MMR and autism fruad: 25 years on

[crazy canuck]

I've not seen anything that indicates that the first report (the one in Lancet) actually contained false data.  The report was erroneous because the subjects of the test that it was documenting were not selected properly, and because the conclusions went beyond the data.  There were ancillary aspects of the study that were also condemned, but the problem with the study itself seems to be not falsified data, but unscientific data collection and analysis.

Valmy is correct, IMO, and his accusers simply wrong.

The researchers, amongst their sins, preselected their test subjects in order to obtain the results which proved their hypothesis and then passed it off as being statistically significant findings when they knew that their data was entirely invalid.

That is a textbook case of fraudulent data collection, and is taught as such in research ethics courses throughout the world.

Exactly.  Not falsified data, but rather data that did not demonstrate what they claimed it did (and what they said in the paper was nothing about autism).  Valmy was correct on this.

That is cutting the baloney pretty thin.  If a researcher finds subjects that have the very thing the researcher is trying to find, and then passes that data off as valid, as I said, that is a textbook example of falsified data.  In fact, so much so that, as I said, it is taught in research ethics courses as a text book example.

[grumbler]

I've not seen anything that indicates that the first report (the one in Lancet) actually contained false data.  The report was erroneous because the subjects of the test that it was documenting were not selected properly, and because the conclusions went beyond the data.  There were ancillary aspects of the study that were also condemned, but the problem with the study itself seems to be not falsified data, but unscientific data collection and analysis.

Valmy is correct, IMO, and his accusers simply wrong.

The researchers, amongst their sins, preselected their test subjects in order to obtain the results which proved their hypothesis and then passed it off as being statistically significant findings when they knew that their data was entirely invalid.

That is a textbook case of fraudulent data collection, and is taught as such in research ethics courses throughout the world.

Exactly.  Not falsified data, but rather data that did not demonstrate what they claimed it did (and what they said in the paper was nothing about autism).  Valmy was correct on this.

That is cutting the baloney pretty thin.  If a researcher finds subjects that have the very thing the researcher is trying to find, and then passes that data off as valid, as I said, that is a textbook example of falsified data.  In fact, so much so that, as I said, it is taught in research ethics courses as a text book example.

Scientific inquiry is not a matter of "cutting the baloney pretty thin."  Scientific terms have scientific meanings, and if your textbook claimed that a paper that drew conclusions outside the evidence is "a textbook example of falsified data," you should probably get another textbook.

The study never claimed that the patients examined were selected randomly, and acknowledged that "we did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described" and "if there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine." The actual paper

The paper had thirteen authors, and yet only three were hauled before the GMC.  The other ten had renounced their conclusions before the GMC met (and yet would still have faced ethics charges if their paper had actually contained falsified data).  Of the three that were investigated, two were found to have acted unprofessionally, but not in the context of the report.  Wakefield was found to have failed to gain proper authorization for the study, to have failed to disclose conflicts of interest, and to have, in follow-up studies, subjected child patients to unnecessary invasive tests.

So the issue with Wakefield and the actual study was not the falsification of data, but the erroneous (and perhaps even fraudulent) interpretation of the data presented.  No data was falsified, and no data was distorted or suppressed, no matter what your bogus textbook said. 

[Tamas]

Odd, grumbler usually selects the molehill to die on with more care.

[grumbler]

Odd.  Tamas doesn't usually completely ignore what I write in favor of a complete strawman argument.

[crazy canuck]

I've not seen anything that indicates that the first report (the one in Lancet) actually contained false data.  The report was erroneous because the subjects of the test that it was documenting were not selected properly, and because the conclusions went beyond the data.  There were ancillary aspects of the study that were also condemned, but the problem with the study itself seems to be not falsified data, but unscientific data collection and analysis.

Valmy is correct, IMO, and his accusers simply wrong.

The researchers, amongst their sins, preselected their test subjects in order to obtain the results which proved their hypothesis and then passed it off as being statistically significant findings when they knew that their data was entirely invalid.

That is a textbook case of fraudulent data collection, and is taught as such in research ethics courses throughout the world.

Exactly.  Not falsified data, but rather data that did not demonstrate what they claimed it did (and what they said in the paper was nothing about autism).  Valmy was correct on this.

That is cutting the baloney pretty thin.  If a researcher finds subjects that have the very thing the researcher is trying to find, and then passes that data off as valid, as I said, that is a textbook example of falsified data.  In fact, so much so that, as I said, it is taught in research ethics courses as a text book example.

Scientific inquiry is not a matter of "cutting the baloney pretty thin."  Scientific terms have scientific meanings, and if your textbook claimed that a paper that drew conclusions outside the evidence is "a textbook example of falsified data," you should probably get another textbook.

The study never claimed that the patients examined were selected randomly, and acknowledged that "we did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described" and "if there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine." The actual paper

The paper had thirteen authors, and yet only three were hauled before the GMC.  The other ten had renounced their conclusions before the GMC met (and yet would still have faced ethics charges if their paper had actually contained falsified data).  Of the three that were investigated, two were found to have acted unprofessionally, but not in the context of the report.  Wakefield was found to have failed to gain proper authorization for the study, to have failed to disclose conflicts of interest, and to have, in follow-up studies, subjected child patients to unnecessary invasive tests.

