identifies as the most widely cited retracted work, cited research purported to uncover a link between autism and vaccines given to children. The work was published in 1998 in the British medical journal Lancet. Subsequent studies reportedly indicated that the data were fraudulent. Meanwhile, Britain’s General Medical Council stripped the study’s author, Andrew Wakefield, of his status as a “registered medical practitioner” for misconduct after investigating his research effort.

So Mr. Wakefield has the dubious distinction of having written the most cited retracted work. He’s the best at something.

—
By Matt Carey

Andrew Wakefield tries to make himself relevant again

2 Oct

Andrew Wakefield is the former research surgeon who championed the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Multiple researchers have told me that even at the time of Mr. Wakefield’s first research announcements, Mr. Wakefield’s idea was a stretch in terms of biological feasibility. For a few years at least, Andrew Wakefield was relevant in the autism research community. People worked to replicate his findings and otherwise answer the questions he posed. That was years ago. The result is we now know his ideas of persistent measles infection and a leaky gut causing autism were not valid and that, at best, Mr. Wakefield was a mediocre scientist who took this poorly conceived hypothesis and ran with it. Running as in a “running with scissors”, ignoring safety. As has been demonstrated since, he was also ignoring ethical concerns as well. But this is all old news.

In 2004, yes 8 years ago, Brian Deer exposed many of the ethical lapses in Mr. Wakefield’s autism career. Since then we’ve heard a lot of words from Mr. Wakefield about how it is all about the children, but seen a lot of his actions more akin to it being all about himself. He sued Mr. Deer over those 2004 reports (how is that helping autistics?). Mr. Wakefield abandoned his suit (how is that helping autistics?). Mr. Wakefield asked that the GMC look into the possible charges stemming from the reported actions (OK, that helps autistics a little by exposing Mr. Wakefield’s ethical and scientific deficiencies better, but that wasn’t exactly his intention). Mr. Wakefield attended the GMC hearings even though he sayed he didn’t need his medical license (registration) any more. This provided a great deal of drama (again, how does this help anyone but Mr. Wakefield?) but not much advancement. Mr. Wakefield was struck off the register (which could be argued helps autistics in a small way). Mr. Wakefield appealed and then dropped his appeal of the GMC decision. When Mr. Deer wrote more articles, this time for the BMJ, Mr Wakefield filed a complaint with the PCC (press complaints commission) in the UK, but he appears to be not pursuing that. Just letting it exist as a complaint (again, benefit?). Then, this year, he chose to sue Brian Deer, the editor of the BMJ and the BMJ itself this year for defamation over another set of articles and public statements (again, to what benefit to autistics?).

Mr. Wakefield’s latest day in court was short, but likely expensive. A judge in Texas ruled that Mr. Wakefield doesn’t have the standing to bring that case to trial.

Recently Mr. Wakefield appealed. Which, frankly, was enough of a non event in my view that with Respectful Insolence covering the discussion I felt no need to.

In the past eight years we can point to no advances in autism research championed by Mr. Wakefield, but we can (and just have) point to numerous occasions of Mr. Wakefield use procedural methods to keep himself in the news.

Mr. Wakefield claims essentially that calling him a fraud is defamatory. Which brings up the part of recent events that I did find interesting. Again at Respectful Insolence, in Time to rally the troops against the antivaccine movement, Orac calls on people to, well, rally. I’ll stand apart from Orac on this one. Frankly, making this appear to be a controversy, adding drama, is not helping matters.

One might rightly ask, why write about this at all? Why spend time on a topic which has obviously become irrelevant? In setting up his press conference Mr. Wakefield (through his team) made a bit of a poor move.

Mr. Wakefield’s approach to the discovery of his ethical and scientific failings has been to deny even the most clear facts. For example, when presented with direct evidence that he had major financial interests in creating a viable court case out of the MMR/autism hypothesis (being a paid expert witness, creating test kits with the idea that litigation-driven profits will be millions per year, etc.), Mr. Wakefield tells us it is all about the children, and he made all his financial ties public in advance (which he didn’t). When it was discussed on TV that he had a patent application in place covering an alternative measles patent–one whose commercial viability hinged directly on the confidence level of the current vaccine–he told us that it was all misdirection on the part of Mr. Deer. Later it became public that Mr. Wakefield had business plans in place to develop the invention as a potential vaccine.

Essentially, after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Mr. Wakefield tells us he was never in the kitchen and, besides, he was only getting the cookie for the children.

From a public relations standpoint (and let’s not forget that Mr. Wakefield had a PR representative since before Brian Deer entered the scene) Mr. Wakefield has played his hand somewhat well. He plays the role of a man who remains polite even in the face of this alleged adversity we are to believe has been put upon him. Mr. Deer, on the other hand, is (I believe in his own words), mercurial and has made statements which are easy to use against him.

