My Photo
Buy Your Copy Now!
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

« Renee Seward's Multimedia Program Linking Sounds and Letters: Reading By Design | Main | I Wouldn't Put This Shirt on My Daughter, But I Still Think It's Funny »

Thursday, January 28, 2010



A tangential look at why those loyal to Wakefield will not abandon him:


Awesome compilation, Liz. I am sure it will grow as more folks have the chance to read the entire report and look at the fallout. Stagliano is tweeting on how classy Wakefield is, which led to another blogpost on Countering:

Liz Ditz

Dear Kim,

thanks for keeping me up to date.

Your first post, in the list of "Those critical of Wakefield and supporting the decision" is #7 & the second is #35


:-) It's nice to see how many critical of Wakefield are blogging about it compared to those who support him and are remaining quiet.


For years, Wakefield supporters have argued that there were two studies/projects not one. And it was under the other project that they had ethical committee approval.

I thought this was just an illusion. Turns out there was a 2nd 'project'. It was blanket approval for Professor Walker-Smith to take 2 extra biopsies (no big deal) during colonscopies he performed.

For the details we have the nice people at Age of Autism to thank.

For details read:


Thanks for compiling Liz. You are gracious including both sides of this conversation.


J Todd DeShong

What an interesting idea for a blog!
I am also very glad to see that the preponderance of those for the decision heavily outweigh those against!
I hope other fringe groups who oppose solid science in favor of emotions take heed of this decision. AIDS Denialists and Climate Change Deniliasts need to carefully weigh the science.


Great compilation and thanks for the inclusion of my article. I'm just sorry that because only the ideologues support Wakefield that you had to pad the list w/ so many Age of Autism blog entries.


Liz could you add a link to the Facebook page for those in favour of the decision.

Thanks, Sharon

Liz Ditz

Done, Sharon.


I just posted on Andrew Wakefield today. His lack of ethics is shocking to say the least. The URL for my posts can be found here:

Please add that to the list and I hope people enjoy reading that.

Broken Link

Bill Ahearn, posting on Psychology Today


Great to see how many have written on this!

Dave Wilson

Dr. Wakefield's misconduct is damaging on many levels: He touched off unnecessary controversy over the safety/efficacy of vaccines, and, perhaps even worse, casts suspicion on any and all medical research that will follow. (Does aspirin really relieve headaches?)

Trust in the integrity of doctors and medical research has been deeply damaged.

This is Exhibit A for why we still need a robust and skeptical press, including a more vigilant Lancet. We won't get fooled again (I hope).

J Todd DeShong

I am glad to see the list of Wakefield detractors is growing and growing!
Great work, Liz.

The comments to this entry are closed.


What I'm Tweeting

    follow me on Twitter