Wakefield hits back at BMJ over “fraud” claims

By Adam Smith
Science & Communication Officer, ANH-Intl
adam@anhinternational.org

Keen Wakefield-watchers have been waiting with interest for his response to the recent accusations of “scientific fraud” made by the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Now, a statement released by Andrew Wakefield on the Vaccine Safety First website provides clear evidence that brings into question the motives and integrity of the BMJ.

Reheated accusations

Earlier this month, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an editorial in which it accused Dr Andrew Wakefield of “scientific fraud” over the controversial 1998 Lancet case series, which described a new syndrome of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) in association with inflammatory bowel disease. The accusations were accompanied by a three-part series of articles by Brian Deer, the journalist who first issued the same allegations in the Sunday Times back in 2004. To us, the BMJ articles seemed like a panicked response by the medical establishment to Wakefield’s book, Callous Disregard – which was not mentioned by the BMJ nor Deer! Had they even read the book before printing their accusations?

New Wakefield statement

Yesterday, Wakefield struck back, and he is asking similar questions. During an interview with the USA’s Fox News on Monday 24th January, he announced the imminent release via the website Vaccine Safety First of documents “proving” that no fraud had been committed. A statement has now been released that points out some interesting and pertinent facts, facts that should raise questions in an impartial observer’s mind as to the BMJ’s conduct and motivations in this matter.

Ignoring relevant evidence

Callous Disregard was published in May 2010, and went into considerable detail over the specific parts of Deer’s allegations of “fraud”. Even before then, Wakefield had lodged a complaint with the UK’s Press Complaints Commission (PCC) over Deer’s Sunday Times article making the same accusations, in which Wakefield also directly addressed the fraud allegations. Wakefield’s new statement asks Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, whether she had properly examined these documents prior to publishing the editorial and new articles, questioning whether “they acted with due diligence and caution in coming to their damning determinations”.

In an accompanying email exchange with Dr Godlee, she is repeatedly evasive as to whether she read the PCC complaint prior to going to press, while admitting that she had not read Callous Disregard because “my understanding is that in your book you make the same points concerning Mr Deer’s allegations as you made in your suspended complaint to the PCC”. Her claim that the PCC complaint is “suspended” is easily disproven by checking the PCC website: “No substantive ruling in relation to the complaint has been reached by the PCC at this stage…the PCC complaint is outstanding”. This is despite footnote 119 of Deer’s first BMJ article stating clearly that the PCC complaint had been suspended “on 10 February 2010 on grounds of non-pursuit by the complainant”. 

What was the evidence?

In 1996, co-author of the 1998 Lancet paper Professor John Walker-Smith, who was struck off the UK medical register with Wakefield in 2010, prepared a report for a scientific meeting held at the Wellcome Trust, London. The meeting involved physicians and scientists collaborating with The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group, based at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School, where Wakefield and Walker-Smith were employed at the time.

Walker-Smith’s report, written in collaboration with senior pathologist Dr Amar Dhillon and not involving Wakefield in any way, described seven of the 12 children described in the Lancet paper, fully 18 months before that infamous paper was published. In Wakefield’s statement, Professor Walker-Smith’s opening remarks are reproduced: “I wish today, to present some preliminary details concerning seven children, all boys, who appear to have entero-colitis and disintegrative disorder, probably autism, following MMR. I shall now briefly present their case history [sic].” The statement continues with clinical descriptions of each child, taken directly from the report.

A final word from Wakefield

So, in Wakefield’s own words, here is the point he is making: “So there it is. These are the considered findings of one of the world’s leading pediatric gastroenterologists with an unparalleled experience of intestinal pathology in children, and a blinded review by an expert in intestinal pathology. These details were based upon histories and investigation findings that were independent of my input. The findings were faithfully reproduced in The Lancet paper, which was written pursuant to February 1997, at least two months after the meeting at the Wellcome Trust. There was absolutely no fraud. The remainder of Brian Deer’s allegations should be reviewed in light of the above.”

Seems like a fair point to us.

