Brian
Deer: the
Lancet scandal
 |
|
| Following a
Sunday Times
investigation by Brian
Deer,
researchers at Britain's Royal
Free hospital
retracted claims that are
causing a worldwide
health crisis by linking
the measles, mumps and
rubella vaccine with
autism |
|
|
|
| Click here
for a narrative:
In February 1998, the Lancet medical
journal triggered a global alarm with
research proposing a link between the
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism.
The researchers' leader, Andrew
Wakefield called for the vaccine
to be "suspended".
Brian Deer investigated for The Sunday
Times of London and exposed one of
medicine's darkest scandals |
Research
scandal revealed: When
in February 1998 13 doctors, led by
former gut surgeon Andrew Wakefield, from
London's Royal Free hospital, published research, in the Lancet
medical journal, linking MMR
with autism, it
triggered a slump in immunization levels
and led to outbreaks of infectious disease.
But the key finding was a sham:
laundering anonymized allegations by claimants in a lawsuit
against vaccine makers - which Wakefield
had been paid huge sums to back. The
Sunday Times, February 22 2004
Authors
retract finding:
Since the Thalidomide scandal of the
1970s, journalism had scored few such
clear hits on medicine as on March 3 2004
- ten days after Deer's Sunday Times
investigation was published - when 10 of
the 13 authors of the Lancet paper
formally withdrew their finding of a
possible link between MMR and autism.
Wakefield himself would refuse to join
them, preferring to issue a statement claiming that he
didn't know what was being retracted. Associated
Press |
|
 |
| Fatal
interests:
On February 22 2004, the
London Sunday Times
splashed on Brian Deer's
investigation, with two
more pages inside |
 |
| Claims
withdrawn:
Ten day's after Brian
Deer's first report, the
Wakefield allegation of
an MMR-autism link was
formally retracted |
|
|
|
What they
didn't tell you:
Brian Deer continued his investigation in
a Channel 4 Dispatches
documentary, revealing more extraordinary
findings about the Royal Free and Andrew
Wakefield. One discovery was a string of patent
applications - for a vaccine
and products that could only have
succeeded if MMR's reputation was
damaged. Criticism of MMR shots was
tracked to a bizarre professor, Hugh Fudenberg, who claims to
cure autism in his kitchen. And
unreported results from Wakefield's
own lab were found that rebutted
his theories
"So
serious": In
the week after the first part of Brian
Deer's Sunday Times MMR investigation was
published, Britain was gripped with
concern over the revelations about
Wakefield, who had been regarded as an
independent scientist. In an atmosphere
of public uproar, many newspapers noted
allegations left unresolved. Some tried
to reconstruct events in the affair,
which focused on two ex-Royal Free
doctors: Andrew Wakefield, and Richard
Horton, editor of the Lancet. The
Independent |
Tony Blair
joins calls:
The day after Brian Deer's investigation
was published, the British prime minister
spoke out against the six-year attack on
MMR which had spun off the 1998 Lancet
paper's publication, and Wakefield's
campaign. Blair said he hoped people
would now see that there was no link
shown between the vaccine and autism, and
urged an end to the controversy. The
Guardian
Children
at risk: Even
before Brian Deer's first report hit the
streets, a war of words between the
reporter and the medical journal had
broken out over what the investigation
had discovered. Although the Lancet
admitted error, it issued a statement shrugging off
critical issues raised, both at the Royal
Free hospital, and for parents who had
shunned MMR after frightening publicity. PA
News
The Lancet
panics: Three
days before Brian Deer's story ran, he
briefed the Lancet's editor, Dr Richard Horton and six Lancet
staff. The meeting took five
hours, and was attended by Dr
Evan Harris MP. Only 48 hours later,
Horton press-released the meeting,
breaching a confidentiality agreement.
Horton denied a breach, claiming it was
his duty to make the information known
immediately
Running
scared: With the
Lancet responsible for publishing the
sham scientific finding, the journal's
editor, Dr Richard Horton - a former Royal
Free hospital doctor who had worked under
Wakefield's mentor, Professor Roy Pounder - now rushed out
"regret" for the "fatally
flawed" research that he had
championed for six years. He even wrote
two books justifying this. BBC
Online News |
| Investigation
reverses decline in UK parents'
confidence in triple vaccine but fails to
stop resurgence of measles |
Trend
reversed:
After years of decline, following Andrew
Wakefield's campaign against the vaccine,
the graph to the right
shows how Brian Deer's 2004 MMR
investigation reversed the decline in
vaccination rates, as parents realised
they had been misled by Wakefield's
claims. As UK department of
health charts showed, falls in
public confidence could be linked
directly to Wakefield's attacks, which
began with allegations from him that the
triple shot may cause the inflammatory
bowel disorder Crohn's disease. In the
aftermath of Deer's first findings, the
tone of most media coverage changed
Measles
outbreaks:
In the years after Wakefield's claims,
measles outbreaks returned to the UK,
including the first death in 14 years.
Meanwhile, parents of many autistic
children suffered guilt, blaming
themselves, wrongly believing Wakefield's
implied message: that it was their own
fault that their children had problems,
because they had agreed to vaccination.