So the issue with Wakefield and the actual study was not the falsification of data, but the erroneous (and perhaps even fraudulent) interpretation of the data presented.  No data was falsified, and no data was distorted or suppressed, no matter what your bogus textbook said. 

Or, and just go with it for a minute, you might just be wrong and all the research ethicists who look at it differently just might have a point. 

You are voicing all of the defences that were put up in favour of the journal article.  I suspect you pulled them from the internet.  I suggest you read the academic literature rather than internet articles on the subject.

[grumbler]

Or, and just go with it for a minute, you might just be wrong and all the research ethicists who look at it differently just might have a point. 

You are voicing all of the defences that were put up in favour of the journal article.  I suspect you pulled them from the internet.  I suggest you read the academic literature rather than internet articles on the subject.

Actually, I am quoting from the very study itself (which, I note, you are not). I also note that you are not providing any evidence whatsoever that the academic literature claims that the study data was falsified.

All the evidence I have seen indicted that Valmy is correct in his claim that "He [Wakefield] didn't even do that [falsify data]. He just claimed that some parents said that their kids started being autistic after getting the vaccine. No follow up in the study, just a random unsubstantiated statement."

The study conclusions may well have been fraudulent if Wakefield influenced it in order to advance a personal financial agenda.  But the fact that 10 of the 13 authors were never even investigated, let alone taken before the GMC indicates that the problem was not the paper, but claims made based on it and failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

Feel free to shift from vague contrarianism to concrete argumentation, if you can scare up some facts to support an argument.  And, no, "I read it in a book somewhere" is not evidence.  You of all people should remember that.

[The Minsky Moment]

The study never claimed that the patients examined were selected randomly

It claimed the the patients were selected "consecutively" - i.e. quasi-randomly.  That was false, the patients were pre-selected and not consecutively referred.

[crazy canuck]

Or, and just go with it for a minute, you might just be wrong and all the research ethicists who look at it differently just might have a point. 

You are voicing all of the defences that were put up in favour of the journal article.  I suspect you pulled them from the internet.  I suggest you read the academic literature rather than internet articles on the subject.

Actually, I am quoting from the very study itself (which, I note, you are not). I also note that you are not providing any evidence whatsoever that the academic literature claims that the study data was falsified.

All the evidence I have seen indicted that Valmy is correct in his claim that "He [Wakefield] didn't even do that [falsify data]. He just claimed that some parents said that their kids started being autistic after getting the vaccine. No follow up in the study, just a random unsubstantiated statement."

The study conclusions may well have been fraudulent if Wakefield influenced it in order to advance a personal financial agenda.  But the fact that 10 of the 13 authors were never even investigated, let alone taken before the GMC indicates that the problem was not the paper, but claims made based on it and failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

Feel free to shift from vague contrarianism to concrete argumentation, if you can scare up some facts to support an argument.  And, no, "I read it in a book somewhere" is not evidence.  You of all people should remember that.

I understand that you are trying to parse from the report itself and you are also drawing on defences of the report often repeated over the internet which give it a semblance of credibility.  But I really do think you should look at that literature which condemns the report rather than put up a defence of fraudulent report which was so damaging to public health.

[grumbler]

I understand that you are trying to parse from the report itself and you are also drawing on defences of the report often repeated over the internet which give it a semblance of credibility.  But I really do think you should look at that literature which condemns the report rather than put up a defence of fraudulent report which was so damaging to public health.

I understand that you don't actually have any evidence that shows that data was falsified, but will continue to assert the claim nonetheless.

I am not defending the report at all.  It is indefensible.  I am defending Valmy's correct observations against your assertions that he is wrong.

[Gups]

Grumbler, have you read any of articles published in the British Medical Journal by Andrew Deer following his (journalistic) investigation. The introduction to the series gives an overview

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Extract:


Deer published his first investigation into Wakefield's paper in 2004.12 This uncovered the possibility of research fraud, unethical treatment of children, and Wakefield's conflict of interest through his involvement with a lawsuit against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. Building on these findings, the GMC launched its own proceedings that focused on whether the research was ethical. But while the disciplinary panel was examining the children's medical records in public, Deer compared them with what was published in the Lancet. His focus was now on whether the research was true.

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.13 Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children's cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC's 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study's admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards.

[grumbler]

Grumbler, have you read any of articles published in the British Medical Journal by Andrew Deer following his (journalistic) investigation. The introduction to the series gives an overview

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Extract:


Deer published his first investigation into Wakefield's paper in 2004.12 This uncovered the possibility of research fraud, unethical treatment of children, and Wakefield's conflict of interest through his involvement with a lawsuit against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. Building on these findings, the GMC launched its own proceedings that focused on whether the research was ethical. But while the disciplinary panel was examining the children's medical records in public, Deer compared them with what was published in the Lancet. His focus was now on whether the research was true.

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.13 Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children's cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC's 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study's admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards.

Well, there you go.  Some actual evidence rather than vague generalities.  I retract my claim that Valmy was correct in stating that the study did not fabricate evidence.