The BMJ is not impartial

Despite being seen as a bastion of medical research and academic independence, the BMJ is actually a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association, a trade union for UK doctors. As such, it is about as establishment as they come and could be expected to endorse the General Medical Council in striking off Wakefield. What is unexpected is the near-tabloid level they seem prepared to sink in the process: not only by asking a journalist lacking in any kind of scientific or medical background to write an unprecedented three articles in consecutive issues; but also by apparently failing to due any kind of due diligence, either by reading up on Wakefield’s side of the story or thoroughly checking Deer’s references. As we predicted in our previous article, and as Wakefield himself says, the BMJ now finds itself “in some difficulty”. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

ANH Homepage
ANH
Vaccine Choice campaign page

Updated: 28 Jan 2011

Thanks for your comment, Tim. We agree that the Wakefield case goes beyond merely the scientific and extends heavily into political, financial and personal spheres. We have spent some considerable time looking into the allegations made against Wakefield, mainly by Brian Deer (and subsequently taken up by the GMC), and examining how they compare against Wakefield’s side of the story presented in his book, Callous Disregard [www.callous-disregard.com], and elsewhere. There will be an ANH feature or two on this in the near future, but since you have identified some of the most crucial non-scientific accusations against Andrew Wakefield, we’d like to address them here.

Firstly, right from the off, it appears the ‘birthday party’ incident was, at the least, a gross error of judgement on Wakefield’s part. In fact, he compounded the initial mistake by using the episode in presentations he made to various audiences, and made things even worse for himself by treating the subject as a joke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTHDKNEx3lo]. Wakefield has admitted as much in interviews, for example, here [http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wakefield23.html#Q_5:_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_-_The_Birthday_Bloods.], saying “There was no approval to do it and nor did I think approval was necessary because it was done away from the Royal Free…that was naive and nowadays you would definitely need ethical committee approval, and you probably did then.” Not only was Wakefield’s conduct startlingly naïve, but it laid him open for attacks on his professional integrity, which have duly followed.

A £50,000 payment was made to Wakefield by the Legal Aid Board (LAB), of that there is no doubt. According to Callous Disregard, Wakefield was asked in the first half of 1996 for help by Richard Barr, of Dawbarn’s law firm, to “Review the safety of measles-containing vaccines (MCV) and, separately, to design a study that would help determine whether there was or was not a likely case in law against the manufacturers of MCV.” Crohn’s disease was the original focus of interest in terms of adverse vaccine reactions, but this later shifted to autism in children with intestinal symptoms. According to Callous Disregard – and this is an utterly crucial point – the £50,000 did not fund the Lancet 1998 paper (the case series of 12 children that was retracted in 2010), but “…an entirely separate scientific study looking for evidence of measles virus in the diseased intestine of affected children”.

Wakefield prepared a research proposal for Barr’s submission to the LAB, a proposal that was subsequently accepted, with grant money being administered from a designated research account and not from Wakefield’s ‘back pocket’. Wakefield did not hide the existence or the source of the grant from the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, his employers at the time, immediately informing the finance department – strange behaviour for a man who purportedly had something to hide, particularly a man who supposedly had manifested a complex plan to discredit UK vaccine policy and then make a profit.

The ethics committee of the BMA itself wholly approved the LAB funding of Wakefield’s research at the time. In response to a query from Zuckerman, Dr Mac Armstrong, the BMA ethics committee chairman, stated it was “…quite logical for the [LAB], as a publicly funded body to fund research on relevant issues in law, using government money essentially to sue other government departments. Independently conducted research may establish whether or not they have a case in law and is no different from commissioning a medical expert to provide a view.”

True, Wakefield did not declare the LAB funding to the Lancet at the time the 1998 article was submitted for publication. At that time, however, such disclosure was not necessary: the Lancet’s disclosure rules only required that authors declare direct conflicts of interest, such as funding by a pharmaceutical company for research into one of their drugs. The LAB grant could only have led to a perceived conflict of interest as it related to the 1998 Lancet paper, as it was for research by one author of 13 into a related, but distinct, subject to that of the 1998 paper. At the time, authors were not required to disclose perceived conflicts of interest, although this has since changed.

Without knowing the details of the other allegations you mention – that Wakefield spent money on services that were free on the NHS, or that he spent money on things not declared in the original research application – we cannot comment further on them. With regard to Deer, however, of course anyone is entitled to comment on any aspect of the Wakefield case as they see fit; that is what free speech is all about. What we do question is a journalist with no medical qualifications being given a three-part article in the BMJ to reheat prior accusations against a man already hounded from his job and his country. This is an entirely unique situation that sees the UK doctors’ trade union, the British Medical Association, using its wholly owned publishing arm, the BMJ, to continue a vendetta against one of its ex-members. We do not anticipate the BMJ giving any space to Wakefield to counter Deer’s accusations any time soon, and certainly not to the extent afforded Deer.