Mr. Wakefield is portrayed as the guy you’d love to sit down to a glass of beer (or more likely wine) with while Mr. Deer is someone you’d best not provoke (I believe the term “reptilian” has recently been used by his detractors). I’m not so motivated by the opportunity to sit down to a glass of wine with unethical people, but let’s move on.

In an article on the Age of Autism blog, Ed Arranga writes about Mr. Deer being brought out to the U.S. to give talks to some academics and how Mr. Wakefield will hold a press conference. As one would expect from the Age of Autism, the approach is strongly negative. Here’s how it starts out:

Brian Deer – a liar, fraud, and former reporter for The Sunday Times of London – is coming to the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse October 4 and 5 to lecture you about Dr. Andrew…

Mr. Arranga is doing the attack here, allowing Mr. Wakefield to retain his polite persona. But with a multi-million dollar lawsuit ongoing, is this really enough distance for Mr. Wakefield? How will the above statements play out should Mr. Wakefield win the chance to sue?

Mr. Arranga runs AutismOne, whose convention presents Mr. Wakefield as a prime draw. In other words, Mr. Arranga has a financial interest in Mr. Wakefield’s reputation. A small conflict of interest which, while obvious to most of his readers, should have been made clear in Mr. Arranga’s article. Mr. Arranga also serves on the “Strategic Autism Initiative”, a charity formed after Mr. Wakefield’s ouster from Thoughtful House. [Correction: Mrs. Arranga serves on the SAI board, but Mr. Arranga is not listed in the available tax document]. Most importantly to this discussion, Mr. Arranga is also on the “executive staff” of the “Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund“.

So someone intimately involved with Mr. Wakefield’s career and defense is calling Mr. Deer a “fraud” and a “liar” and, in general, attacking Mr. Deer. Consider that Mr. Wakefield’s case is based at least in part on the idea that using terms such as “fraud” is defamatory. Mr. Wakefield’s original court filing states that defamation occurred: “Based on Defendants’ purported “reanalysis,” Defendants made and continue to make assertions that Plaintiff Dr. Wakefield committed fraud and is “a fraudster.”” Again, one should ask, did Mr. Wakefield blunder in allowing this personal attack on Mr. Deer? How will a judge or jury view a man who sets his team to attack others while claiming that the very same terms are defamatory? It’s not enough to cost him the case, but it was not a wise move.

The sad thing is that this is as close to relevance and Mr. Wakefield can currently attain in the autism communities. Holding a press conference in response to lectures by Brian Deer, who is discussing events that happened 15 years ago. Attacking Mr. Deer through surrogates. Putting time, money and effort into the latest in a string of procedural maneuvers which, even if he were right, hold no benefit for the communities.

As far as cost/benefit calculations go, Mr. Wakefield is a simple case. Costs to the autism communities in time and resources wasted chasing the ideas he championed. Costs to the public at large in terms of health scares and increased infectious disease. All this weighed against a complete lack of benefit brought to the communities by Mr. Wakefield. I guess we should put this in terms of a benefit/cost ratio to avoid dividing by zero.

—
By Matt Carey

The 15-Year Fallout From One Man’s Lie About Vaccines

4 Aug

On the same day that Andrew Wakefield’s lawsuit against the BMJ, Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee was dismissed, The Atlantic has a piece: The 15-Year Fallout From One Man’s Lie About Vaccines . Who is the one man, and what is the lie? From The Atlantic:

Consider the widespread fear of childhood vaccinations. In 1998, the physician Andrew Wakefield published a study in The Lancet linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism. This study has since been judged to be an ‘elaborate fraud,’ and Wakefield’s medical license has been revoked.

The consequences of Wakefield’s dishonesty would have been bad enough. But the legacy effect of other big lies has thus far made it impossible to remedy the damage he has caused. Given the fact that corporations and governments sometimes lie, whether to avoid legal liability or to avert public panic, it has become very difficult to spread the truth about the MMR vaccine. Vaccination rates have plummeted — especially in prosperous, well-educated communities –and children have become sick and even died as a result.

An unhappy truth of human psychology is probably also at work here, which makes it hard to abolish lies once they have escaped into the world: We seem to be predisposed to remember statements as true even after they have been disconfirmed.

Apparently The Atlantic didn’t feel the need to wait for a Texas Judge to rule before using Mr. Wkefield’s work as a prime example of a “big lie”.

The Atlantic is right. It is hard to spread the truth about MMR. Just check the comments for the article.

—
by Matt Carey

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →