But Andrew Wakefield got dragged back into the spotlight this week again. Seems he's on a bi-yearly decreditation schedule - we have to once again declare that everything he has ever done is pure unadulterated bullshit, expressly done with evil intent. I didn't read anything new in this report, despite the blaring headlines. The research I had done related to a job on the whole autism/vaccine connection was about 8 months ago, and unless I am going senile, none of the stuff I read this week was new. It was all stuff that was out-and-about 8 months ago, including the stuff about the kids diagnoses. Why did it become newsworthy this week? I am assuming a press release was sent out by someone. In fact, the only new word that I read was "fraud".
He's a scientist. He knows about peer review. He's not an idiot. And I am pretty sure he knew his findings were going to be a giant fart in the news cycle of humanity. So I am having a hard time believing that he went out with the pure intent to bend facts with the express purpose of falsifying results. Maybe I am wrong, maybe he is a narcissistic maniac. But I am also wondering why - when this study is a gajillion years old by our 24-hour news cycle standard (13 years!) - and it has gotten so much publicity, public outcry, etc. - WHY did it take THIS LONG to declare this out and out fraud? Weren't people all over his findings like white-on-rice from the get go?
I would want someone to walk through exactly what is wrong with the study with me. Show me all the bendings of the rules. I am not going to take the media's word for this. Why? Because they do not give a shit whether it's true or not, it's a great story.
Also, having read about the consistent bending of not only study results when it comes to the testing of pharmaceuticals, but also the bending the studies themselves to assure the results that the interested party wants - we all need to get over the idea of definitive results, perhaps the same way that we need to get over our obsession with The Cure (more on that later).
I am agnostic over Andrew Wakefield, his studies and whether or not he's a Giant Dick who wants kids to die of whooping cough.
Frankly, I believe the parents who said they saw their child change after being vaccinated.
Because I believe that most people are pretty smart about the tiny packages of humanity whose every moment they are involved in up til age 6. I think if they say they saw a marked difference in behavior following an illness that followed vaccination, then they are probably right that the vaccination had something to do it. This is anecdotal evidence, not scientific. But it doesn't make it any less valuable to me. What change does that demand in public policy? I have no idea. But I will stand with the individuals who say they have reached a common sense conclusion about their own child.
