Offit recounts an anecdote from one time Wakefield supporter, John March. The setting is a meeting between March, lawyer Richard Barr and Andrew Wakefield, called to discuss their litigation strategy.

[March]…presented his data….he told them there was no difference between the children with autism and controls, he suddenly found that the meeting had moved on to a different subject. It was a Damascene conversion for him. He realised that Wakefield could not hear negative results.

@Jon, with his deep concern for humanity and many social projects, I would imagine that Pauling would be disappointed at best or even angry at this development of his vision.

Sallie Bernard, quoted at WebMD states

“On the plus side, this study has shown a link between gastrointestinal distress and regression in autism,” Bernard tells WebMD. “A lot of people don’t accept this and deny parents’ perspective when they say their kids’ with autism have GI trouble.”

I call this one strange because (a) the study didn’t show this link and (b) she complains that the study size is too small to be significant. Too small for the parts she doesn’t like, just fine for the conclusions she wants to create.

Holford abuses Cochrane systematic reviews and reviewers unless they say what he wants them to say – which has to fit in with his partial world-view, built on cherry-picked studies.

In the same way, Linus Pauling is a genius whose word is law unless it compromises profits.

It’s easy really when you view it all through the “Does it have profit potential for me?” lens.