Bush's 4th veto of his presidency is a good one

[ymu]

[ QUOTE ]
His behavior was fraud and would be just as illegal in the absence of a regulatory body. It sounds like the medical journals changed their publishing standards on their own. All your regulatory body did was revoke his license, which is an inconsequential action, since after his reputation was ruined, no one would hire him anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wakefield is still conning people. He won't be struck off until the hearing finishes in October. There's no doubt about the outcome. He also has massive public support thanks to his propaganda and financial backers. It'll take years to restore public confidence regardless of the science. Standard propaganda tactic - people believe the "facts" they heard first; it's harder to overcome false information than it is to implant new ideas.

And as I already said, the major medical journals changed policy when the NEJM and a well-respected medic were conned into publishing an enthusiastic editorial on Vioxx which was eventually withdrawn. The serious side effects mostly showed up in the second 6 months of their one year trial, so they published the first 6 months worth and pretended there was no more data. Serious [censored] for a painkiller which is typically used long-term in for chronic conditions. The FDA then sacked one of their experts for pointing out that the same serious side effects might affect other "me too" drugs made by other companies. It turns out he was right. Reassuring, huh? There were even Congressional hearings on the conduct of Merck and the FDA. Guess you missed it.

More reading for you (on how regulation is subverted by financial interests): http://www.transparency.org/global_p...tical_industry

If you think it's OK for corporations to make money charging folk a fortune to be poisoned, just come out and say it. Or come up with convincing evidence that it isn't common. Good luck with that. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]