I'm afraid to say that I don't think that's even surprising, even people you would presume to be more sensible than her (a certain few HN commenters for example) continue to spew this nonsense. If you think about it, these are people who have been deep in conspiracy theory territory for quite some time, and have invested a good deal of mental effort into eradicating any doubt in their own minds. They have preformed enough mental gymnastics that in their minds, any proof presented against their delusion is actually proof in support of it. Accusations of fraud only strengthen their resolve.
Anyone how has objectively been following this issue for the past few years should have caught on quite some time ago, why should they only wisen up now?
An interesting anti-vaccine argument is that of chiropractors. They often believe chiropractic is a viable alternative that poses less risk than vaccines do (which they will acknowledge is still quite small, but why risk it?). I'm mentioning this because it's the side I heard about long before Wakefield's finding was published, and people seem to think there was no anti-vaccine argument before 1998.
Unfortunately this is impossible to prove, but it's interesting nonetheless. Do the research and pick a side yourself.
The original theory of chiropractic made spinal misalignment out to be the cause of all disease. Over time, chiropractic has become less virulent as it adapted to the host organism, and in fact in many cases can be considered symbiotic.
"Wakefield met with medical school managers to discuss a joint business even while the first child to be fully investigated in his research was still in the hospital"
So the heads of several medical schools knew or had strong reason to suspect the data was being cooked, and said nothing. But of course this didn't happen because the scientific establishment is corrupt, it's Hollywood's fault.
This type of knee-jerk over-reaction doesn't add to the discussion. Sure, there is corruption, but there is plenty of good science going on. I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority is published in good faith. Sorting out what isn't is what makes those who game the system so toxic, but good medical practice can mitigate the damage. How? By insisting on replication of highly unexpected findings across sites by different researchers, outside the influence of the private sector.
To call it "science as usual" is inaccurate, and I suspect the main function is to allow you to put your own biased and untested assumptions ahead of conclusions you find unintuitive or inconvenient. This is not an attack on you, it's a statement about human nature.
Everyone has this tendency innately, and the job of science is to fight hard against it by providing proof. Most of us take that pretty seriously.
The fact that the scientific community at large suspected or outright rejected the bogus study from the beginning sure is inconvenient, isn't it?
I'm baffled at people who seem to think the entire industry is committing fraud instead of just the very small number of people have supported Wakefield's paper.
"The fact that the scientific community at large suspected or outright rejected the bogus study from the beginning sure is inconvenient, isn't it?"
No, because this is why the anti-vaccine movement started. Had they actually debunked the research in an open and transparent way instead of 'suspecting' it then vaccination rates would probably be a whole lot higher today.
"I'm baffled at people who seem to think the entire industry is committing fraud instead of just the very small number of people have supported Wakefield's paper."
Well, there is the fact that the pharmaceutical industry now tops not only the defense industry, but all other industries in the total amount of fraud payments for actions against the federal government under the False Claims Act.
"No, because this is why the anti-vaccine movement started."
No. The anti-vaccine movement started because idiot parents who don't understand the scientific process wanted someone to blame for their misfortune, and because the general public remains afraid of science, preferring to hang on to their woo-woo theories and religions.
"Had they actually debunked the research in an open and transparent way instead of 'suspecting' it then vaccination rates would probably be a whole lot higher today."
The methods used in the study were immediately called into question in a public manner. Formal and robust 'debunkings' take time and have been done numerous times.
"Well, there is the fact that the pharmaceutical industry now tops not only the defense industry, but all other industries in the total amount of fraud payments for actions against the federal government under the False Claims Act."
Yes, because individual cases of fraudsters (such as Wakefield), and massive amounts of individual cases of fraud being uncovered clearly indicate that the entire industry is capable of coordinating a massive smear campaign. And not only can they apparently orchestrate a massive smear campaign across the entire industry, but they can keep it running for years. Puh-leeeaze.
Sooner or later you loons are going to have to come to terms with the facts: Wakefield lied and is a piece of scum, and you are endangering lives by continuing to blindly follow his disproved and disgraced paper.
