Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, and outrage **** news sells, huh? I just don't understand why an old story like this would come up now. I actually have some relatives (conservative, military family), who still refuse to vaccinate their kids with anything but the bare minimum to get them into school, and while years ago they cited Wakefield, now they say "We just don't think vaccines are a good idea," refusing to admit they were led astray and were wrong.
I seem to recall some other members of the forums were against vaccinations as well? Has this changed at all?
Most recent article on Wakefield, with fun facts:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/11/autism.vaccines/index.html?hpt=T2
Quote:
The report in the medical journal BMJ is the second in a series sharply critical of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who reported the link in 1998. It follows the journal's declaration last week that the 1998 paper in which Wakefield first suggested a connection between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine was an "elaborate fraud."
The venture "was to be launched off the back of the vaccine scare, diagnosing a purported -- and still unsubstantiated -- 'new syndrome,'" BMJ reported Tuesday. A prospectus for potential investors suggested that a test for the disorder Wakefield dubbed "autistic enterocolitis" could produce as much as 28 million pounds ($43 million U.S.) in revenue, the journal reported, with "litigation driven testing" of patients in the United States and Britain its initial market.
Among his partners in the enterprise was the father of one of the 12 children in the 1998 study that launched the controversy, the journal reported.
In 2010, after a lengthy investigation, British authorities stripped Wakefield of his medical license, and the Lancet -- which published his original study -- retracted the paper. He has denied any wrongdoing, and a vocal contingent of advocates for children with autism continues to support him.
...
BMJ reported the business venture failed to launch after Wakefield's superiors at University College London's medical school raised concerns in 1999 about a "serious conflict of interest" between his research and the company formed to launch his new product.
"This concern arose originally because the company's business plan appears to depend on premature, scientifically unjustified publication of results, which do not conform to the rigorous academic and scientific standards that are generally expected," a letter stated. But the university offered him a year's paid absence and help in replicating his original research with a larger group of 150 children in the name of "good scientific practice."
The follow-up study never occurred, and no other research has duplicated Wakefield's original findings, BMJ reported. He left the university in 2001, and BMJ quotes his former boss as saying the school "paid him to go away."
...
According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds (about $674,000) from lawyers trying to build a case against vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. Most of his co-authors abandoned the study in 2004, when those payments were revealed.
The now-discredited paper panicked many parents and led to a sharp drop in the number of children getting the vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccination rates dropped sharply in Britain after its publication, falling as low as 80% by 2004. Measles cases have gone up sharply in the ensuing years.
In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 90% of those infected had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was unknown, the CDC reported.
The venture "was to be launched off the back of the vaccine scare, diagnosing a purported -- and still unsubstantiated -- 'new syndrome,'" BMJ reported Tuesday. A prospectus for potential investors suggested that a test for the disorder Wakefield dubbed "autistic enterocolitis" could produce as much as 28 million pounds ($43 million U.S.) in revenue, the journal reported, with "litigation driven testing" of patients in the United States and Britain its initial market.
Among his partners in the enterprise was the father of one of the 12 children in the 1998 study that launched the controversy, the journal reported.
In 2010, after a lengthy investigation, British authorities stripped Wakefield of his medical license, and the Lancet -- which published his original study -- retracted the paper. He has denied any wrongdoing, and a vocal contingent of advocates for children with autism continues to support him.
...
BMJ reported the business venture failed to launch after Wakefield's superiors at University College London's medical school raised concerns in 1999 about a "serious conflict of interest" between his research and the company formed to launch his new product.
"This concern arose originally because the company's business plan appears to depend on premature, scientifically unjustified publication of results, which do not conform to the rigorous academic and scientific standards that are generally expected," a letter stated. But the university offered him a year's paid absence and help in replicating his original research with a larger group of 150 children in the name of "good scientific practice."
The follow-up study never occurred, and no other research has duplicated Wakefield's original findings, BMJ reported. He left the university in 2001, and BMJ quotes his former boss as saying the school "paid him to go away."
...
According to BMJ, Wakefield received more than 435,000 pounds (about $674,000) from lawyers trying to build a case against vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. Most of his co-authors abandoned the study in 2004, when those payments were revealed.
The now-discredited paper panicked many parents and led to a sharp drop in the number of children getting the vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccination rates dropped sharply in Britain after its publication, falling as low as 80% by 2004. Measles cases have gone up sharply in the ensuing years.
In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 90% of those infected had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was unknown, the CDC reported.
Seemingly as a result of Wakefield's "research," vaccinations fell sharply in the US and Britain, leading to a rise of disease. I guess I'm wondering... do parents have another reason for withholding vaccines from their kids?
The only vaccination I've ever refused was the H1N1 vaccine, because I knew that my chances of getting it were incredibly low and the vaccine had a 20+% chance of getting symptoms ranging from a fever, sore arm, swelling, or headaches (also my doctor came at me like a salesperson while pitching it; total turn-off). Other than that, I've been totally vaccinated.
