but Wakefield was far further down the spectrum
because he was doing invasive GI procedures on children for his study, funded by a lawyer
First: consent matters
Informed consent matters
It “took a village” to “raise”/create Andrew Wakefield - it is common for everyone to back away once accountability happens but Andrew Wakefield did not do this all by himself.
What about medical culture and who is not policed on professionalism that allowed him to get so far?
Has a single physician caused more damage to the public health than British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield? https://t.co/W3k21Ais6F
— Harry Thomas (@DrHarryThomas) June 10, 2020
but Wakefield was far further down the spectrum
because he was doing invasive GI procedures on children for his study, funded by a lawyer
First: consent matters
Informed consent matters
What was Wakefield rewarded for throughout his career?
Where did he NOT get questioned?
Look as this patent he had filed to compete vs MMR
Gibberish
+
His 🤑incentive
https://t.co/NRqXvBCGvB
This was NOT “one man”
And lots of silence
Erased/changed data
I have a hard time believing no one found him problematic before
Were people afraid to report?
When held accountable, he catastrophized, claiming he was being “persecuted”
Sound familiar?
Increasingly science serves the wealthy
The incredible irony is that he claims to be “exposing” the very thing that he himself is - HE was driven by money instead of sound science or ethics
Wakefield claims his being held accountable = “persecution”
=hook https://t.co/l7XRK7jGoV
These #vaccine battles get fought in hospitals and #healthcare. This is not going to be easy. #communication #strategy and skill will be critical. Anti-vaxx fearmonger to already traumatized groups or those who distrust authority. @JAMA_current https://t.co/DevJciad63
— Umbereen S. Nehal, MD, MPH (@usnehal) December 30, 2020
can be very good at storytelling
engage others’ emotions
tap into emotions of trauma
while themselves focus on wealth, fame, power
=manipulate emotions
use a “hook”
https://t.co/AFkQK0U5nz
+
psychological safety
Check Wakefield types early
Who abuses power?
Students know
This hit piece written on me
Notice “hook” of unrelated shocking event to trigger emotions
https://t.co/jmiiBZ2OgI
“vet” & “verify” = my mantra
my credibility as an expert witness depends on being factual
Regardless of individuals in question, professionalism must entail
-consistent standards
-verified facts
-verified identity
I don’t understand why we have repeated examples of others bypassing this level of scrutiny/standards
I am not at risk of this kind of mistaken identity but many people I know who are Muslim are, even babies.
“Verify” for identity matters. https://t.co/gZTw0LXwHY
Keep in mind how imprecise the \u201cno fly\u201d list has been. Even babies ended up on the list. Being able to fly to attend a funeral or wedding is a lot bigger deal than being able to tweet, that too when you have official media people working for you. Endangering lives = consequences https://t.co/xhxbaKE8jY
— Umbereen S. Nehal, MD, MPH (@usnehal) January 10, 2021
has ANY chance of ever committing the level of ethical violation & harm to our profession as Wakefield?
He was handcuffed for #publichealth best practices & volunteering
Our bias = wrong policing
https://t.co/HVr0xY2GsQ
= exactly WHY we end up with people like Wakefield
who get through gate after gate
while others, doing the RIGHT thing
are held back on petty issues or pushed out
FOR doing exactly what they were asked
is an aberration
an individual who uniquely did unusual harm to our profession
is a false narrative
that fails to attribute accountability appropriately
Wakefield is a predictable result of our system
Who is rewarded for acting without #ethics?
More from Health
No-regret #hydrogen:
Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe.
👉Summary of conclusions of a new study by @AgoraEW @AFRY_global @Ma_Deutsch @gnievchenko (1/17)
https://t.co/YA50FA57Em
The idea behind this study is that future hydrogen demand is highly uncertain and we don’t want to spend tens of billions of euros to repurpose a network which won’t be needed. For instance, hydrogen in ground transport is a hotly debated topic https://t.co/RlnqDYVzpr (2/17)
Similar things can be said about heat. 40% of today’s industrial natural gas use in the EU goes to heat below 100°C and therefore is within range of electric heat pumps – whose performance factors far exceed 100%. (3/17)
Even for higher temperatures, a range of power-to-heat (PtH) options can be more energy-efficient than hydrogen and should be considered first. Available PtH technologies can cover all temperature levels needed in industrial production (e.g. electric arc furnace: 3500°C). (4/17)
In our view, hydrogen use for feedstock and chemical reactions is the only inescapable source of industrial hydrogen demand in Europe that does not lend itself to electrification. Examples include ammonia, steel, and petrochemical industries. (5/17)
Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe.
👉Summary of conclusions of a new study by @AgoraEW @AFRY_global @Ma_Deutsch @gnievchenko (1/17)
https://t.co/YA50FA57Em
The idea behind this study is that future hydrogen demand is highly uncertain and we don’t want to spend tens of billions of euros to repurpose a network which won’t be needed. For instance, hydrogen in ground transport is a hotly debated topic https://t.co/RlnqDYVzpr (2/17)
Similar things can be said about heat. 40% of today’s industrial natural gas use in the EU goes to heat below 100°C and therefore is within range of electric heat pumps – whose performance factors far exceed 100%. (3/17)
Even for higher temperatures, a range of power-to-heat (PtH) options can be more energy-efficient than hydrogen and should be considered first. Available PtH technologies can cover all temperature levels needed in industrial production (e.g. electric arc furnace: 3500°C). (4/17)
In our view, hydrogen use for feedstock and chemical reactions is the only inescapable source of industrial hydrogen demand in Europe that does not lend itself to electrification. Examples include ammonia, steel, and petrochemical industries. (5/17)
This is a limited point about availability of efficacy data for vaccines under development in the context of the approval for CovidShield and Covaxin in India.
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
You gotta think about this one carefully!
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