The issue of Wakefield’s own single-shot MMR vaccine is an interesting one. In June 1997, Wakefield lodged a preliminary application for a patent on “A pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of an MMR virus mediated disease comprising a double dialysed leucocyte extract containing a transfer factor”, which could be “adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus” [http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm]. On the surface, this seems pretty damning. However, there are other factors to consider, such as the attitude of Wakefield’s employers and the government over commericalisation of research findings. In a statement [http://briandeer.com/wakefield/mmr-questions.htm] released by Wakefield in answer to Deer’s accusation that he patented his own vaccine ready to profit when the existing MMR vaccine was discredited, he said: “No vaccine or anything resembling a vaccine was ever designed, developed or tested by me or by any of my colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital…it has never been my aim or intention to design, produce or promote a vaccine to compete with MMR… it was our intention, at one stage, to conduct a formal therapeutic clinical trial of a compound [transfer factor] that might have the ability to promote the body’s immune response to measles in order to assess the effects of this therapy upon the disease in children with regressive autism and bowel disease…. the aim of the patent was to generate funding for the research programme and a new Centre for Gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital. This can be substantiated by contemporaneous documentation. The patent application was motivated by two main factors. First, it was felt that there may be difficulty in raising traditional grant funding for cutting edge, controversial work that was vulnerable by virtue of the fact that it might conflict with perceived wisdom and the commercial interests of others. Secondly, there was, and is, a government-led emphasis on commercial exploitation of discoveries within the medical school.” We would be very interested to see the “contemporaneous documentation” that Wakefield refers to here, and in the closing chapters of Callous Disregard, he hints that a future volume will go into detail on this topic.

And speaking of detail, our features will go into far more of those when they are published, so keep looking back!

Finally, a word as to potential motive for the Wakefield witch-hunt. Who stood to be sued by the parents of vaccine-damaged children if Wakefield’s research established a link between MCV and serious adverse events? Why, the UK government, in the form of the Department of Health (DoH). The same DoH, incidentally, who approved for use on UK children a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine that had been linked with outbreaks of meningitis in Canada and subsequently withdrawn – in the very same month that the UK government approved it.

There is some confusion here. There may well be a perception that AW was struck off the Register for questioning vaccine safety and efficacy; and that may well underlie the action. However, reference to the headline BMA charges against him reveals prima facie evidence for unethical conduct, which by and of itself has to undermine anything he might say scientifically.
Specifically, he gave small sums of money to his own son, and also to other children present at his son's birthday party, in payment for blood samples. He also took £50,000 from the Legal Aid Board, part of which he then spent to pay for services freely available under the NHS. Other sums were spent in ways not declared under the terms of his original application for those funds. He did not declare this financial contribution to the editor of the Lancet; clearly this placed his scientific findings in potential conflict with his financial interests.
One can therefore see why Brian Deer might have valid reason to comment on the AW story . This is not simply a medical/scientific issue.
AW is perceived by the general public as being a champion of the common man against the big business interests of the pharmaceutical industry. However, one should realise that he is himself a man who has patented a "single-shot" measles vaccine. If the triple-shot MMR vaccine is shown to be dangerous, which is quite possibly the case, then AW will stand to gain financially, on a fairly massive scale, should his vaccine be cleared for world-wide use. He is not simply therefore a disinterested medical scientist; and the whole issue should be considered in the light of that caveat.

This is all well and good and gives truth a small toe in the doorway.

What needs to be considered, however, is the much larger picture comprising of two major elements:

1) Vaccines are one of the three major earners for the pharmaceutical cartel giving a turnover in the billions of pounds per year. The cartel operates a multi-million pound propaganda machine which has the task of preventing any real information about vaccines reaching the public at large.

2) There is not only ZERO hard evidence that vaccines achieve anything useful but even the theory upon which vaccination is based is, scientifically speaking, meaningless, self-contradictory mumbo-jumbo.

Blessed be

Karma Singh

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Sign up!

For our FREE Newsletter.


Get involved!

Is your voice heard?
Let's make a difference together...