Autism Street

Over at the AoA blog, Dan Olmsted is stil ranting about the Andrew Wakefield saga. This time it’s about some of the mainstream media’s coverage of the Lancet retraction. The Wakefield Inquisition: Case Series Insanity

I’m not going to bother trying to explain to Dan why he’s attacking a straw man - a likely false position of the Lancet that the retraction of Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper is grounded in statistical error due to “selection bias”. Instead, I’m simply going to present a few selected quotes from Olmsted’s piece, evidence from a document he states should have been read, and ask him to reconcile the contradiction (without resorting to conspiracy theory).

Here’s quote #1

“But this was NOT a randomized clinical trial; rather, it was a report on a series of children picked for what they had IN COMMON, which was developmental regression and a bowel disorder.”

The all caps are Olmsted’s, the bold emphasis, mine.

Here’s quote #2

“At a minimum in the Wakefield case, this would mean that key reporters breaking the story nationally – on the TV news networks and major online news sites, in the big dailies and magazines – needed to be familiar with three things: Wakefield’s original paper; the General Medical Council ruling from the week before that found his ethical behavior “dishonest,” and The Lancet retraction of the paper itself that quickly followed.”

I agree, and the bold emphasis is mine.

Here’s quotes #3 and #4

So, again, what exactly did Wakefield do wrong?

We fail to see a problem here.

I’m glad Olmsted noted that he, et al. fail to see a problem, because that’s different than asserting that there is no problem. It means that if one can bring the problem out into the light for all to see, then perhaps (although possibly unlikely if he’s wearing his Wakefield fanboy goggles), the problem will then be visible to him, et al.

So in the first quote, Olmsted claims (similarly to the that infamous Lancet paper of 1998) that something the Lancet study children had in common was a bowel disorder. In the second quote, Olmsted states that familiarity with the GMC ruling is needed. And in the third and fourth quotes, Olmsted asks a question and highlights collective ignorance.

Here’s the piece of evidence I mentioned, from the document Olmsted says journalists should be familiar with.

[The entire document (recommended reading) is available online, by clicking on the image above]

Still fail to see the problem, Dan?

You said (so did the infamous Lancet paper, in so many words):

“a series of children picked for what they had IN COMMON, which was developmental regression and a bowel disorder“

The GMC ruling, which you say should have been read, clearly shows that four of the twelve children did not have any reported history of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Having regard to its findings in relation to Child 1, 9, 5 and 10, namely that these children were admitted to undergo a programme of investigations for research purposes, and that they all lacked a history of gastrointestinal symptoms

Are you getting this Dan? Without resorting to conspiracy theory, can you reconcile it? Do you understand that this means that your claim (and the Lancet paper’s claim) about what was actually studied, is false?  Do you see how this impacts the underlying science? Dan, this is the United States calling, are we reaching?