A quick trip through your commenting history reveals that you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of "anti-vaxers". That is as good as "supports Wakefield" to me. It certainly demonstrates the same ignorance and causes the same harm.
"A quick trip through your commenting history reveals that you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of 'anti-vaxers'."
Not only have I never supported any anti-vaccination group, the first thing that comes up when you search for alex3917 + vaccine is:
"I don't believe nor have I ever believed that vaccines cause autism. What I do believe is that the systemic design of the CDC makes it impossible to trust what they say for various reasons." (397 days ago)
Followed by:
"I've seen a lot of evidence since then saying the autism-vaccine link isn't true, but I've seen zero evidence saying that the cover up that RFK wrote about didn't actually occur." (448 days ago)
"The anti-vaccine crowd was also in the wrong for putting excessive weight on this study in the first place, but this apologism for the scientific establishment is completely unwarranted." (6 days ago)
"you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of "anti-vaxers"."
An example of you doing so:
"Most doctors get their information about medical issues by reading the marketing pamphlets from drug companies. If you actually read the relevant journal articles then you'd be significantly more knowledgeable about any given topic than the average doctor."
Because it was in support of the notion popularly supported by anti-vaxers that parents should make medical decisions after "educating" themselves, instead of heeding the advice of trained medical professionals. Check the context yourself if you don't believe me.
Of course when he was prompted to provide sources, he was unable to provide any that actually lent credence to his dubious statement. He's a purposeful troll at best.
"it was in support of the notion popularly supported by anti-vaxers that parents should make medical decisions after "educating" themselves, instead of heeding the advice of trained medical professionals."
I, for one, entirely believe that parents should make medical decisions after educating themselves, instead of blindly heeding the advice of trained medical professionals.
I am also very, very strongly pro vaccinations.
I also refused to give my children specific vaccinations when they were very young, preferring instead to wait until their systems were more developed.
The responsibility for the health of my children belongs to me, and I take that responsibility very seriously.
"Of course when he was prompted to provide sources, he was unable to provide any that actually lent credence to his dubious statement."
I already gave you a perfectly good example, but I'll give you another one:
"Conclusions — Increasing promotion of CCBs has mirrored trends in physician prescribing. An association between advertising and prescribing patterns could explain why CCBs have supplanted better-substantiated therapies for hypertension."
That fails to indicate that doctors don't read peer-reviewed journals, and it fails to indicate that uneducated parents can make better informed decisions than doctors.
"That fails to indicate that doctors don't read peer-reviewed journals, and it fails to indicate that uneducated parents can make better informed decisions than doctors."
Probably because I never said that doctors don't ever read journals, I just said that they got their information from marketing literature-- a claim which I've now backed up with 5+ sources.
Secondly, I never claimed that an uneducated person could make better decisions than doctors, my only claim was that someone following the recommendations of the academic research would on average get better treatment than they would from a doctor. And again, I've backed up this claim with multiple sources.
Just a note, anti-vaccine sentiment has been around forever.
Even Benjamin Franklin encountered it while he was still alive; in his autobiography he writes of his view:
"In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen."
The medical establishment has long been known to be corrupt or at least suspect - Elsevier was paid to make an entire fake journal so some company could publish their "article".
a) A publishing company who are in the business of selling ink on paper, whose success is evaluated by their shareholders on the basis of their profitability
b) A medical research organization who are in the business of pushing back the frontier of human knowledge, whose success is evaluated by their peers on the basis of their replicable research findings
Answer: [ a ]
(Meta: the point I'm trying to make is that the publishing houses who produce the scholarly journals are not themselves engaged in scientific research. They hold a vital position within the research community, but their actual goal is commercial success. Consequently their goals sometimes become disastrously misaligned with those of their host sector.)
And, to take this a step farther, note that one of the most powerful forces contesting the bad influence of for-profit journals has been the research establishment itself.
That some company had to create and entirely new journal just to publish a bogus paper doesn't really seem to support your thesis. If "the medical establishment" were really corrupt, you should be able to just publish your bogus paper in any of the established journals.
In fact, your example seems to support the opposite thesis. The medical community in general is rather good at spotting and filtering out corruption.
