MMR Autism Doctor Denies Submitting Kids To Painful Tests

Post Reply New Topic

zendell, still no rebuttal to my earlier post? Wakefield is a joke among researchers, doctors, and serious students alike. He committed serious breaches of professional ethics and put personal financial gain over the welfare of thousands upon thousands of children.

Autism research has its origins in doctors exploiting autistic children, or treating them as less than equal humans. Remember Bruno Bettelheim? Who ran a tyrannical enterprise/cult where children were psychologically, physically and sexually abused. I recently did work in Children's literature and was upset to learn that regardless of this his books such as Uses of Enchantment are still praised and at least there, he was seen as an utmost authority on children's issues with his research on the top of reading lists. I don't care how good (and they're not) his academic thoughts are, after the reports of the nature of his research on autistic children surfaced, I think he has lost all credibility and respect in the community as a whole.

Also, it may be irrelevant but recall the Tuskegee syphilis project. One of the big outrages of American history, where for forty years between 1932 and 1972, doctors conducted research on studying the effects of untreated syphilis on a portion of poorer black population. Throughout they documented the experiment in scientific journals where the language or rhetoric they used so dehumanized their voiceless "subjects" with other doctors, no one thought for some long time to question it. They paid them and their families but it doesn’t matter. It is still a huge moral outrage and yes the findings of the studies are irrelevant.

A quandry.

When data has been acquired by thoroughly reprehensible means, should the means of acquiring that data then cause you to discard it?

Unfortunately, the answer has to be no.

You cannot undo the harm that was done. Discarding the data would surely increase that harm.

Certainly, where the researcher has broken all the rules (as it would appear to be the case with Dr. Wakefield), the data he acquired requires much more careful scrutiny. I would agree that, in this case, the doubts surrounding the acquisition may completely invalidate that data and any claimed results of the research.

It the instance you cite (the Tuskegee syphilis project), nory, I'd be more inclined to keep the results. People were paid to die, presumably, in order to produce the data. Discarding that data would be to lose the shred of meaningfulness that remains from their deaths.

I'll reiterate:

A quandry.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater you mean? Do I finally understand what that odd expression means?

It is a quandry because does that mean that some people will go on to say, well I'll just do it even though it violates ethics, and my research will vindicate me in the end with those who think like me. I don't think anything really relevant was learned from the Tuskegee project as they already had the means to cure the disease the entire time, but chose instead to watch these men, who could not understand the full ramifications of the project, the language used or the availability of a cure, to die a very painful death that included insanity.

I am tempted to be so angry at this that I would choose to refuse to accept the findings that came with it. But i also understand what you mean about how refusing to teach or use the results from such experiments could take away any possible positive meaning that their sacrifice involved, doing them a great injustice.