Pardon me in advance if this is incoherent and raging. It’s mostly because, well, I’m incoherent and raging currently.
So here’s the deal. The Lancet is going to retract Andrew Wakefield’s study about MMR and autism.
Just think about that for a moment.
I don’t give a wet slap about whether or not you think vaccines have anything to do with autism. Just throw that out of your heads for a minute. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Wakefield’s paper was the worst piece of garbage science you’ve ever seen. I don’t happen to believe that, personally, but go ahead and run with it, for the point of the argument.
The Wakefield study is 12 years old. T-w-e-l-v-e. Do you really, genuinely think, that the Lancet has only published one bullshit paper in twelve years?
OK, how about this? The Hannah Term Breech Trial. This one paper, published in 2000, is the reason that a breech baby is considered an automatic cesarean section. And it’s complete crap. Dr. Marek Glazerman ripped it apart (also in the Lancet), and Hannah herself also published a retraction of sorts which showed that her data was not spot on, but they should go ahead and cut women open anyway.
This particular piece of peer-reviewed dogmeat continues to be cited over, and over, and over again. And gee, you don’t see the Lancet retracting it, do you?
Vaccinations are more profitable than non-vaccinations (and I won’t even go into the profit involved in vaccine damage, because we’re playing along with the Wakefield-is-a-loony side for the purpose of argument). Cesareans are more profitable than non-cesareans, and I’m not going to go into the profits of cesarean damage here either, I’ve done it elsewhere.
Maybe it’s just that my cynicism is showing, but I’m pretty sure that what we’re seeing here is not any sort of scientific method that Al-Biruni or Roger Bacon would recognize. Oh, that’s right. That’s because they were scientists, and what we’re seeing now is more the purview of economics.
UPDATE: Fraud in medical research publishing? Say it ain’t so.
Related posts:
Sing it, Sister.
Raging right along with you…
Consider the high visibility of the Autism paper. While the Breach Birth paper is just as bullshit, it didn’t have the worldwide attention and condemnation that the Autism paper did. The Lancet article was referred to endlessly and was a plank in the eye of the Lancet.
They realized that it (the Autism Article) was bullshit- and when the scientific community (commercial and non-commercial alike) universally discredited the findings- they felt the need to finally get their name off of it in the only way they really can. So the retracted it.
I don’t believe it was a matter or money- I believe it was a matter of visibility and being part of something that went so very wrong, had been utterly discredited (this is their point of view- I’m not arguing vaccine => Autism here) and had their name all the fuck over it.
They needed to wipe that shit off of their shoe- because it was stinky stinky shit and was following them wherever they went. It’s off their show- and now they are trying to steam clean the carpet.
Walk me down the path of how a peer reviewed scientific journal is effected by the prevalence or lack thereof of Vaccinations or Cesarean Sections? I’m not arguing that there is no money to be had in either (I’m idealistic, not blind or retarded) but how does it connect with The Lancet?
The Lancet was the medical journal that called for the complete ban on Tobacco and called for all Tobacco to be made illegal. This action does not sound like the actions of a body that is motivated by money or commerce. In fact (According to Wikipedia- the only source I found in the time allotted to me tonight) it looks like they have been rather outspoken *against* certain commerce. One division of their parent holding company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Elsevier) organized Arms Fairs (where weapons manufacturers and dealers come together like a trade show). This was a huge conflict of interest and just plain creepy over all IMHO.
The Lancet publicly protested this extensively. They railed against their own parent company- and won. Their parent company no longer does this.
They seem to be *trying* to do the right thing. They are a medical journal. Maybe there isn’t enough controversy regarding the other article? Maybe they still believe that the C-Section is the way to go? I don’t know- I’m not a physician, likely to ever give birth, nor do I sit on the peer review panel of The Lancet. It sounds like letters to the editor are in order.
