Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Fundamental research bias
- John Stone (4 July 2008)
-
Ill-Health in Gulf War Veterans
- Derek HALL, Prof. M HOOPER, President of & Chief Scientific Adviser to The NGV&FA (4 July 2008)
-
Re: Fundamental research bias
- Richard M Lindley (4 July 2008)
-
Re: Re: Fundamental research bias
- John Stone (6 July 2008)
-
Re: Re: Re: Fundamental research bias
- Richard M Lindley (9 July 2008)
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fundamental research bias
- John Stone (9 July 2008)
-
Investigator qualifications
- Peter Flegg (20 July 2008)
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
On what basis is researching the adverse effects of vaccination placed in the hands of psychiatrists? Competing interests: Autistic son |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Derek HALL, Retired Military Consultant Surgeon The Bungalow, Rear of Granbt Terrace, Wingate TS28 5HZ, Prof. M HOOPER, President of & Chief Scientific Adviser to The NGV&FA
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, Wessley is finally proven wrong in his inadequate research methodology into Gulf War Illness/Syndrome. At an open Parliamentary Event held in Committee Room #9 on Tuesday 17th June at 1730hrs, Wessley stated in oral evidence to the assembled audience (including Lords Lloyd, Morris & Mr D Twigge - U/S of State for Defence) that he recognised the pre-deployment for Gulf War #1 "vaccination/immunisation" Policy to have caused a significant physical health problem to the Troops - in particular the (now proven) lethal combination of Anthrax & Pertussis, made worse by the synchrous administration of "other" so-called 'protective' but stlil Secret 'Jabs' Despite Wessley's (published) denial to the contrary, we at the NGV&FA are still regularly receiving applications for membership from current Service Personnel in Iraq & Afghanistan. Competing interests: Trustee & Medical Adviser to the NGV&FA |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard M Lindley, SpR in Paediatric Surgery Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Send response to journal:
|
John Stone asks "On what basis is researching the adverse effects of vaccination placed in the hands of psychiatrists?". This is a weasel question, a veiled ad-hominem attack that seeks to denigrate the findings of the research without addressing any substantive issues. Mr Stone should be ashamed of himself, and either ask a valid question about the research methodology, findings and conclusion, or retract his remark and think carefully before posting in the future. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
The answer to Richard Lindley is that it looks like an institutionally defensive strategy. Instead of investigating the physical health of the cases and their various exposures over a period, you give them a memory test. The fact that people cannot play back their memories like tapes, particularly in relation to events which may not have seemed too significant at the time, is surely neither here nor there, or surprising. The biggest conclusion we can draw from this study goes back to its design. Competing interests: Autistic son |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Richard M Lindley, SpR in Paediatric Surgery Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Send response to journal:
|
Commenting further on John Stone's response: After an accusation of a veiled ad hominem attack, his reply is that "The answer to Richard Lindley is that it looks like an institutionally defensive strategy." This is a further ad hominem attack that casts doubts on the integrity and motivation of the researchers performing the work. If Mr Stone has evidence that the researchers were biased in producing this research he should provide it; if not he should desist from such libellous attacks. This is however not the main failing in Mr Stone's response: In saying "Instead of investigating the physical health of the cases...you give them a memory test..." he completely misses the entire point of the study, which was to investigate the effect recall bias may have on previously published reports correlating self-reported multiple vaccinations and illness. These studies are referenced in the paper. The paper nicely demonstrates that a recall bias operates in the situation studied and therefore we should be cautious about assuming causation through the seeming correlation between self-recollected multiple vaccinations and subsequent illness. I have no idea why Mr Stone feels that psychiatrists have no basis to perform research into recall bias, but given his views on vaccination in general I think this is an obvious case of a confirmation bias distorting the results. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Richard Lindley The study [1] is a red-herring. It does not tell us the service personel are physically well or that they have suffered no ill-effects from their medication. The have a legal right to have these issues looked at. The study only tells us that their memories may have been at fault. But it gives only an impressionistic account of which vaccines were actually used, suggesting others unmentioned. Can we even tell whether their memories were in error, or the record keeping? The study also places emphasis on whether vaccines were administered on a single day, when temporal proximity - even if not on the same day - might be just as critical. The study does not mention whether the anthrax vaccine was the same one used in the Gulf War about which there were belatedly embarrassing disclosures [2, 3] mentioned by Hall and Hooper, above [4]. It is troubling that we have another report which casts doubt on the reliability of armed service personel who may have become ill as a result of their service, rather than showing due concern for their health. [1] Dominic Murphy, Matthew Hotopf, and Simon Wessely, 'Multiple vaccinations, health, and recall bias within UK armed forces deployed to Iraq: cohort study', BMJ 2008; 337: a220 [2] Michael Smith, '1991 Gulf soldiers given risky jabs', Daily Telegraph October 11, 2003, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1443857/1991-Gulf-soldiers-given- risky-jabs.html [3] Michael Smith, 'MoD was warned of vaccine risk before war', Daily Telegraph October 10, 2003, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1443858/MoD-was-warned-of-vaccine- risk-before-war.html [4] Derek Hall, Prof M Hooper, 'Ill-Health in Gulf War Veterans'. Competing interests: Autistic son |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Flegg, Consultant Physician Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, UK, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
|
Richard Lindley, I don’t think you need pay too much attention to the views of those whose antipathy to vaccines is totally inviolable in the face of scientific evidence and unwavering in intensity. As you point out, it is quite appropriate for research psychiatrists to explore recall bias and to conduct an analysis using their stock-in- trade methodologies such as the SF-36 when investigating a variety of physical, emotional and psychological parameters. Instead, John Stone should really be asking on what basis vaccination policy should be determined by a research gastroenterologist. Competing interests: None declared |
|||