By 2009, health bodies in Britain, the
United States, Canada, Australia and many
other countries were reporting outbreaks
of measles: which many experts had
forecast could be eradicated |
|
 |
| Bouncing
back:
Andrew Wakefield's
campaign caused a
collapse in UK
immunisation rates,
reversed by Brian Deer's
investigation for The
Sunday Times of London.
These official data are
for England |
 |
| Endemic
again:
Wakefield's legacy is
fear, guilt and, above
all, disease - as the
graph here of confirmed
measles infections
reveals |
|
|
|
MMR - the
truth: The
recovery in vaccination rates came as the
public realized that Andrew Wakefield's
claims against MMR were based on a severe
conflict of interest. The global scare
rested on claims by the parents of only eight
children. But most of them were lawyers' clients and members of
campaign groups - countering assertions
that the study was based on routine referrals - and Wakefield
had been funded through an undisclosed deal to help them sue
drug companies. The Sunday Times,
February 22 2004, with
vastly more money revealed in The
Sunday Times on December 31 2006
Payments
revealed: Later
in the investigation by Brian
Deer, huge payments to Wakefield
were revealed by the Legal Services
Commission, responding to a Freedom of
Information Act request from Deer. In
December 2006, the commission released a
table, showing fees to Wakefield - never
before publicly disclosed - of £435,643
[approximately $780,000
US]. Indeed, Wakefield's supporters
repeatedly denied that he was ever
paid at all to conduct his alleged
research. Others were also paid
huge sums for the legal attack on MMR |
| Ethical
concerns come over children's treatment
to the fore as General Medical Council
moves against Wakefield |
Royal Free
ethics doubts: Confidential
documents obtained during Brian Deer's
inquiries reveal that the hospital's
ethics committee was told that a battery
of tests on vulnerable
children was "clinically
indicated" and so not needing
ethical approval. But, as reported in The Times, this was
challenged, and became central to a
disciplinary case. A chart here asks
visitors to make up their own minds
Lancet
study "not ethically approved": Despite
claims by the Lancet to be at the
forefront of moves to raise ethical
standards, the research as published by
Wakefield et al was challenged as not
approved by any ethics committee. The
page at this link compares the Royal Free
ethical submission with what was actually
published in the journal. Later Wakefield
claimed he didn't need approval
MMR in
parliament:
On March 15 2004, Dr Evan Harris MP
called a brief parliamentary debate,
during which he took up the ethical
issues raised in Brian Deer's
investigation: whether a battery of
potentially hazardous tests on autistic
children were justified. He said he
believed the issues could be as serious
as how the public had been misled by the
discredited Lancet paper's claims.
Hansard
Road
closed: On
February 27 2004, the UK's Legal Services
Commission - which had paid for the
vaccine controversy - announced that a
judicial review had rejected a request
for reconsideration of a decision to end
funding the lawsuit, which had
contributed £15m towards manufacturing
the worldwide scare. It said that the
courtroom was no place to "prove new
medical truths" Press
release |
GMC
inquiry: After
the submission of Deer's evidence to the General
Medical Council, the British
doctors' regulatory body announced that
it would hold a public inquiry into
Wakefield's conduct. The Sunday
Times, December 12 2004. Later,
the paper revealed the preliminary
charges, which he denies.
The Sunday Times, September 11 2005
|
|
|
|
Determined
to deceive:
As Andrew Wakefield faced prosecution by
the GMC, a dirty tricks campaign was
launched, falsely alleging that Deer was
working with the drug industry. One
architect of this campaign was a shadowy
character from Spain, who latched onto
families to publish a string of
fabrications meant to discredit Deer. Statement,
September 7 2008
|
| Prior
Knowledge:
A key document obtained during the
investigation revealed that,
before any children were
admitted for tests, Andrew Wakefield and
the lawyer Richard Barr obtained funding
for their MMR project after telling the
UK Legal Aid Board in June 1996 that they
already knew of a "new
syndrome" of autism and
bowel disease, with the evidence
"undeniably in favour of a specific
vaccine induced pathology".