Dear Jonathan…
I realize that, as a medical insider, your viewpoint is strongly colored by your paycheck. We can also take as given that mine is strongly colored by my experience. So having said that, in the Bonfire of the Contradicting Worldviews (BWG) here’s the point: Their failure on the Hannah Breech Trial results hugely significant mortality and morbidity to women and babies from unnecessary cesareans, not to mention countless other, lesser negative impacts. It’s a huge problem, which I could go on and on and on about. They themselves (the Lancet, that is) have published multiple papers disproving it. But it continues to be cited every single day. That one paper is why breech is an automatic cesarean everywhere in the allopathic world. Between 3 and 5% of ALL BIRTHS are breech at term (although some evidence says that the percentage is increasing).
IMO, Hannah is a bigger impact that Wakefield. In a population of non-vaxxing parents, I’d bet none of them cite Wakefield’s work as the sole reason they do not vaccinate. However, 100% of the women I know who have had breech babies have had to face the cesarean monster, and choose either a surgery that has a four times higher risk of killing them or injuring their baby, or choosing to birth at home with the potential risks there.
Flat-out, the Hannah Term Breech Trial is a hugely damaging piece of complete crap, but it makes a lot of hospitals and obstetricians a lot of money every single day despite its flawed construction.
And honestly? You are absolutely right. Although letter-writing campaigns have been done in the past, it is time and past time to launch another one. With this very high-profile retraction, they can hardly say they don’t retract flawed work now, can they? Bueno.
Thank you for posting this.
Jonathan- the fact is, many of us are subject to cesareans for many reasons that aren’t necessary, including breech. If they’re on the retraction line, why not do another one ASAP so that they don’t have the image of publishing BS all the time and we can get it out of the way now?
[...] I wrote a blog a few days ago about how upsetting it is that the Lancet has formally retracted the Wakefield MMR study, but [...]
While I work for a medical device manufacturer making continuous glucose sensors for diabetics, I really don’t consider myself a medical insider. I’m a human being first, a scientist second and an engineer third. If I seem like an insider- I’m not sure how to take that. I’m not sheeple, I’m not a monster. I have a greater understanding on how the peer review process works, I understand how much work it takes and the efforts of exactly how many people are needed to make / produce / gain regulatory approval on *anything*. I also see the other side of the coin- the business of this business. Maybe I’m working a golden tower, but everyone here where I work is really about making products that genuinely improve the lives of the people who choose to use them.
Understand that I’m not a faceless, nameless shill for the Medical Industrial Complex who’s trying to make money off of the world by using risky things that may kill them. I’m a person. You know me. You respect me (last time I checked) as an intelligent, compassionate, talented, real human being. I would almost hope that having “someone on the inside” may help shed any light on how many of these processes work- and what is involved, what the checks and balances are, etc. While people may certainly be sinister fuckers and douchebags- the actual work and research and development and gruntwork and *everything* done that I have experienced- is all done by people who have chosen to work in this environment of making the world better. And we aren’t stupid. We can put 2 and 2 together. I read the results of our clinical trials and examine doc upon doc of data and analysis. I look for problems with anything we are making or working on. I demand answers to questions that seem like they may be difficult. And I get them.
I am not unique. My industry is filled with people like me. All over. Everywhere. Allow me to put a face to the faceless and the nameless. Just imagine that they are me. (Well, hopefully better looking with even more education).
To the C Section issue:
I also understand that we as humans evolved without doctors to surgically remove babies from mothers.
I’ve heard anecdotal stories of doctors scheduling C-sections around their golf games and hospital scheduling. One one hand I can see how they might want to. Surgery is controlled. Natural birth is not. Surgery is *fast*. Natural birth is not. Clearly these people are disconnecting themselves from the experience as it is designed to happen at the expense of the mother. Expediency and efficiency over process and nature.
CUTTING IN TO SOMEONE OUT OF CONVENIENCE IS HORRIFYING.
It seems that the term Cesarean Section should always be referred to as an “Emergency Cesarean Section”- they should be used in an EMERGENCY. Missing your golf game or being inconvenienced isn’t an emergency.
This is a matter of education and medical philosophy. Go to a doctor that shares your philosophy seems the best way to go. Educate doctors about the issue at hand, and start a letter-writing campaign to get the Lancet to retract their paper. Sounds like you are well on your way.