As a physician and clinical researcher, I was gratified to read that the fallacious decade-old "vaccine-cause-autism link" was finally exposed as an "elaborate fraud" and "hoax" by a British Medical Journal editorial and two excellent follow-up commentaries in The Wall Street Journal (1/9 -10/2011 and 1/11/2011), the latter by Dr. Paul Offit. These editorials and reviews clearly detailed this specific "hoax" and its incredibly delayed correction as well as its devastating consequences. However, they all completely failed to explore the scope, depth, frequency as well as the possible cause(s) and prevention of what I belatedly recognized as "the scientific fraud/error phenomena or syndrome" underlying and encompassing its recently exposed "tip."
No doubt a very brief summary of the current scientific "hoax" and its analysis will facilitate a greater perspective and understanding of the psychological mechanism(s) responsible for this specific incredulous fiasco as well as many, many others:
In essence, British surgeon Andrew Wakefield completely falsified minimal data suggesting that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine caused autism. Not only did "the (once) respected medical journal The Lancet in 1998" publish this fraudulent study against the better judgment of four of its six reviewers, it refused a correction and retraction until forced to 11 years later when Britain's medical regulator ruled that Wakefield had acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly." Previously, The Lancet had ignored mounting and objective refuting evidence dating back to the 1990's, including 14 major world-wide studies encompassing over a million children, and despite the resulting MMR vaccine/immunization panic and consequent re-emergence of eradicated diseases, epidemics and deaths.
Why? Why? Why?...needs to be asked and answered! And why has the motivation underlying this destructive and seemingly pervasive phenomena been side-stepped?
Unexpectedly, my understanding of the "scientific fraud/error syndrome" followed immediately after my initially publishing independently and "blindly" validating data in 1973 demonstrating the presence of only a cerebellar-vestibular dysfunction in dyslexics. ("Dysmetric Dyslexia and Dyspraxia - Hypothesis and Study," Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry). This study was the first to clearly suggest that dyslexia was due to a signal-scrambling impairment of primary cerebellar-vestibular origin rather than to a century-old and neurologically unsupported reverse conviction: that a (assumed) primary dysfunction within the thinking-brain's reading processors failed to recognize the (assumed) clear signals received.
After challenging and refuting the traditionally maintained but clinically inadequate thinking-brain processing theory of dyslexia and eventually solving many of its riddles - offering new hope and rapid and dramatic medical help to countless dyslexics for the very first time, my research and I were both bombarded with unexpected defensive, severely biased and distorted criticism. The biased critics and criticism as well as their motivating factors were documented and analyzed in one of my books, "A Scientific Watergate - Dyslexia," (Stonebridge Publishing, Ltd., 1994).
Based on my analysis, I was forced to conclude that narcissism or an exaggerated egotistical need for self-esteem, advancement, fame and/or fortune motivate otherwise gifted individuals and even altruistic institutions to consciously and/or subconsciously falsify, and/or misinterpret their own data for publication and/or defensively deny, negate or defame - resist - the beneficial and dedicated work of others for self gain. And no doubt, egotism also significantly contributes to difficulty recognizing and correcting one's own errors and those of respected colleagues - especially those sharing and benefiting from a common "belief system," irregardless of the potential benefit to millions.
Paradoxically, the incidence of fallacious publications and resulting "hoaxes" may even be more frequent than expected in prestigious journals (i.e., The Lancet) by authors from famed institutions - since the latter often project an illusion of "objectivity" and infallibility and thus subconsciously provide a shield of immunity from valid evaluation, scrutiny, criticism and vital correction.
As predicted in a "Scientific Watergate..." within Chapter 18 entitled, Acceptance Without Proper Reference, with increased validation and scientific acceptance of my "challenging" cerebellar-vestibular (inner-ear) theory and concepts of dyslexia by independent researchers there came decreased and even absent proper referencing. Instead, prior critics began referencing each other - "buddy-buddy"- in their publications of the cerebellum and dyslexia, a phenomena I called "scientific kleptomania."
To further illustrate and validate the above assertions, the following example, typical of reported others, proved highly useful. The Lancet published a cerebellar-dyslexia paper by Rae et al in 1998 - the very same year they published Wakefield's "vaccine-cause-autism" fiction. Although Rae quoted exactly and extensively from one of my scientific dyslexia papers, she referenced only her colleagues who had absolutely nothing to do with or were even critical of the quoted content. Despite numerous documented communications with The Lancet and even Rae, neither would provide a correction to date. Is not this repetitively observed chutzpa-narcissism? (Refer to "Smart But Feeling Dumb," Appendix F - Lancetgate, Stonebridge Publishing, Ltd, 2008). Is it possible that the "buddy-buddy" system contributes not only to who gets referenced but also who and what gets published where? And even who gets selected for, or immunized from, criticism?
Before concluding, I believe it vital to provide readers with two independent sources that not only objectively validate my own three decade-old experiences with a contaminated scientific process - but dramatically expands them: "Betrayers of the Truth" by William Broad and "Wrong" by David Freedman. Amazingly, Freedman also provides overwhelming evidence suggesting most all experts are wrong, irregardless of their field of knowledge, exceptions aside. Although a distinction must be made between seemingly motivated and just "careless" errors, the latter difference must be proven on a situation-specific basis rather than assumed.
Perhaps I'll finally end this commentary as did Freedman - by utilizing a few of his quotes taken from brilliant sources:
"If we knew what we were doing, then it wouldn't be called research, would it?
- Albert Einstein
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken
