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
1/16
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?
And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?
For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.
2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.
Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine
But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?
https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg
3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).
In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.
DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.
When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.
[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]
https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?
And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?
For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.
2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.
Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine
But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?
https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg
3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).
In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.
DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.
When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.
[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]
https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
