On February 2, 2010, the prestigious UK medical journal The Lancet published a formal retraction of the 1998 paper authored by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and 12 co-authors asserting that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) was linked to gastrointestinal disturbance and pervasive developmental disorders. Such a retraction constitutes a repudiation of the findings and a removal from the scientific record; in essence as if the article was never originally published.
RETRACTION:
Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children
The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 2 February 2010
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-7
(This article made available free by The Lancet with registration as a service to readers. )
removing from the scientific record,
Wakefield, A.J., Murch, S.H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D.M., Malik,M., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637-641.
This retraction comes just days after the January 28, 2010 ruling by the UK's General Medical Council in a 2 1/2 year investigation of allegations that Wakefield and two co-authors, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch were guilty of serious breaches of research ethics, and engaged in unethical practice and non-adherence to the terms of ethics committee approval for the research described in the 1998 article. Wakefield in particular was reprimanded for dishonesty and irresponsibility in the conducting of the research for the 1998 article. Previous to this hearing, 10 of the 13 original authors of the study retracted their names from the article.
Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch will return before the GMC in early April, at which time it will be determined whether there was guilt of serious professional misconduct. In the event of such a determination, sanctions up to loss of license to practice medicine could be applied.
-------------------------------
References and for further reading
Murch, S.H., Anthony, A., Casson, D.H., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A.P., Valentine, A., Davies, S.E., & Walker-Smith, J.A. (2004). Retraction of an interpretation. The Lancet, 363(9411), 750.
This article is stated by The Lancet to be available free of charge with registration.
Summary of the background and specific inquiries made by the GMC
Media reports
Report linking autism to vaccines is retracted by medical journal
By Thomas H. Maugh II
February 2, 2010 | 9:34 a.m.
Los Angeles Times
Lancet Renounces Study Linking Autism And Vaccines
Scott Hensley
National Public Radio(NPR)12:25 pm
February 2, 2010
Lancet accepts MMR study 'false'
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News
Page last updated at 14:22 GMT, Tuesday, 2 February 2010
U.K. General Medical Council Rules Wakefield & Co. "Dishonest," "Irresponsible"
2010-01-28 15:25
The Neurodiversity Weblog
From the Lancet to the GMC: how Dr Andrew Wakefield fell from grace
Sarah Boseley, health editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 15.37 GMT
MMR scare doctor 'acted unethically', panel finds
last updated at 17:35 GMT, Thursday, 28 January 2010
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News
Andrew Wakefield found 'irresponsible' by GMC over MMR vaccine scare
Sarah Boseley, health editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 20.34 GMT
Doctor in disgrace
January 29, 2010
TimesOnline (UK)
© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Education news: Obama administration proposes changes to education policy and law
The Obama administration has put forth a proposal of overhauling No Child Left Behind.
Some key points are,
- Changes to federal financing formulas with emphasis on school performance
- Changes to education law
- Elimination of the requirement deadline of 2014 to have all students be proficient, to be replaced by graduation from high school, "college or career ready",
- Possible elimination of school ratings systems based on making "adequate yearly progress" on student test scores.
- Dividing schools into more categories to give recognition for success and increasing funding for improvement or closure of failing schools.
- Define learning goals in earlier grades
Such proposed changes to educational law would be subject to Congressional approval, and the Administration is reported to be soliciting input from Congressional leaders of both parties in coming weeks to create legislative language attractive to bipartisan support.
A remark on these proposals as part of the President's comments on the 2011 fiscal year budget.
Remarks by the President on the Budget 10:29 min
"...That's why I've proposed a more than 6 percent increase in funding for the Education Department. And this funding is tied to reforms that raise student achievement, inspire students to excel in math and science, and turn around failing schools which consign too many young people to a lesser future -- because in the 21st century there is no better anti-poverty program than a world-class education..."----------------
For more information/further reading
Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in ‘No Child’ Law
By SAM DILLON Published: January 31, 2010
New York Times
Budgeting for a New Era of Responsibility
Posted by Jesse Lee on February 01, 2010 at 04:34 PM EST
Whitehouse.gov
Education reform: Obama budget reboots No Child Left Behind
Amanda Paulson Staff writer / February 1, 2010
Christian Science Monitor
Five Ways Obama's Budget Will Change Education Policy
Feb 1 2010, 2:20 pm by Derek Thompson
The Atlantic
Hard choices to come with fiscal year 2011 budget
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Washington Post
New York Times stories on No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
NCLB U.S. Department of Education
© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
State news: California - District Court decision revives Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
Prefacing note: While this report is being shared as a "news item of interest" as a public event in progress, it seems relevant at this time to state that this report is not taking an editorial position on the legal aspects or allegations of this case nor the specific claimants, nor does this constitute legal interpretation. Please see the court documents for relevant specifics.
On Wednesday, January 27, 2010, a decision authored by Justice Laurie D. Zelon of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven was handed down in California reversing a lower court ruling, and remanding to trial court with directions; this decision allows a previously filed suit to proceed to trial. The suit filed by Arce alleges that an insurer improperly denied applied behavior analysis and speech services as categorical practice and that such denial on the specified basis constitutes violation of California's Mental Health Parity law (AB88: Insurance Code §§10144.5 & Health and Safety Code§1374.72 ). Another aspect of the case in question is the provision of service by providers that are not licensed or state certified. The case in question is ARCE v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.
-----------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFO/FURTHER READING
2nd Appelate District
updated 1/31/2010 05:05PM
Case information - Arce et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al.
Decision transcript
From Leagle, inc.
ARCE v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.
ANDREW ARCE, a Minor, etc. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.
B215861.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven.
Filed January 27, 2010.
CALIFORNIA LAW
Mental Health Parity aka AB 88,
Insurance Code §§10144.5 & Health and Safety Code§1374.72
Other articles and reports related to ARCE v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. and regulation of ABA coverage
C.A. Revives UCL Action Against Kaiser Over Autism Services
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Appeals court allows Arce vs. Kaiser autism class action to proceed
January 30th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
State Regulators Might Require Health Plans To Cover Autism Therapy
Monday, November 16, 2009
California Healthline
Letter dated 2/24/2009 from Consumer Watchdog to Cindy Ehnes, Director ,California Department of Managed Health Care
Applied Behavior Analysis — the Los Angeles lawsuit
Sam Miller, The Orange County Register
August 15th, 2008, 8:11 am
ABA chapters in/for California
CalABA
Public Policy and Practice page
© 2010 Regina G. Claypool-Frey
Disclaimer: This blog publishes news and announcements only as a service to interested persons, the posts are the responsibility of the individual author, and unless otherwise noted do not constitute nor claim to represent the official position of ABA International, its officers or associated entities. This blog makes no representation as to the accuracy of the report and readers are strongly encouraged to consult and reference the primary sources noted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