Twenty-one months later, the Lancet paper
would announce precisely such a "new
syndrome" |
Post
perspective: Among
the extensive international reportage of
the MMR investigation was a long and
detailed account in the Washington Post
by distinguished journalist Glenn
Frankel. Among his
findings was a plan by Wakefield to move
his crusade to Texas where, according to
one source, his "entrepreneurial
spirit" will find "fertile
ground" in US privatized health
care. Washington Post
Vehement
denials: Although Andrew Wakefield
refused requests from Brian Deer to
discuss the vital issues at stake for
children's safety, he
issued a string of statements entirely
rejecting every criticism. Later, he sued
Deer, The Sunday Times and Channel 4
Television for libel, but in January 2007
abandoned his claim and paid Deer
compensation for the costs of defending
this website
MMR mail:
Readers' emails came in
fast following the Sunday Times reports
on February 22 2004, and continue to be
received. Many are abusive, as
litigant-parents paradoxically blame
Brian Deer for Wakefield's betrayal of
their trust. Among a spattering of crank
mailers was "expert witness" Carol Stott, also hired by
the lawyers, for £100,000,
to back the anti-MMR vaccine campaign
 |
|
As
taught in schools: In 2008,
Deer scored a professional first
when findings from his
investigation became the subject
for an exam question for British teenagers,
set by the UK Assessment and
Qualifications Alliance. See
question 5 at this link, and, if
you feel you need to, go here to see
how you would have scored on this
GCSE topic |
|
| Brian
Deer's Sunday Times reports investigating
the MMR vaccine, autism and Dr Andrew
Wakefield |
| Contact
Brian at this link: Visitors
often offer vital information for this
and other investigations. Please feel
free to email Brian Deer
with your suggestions, comments and
ideas. If you plan to quote from this
site, please acknowledge, and check the copyright notice |
|
|
 |
Andrew
Wakefield: "my quest
for truth"
"We are in the midst
of an international
epidemic. Those
responsible for
investigating and dealing
with this epidemic have
failed. Among the reasons
for this failure is the
fact that they are faced
with the prospect that
they themselves may be
responsible for the
epidemic.
"Therefore, in their
efforts to exonerate
themselves they are an
impediment to progress. I
believe that public
health officials know
there is a problem; they
are, however, willing to
deny the problem and
accept the loss of an
unknown number of
children on the basis
that the success of
public health policy -
mandatory vaccination -
by necessity involves
sacrifice.
"Neither I, nor my
colleagues subscribe to
the belief that any child
is expendable. History
has encountered and dealt
with such beliefs.
"You, the parents
and children, are the
source of the inspiration
and strength for our
endeavours; our quest for
truth through science - a
science that is
compassionate,
uncom-promising and
uncompromised.
"I do not mean to
stir you to mutiny, but
be assured that armed
with this science it is
in your power to force
this issue, in your
pediatricians office, in
Congress, in the Law
Courts.
"Keep faith with
your instincts. They have
served you well."
Andrew Wakefield,
April 22, 2002,
"Power of One
Idea" rally,
Washington DC
The
claim that MMR
does
cause
autism
"It has now also
been shown that use of
the MMR vaccine (which is
taken to include live
attenuated measles
vaccine virus, measles
virus, mumps vaccine
virus and rubella vaccine
virus, and wild strains
of the aforementioned
viruses) results in ileal
lymphoid hyperplasia,
chronic colitis and
pervasive developmental
disorder including autism
(RBD), in some infants.
Before vaccination the
infants were shown to
have a normal development
pattern but often within
days of receiving the
vaccination some infants
can begin to noticeably
regress over time leading
to a clinical diagnosis
of autism."
Andrew Wakefield, UK
patent application GB2325856,
priority date 6
June 1997,
published 9th December
1998
On
his legal aid deal
for vaccine tests:
"I
did not disclose to the
Lancet that a minority of
the 12 children in the
1998 Lancet report were
also part of a quite
separate study that was
funded in part by the
Legal Aid Board. It is
the Lancet's opinion but
not mine that such a
disclosure should have
been made since it may
have been perceived as a
conflict of interest.
This is despite that fact
that the funding was
provided for a separate
scientific study. It
needs to be made clear
that the funds from the
Legal Aid Board were not
used for the 1998 Lancet
study, and therefore I
perceived that no
financial conflict of
interest existed."
Andrew Wakefield, statement
published on worldwide
web, February 2004
"No
interpretation" in
Wakefield paper
"On March 6 2004,
some of our ex-colleagues
issued a ‘retraction
of an
interpretation’, not
a retraction of the
factual content of the
paper, as widely
inferred.
Since no
interpretation of the
possible MMR/autism link
was offered in the
original 1998 Lancet
report, other than to
state that the data did
not constitute evidence
of an association and
suggest that further
research was required, it
is difficult to know
quite what has been
retracted."
Andrew Wakefield, letter
to the Lancet, 17 April
2004
From
the 1998 Lancet
paper:
"Interpretation.
We identified associated
gastrointestinal disease
and developmental
regression in a group of
previously normal
children, which was
generally associated in
time with possible
environmental
triggers.”
"Study
was passed by ethics
committee"
"You seem to be
unaware of the fact that
our collaborative effort
at the Royal Free has
made an important
discovery - a novel
inflammatory bowel
disease in children with
autism...As far as
Ethical Practices
Committee approval is
concerned, this was
sought as soon as it
became apparent that the
children with autism who
were undergoing
appropriate medical
investigation for their
clinical symptoms
actually had an
inflammatory intestinal
disease... At the point
at which the clinical
findings justified a more
detailed study of the
underlying pathology with
a view to publication,
the relevant approval was
sought and obtained.
Pending the approval of
the proposed study it
remained entirely
reasonable to follow
normal practice and
continue with the
clinical investigation of
potentially affected
children. It was,
however, necessary to
obtain Ethical Committee
approval for the purposes
of reporting our
findings. This approval
was duly obtained. As
stated in the Lancet
paper, therefore, the
study of these children
was approved by the
Ethical Practices
Committee of the
Trust."
Andrew Wakefield, letter
to The Sunday Times, 12
February 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
