Following a
Sunday Times
investigation by Brian
Deer,
Britain's premier medical
journal was forced to
retract fraudulent
research which caused a
global health crisis by
linking the measles,
mumps and rubella vaccine
with autism
Click here
for a summary:
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 GMC
inquiry: In
January 2010, a panel of
the UK's General Medical Council
vindicated Brian Deer's investigation.
Among four counts of proven dishonesty,
the panel found that Wakefield had
dishonestly misled The Lancet and its
readers over both the nature of the
research and how children came to be
included in the paper. It also found that
the ethical statement in the paper was
false, that there was no ethical approval
for the research, and that Wakefield was
"callous". Read the GMC's
findings
Fatal
interests:
On February 22 2004, the
London Sunday Times
splashed on Brian Deer's
investigation, with two
more pages
inside
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 February 2004
reports were published, the British prime
minister spoke out against the six-year
attack on MMR which had spun off the 1998
Lancet paper, 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 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
2004 -
partial retraction:
Since the Thalidomide scandal of the
1970s, journalism had scored few such
clear hits on medicine as on March 3 2004
- ten days after the first installment
from Deer's 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,
producing huge national media attention
(right). Wakefield himself would refuse
to join them, preferring to issue a statement claiming that he
didn't know what was being retracted. March
2004
February
2004:
Just ten days after Brian
Deer's first report, the
Wakefield allegation of
an MMR-autism link was
partially retracted
2010 -
full retraction:
Six years after the partial retraction,
the Lancet finally capitulated to Brian
Deer's investigation, after Deer was
backed by the UK General Medical Council.
Following a record-breaking 197 days of
evidence, submissions and deliberation,
on 28 January 2010 a GMC panel confirmed
all of the central findings of The Sunday
Times inquiry, branding Wakefield
"dishonest",
"unethical",
"irresponsible", and
"callous". Five days later,
Lancet editor Richard Horton said he had
been "deceived".
February 2010
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,withvastly 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 Determined
to deceive:
As Deer's investigation went forward
through 2007-2010, a dirty tricks
campaign was launched by a group of cranks
and opportunists, with no connection to
the subject, 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 with a string of fabrications. Statement
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 Brian Deer
compensation for the costs of defending
this website
MMR
mail:
Readers' emails
came in quickly following the
Sunday Times reports on February
22 2004, and continue to be
received. A minority are abusive,
as litigant-parents paradoxically
blame Brian Deer for Wakefield's
betrayal of their trust. Also,
among a spattering of crank
mailers was "expert
witness" Carol
Stott, a low-grade
psychologist, also hired by the
lawyers, for £100,000,
to back the now collapsed UK
anti-MMR vaccine campaign, which
was soon to be exported to the
United States of America. But
Deer stayed on the trail
Dateline
NBC: On 30
August 2009, Brian Deer and
Andrew Wakefield appeared on
Dateline NBC, reporting
on the former surgeon's claims.
In the clip here, some of Deer's
early findings (but not the February
2009 revelations) are
discussed. Wakefield replies
in another segment. With regard
to the Lancet children he says:
"Now let's be clear. They
were admitted to the Royal Free
for investigation of their
symptoms. Nothing to do with
research, nothing to do with
class action, nothing to do with
vaccines." These claims were
untrue
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 borrow from this
site, please check the copyright and
plagiarism notice
Andrew
Wakefield: his paper
fully retracted
February 2010:Ina statement from
the Lancet medical
journal, the claims made
by Andrew Wakefield and
his associates, linking
the MMR vaccine with
autism were fully
retracted. The decision -
finally capitulating to
Brian Deer's multi-part
investigation for The
Sunday Times - came just
five days after Wakefield
was found
to be
"dishonest",
"unethical",
"irresponsible"
and "callous"
by a disciplinary panel
of the UK General Medical
Council (GMC), following
up on Deer's reports.
The statement, dated 2
February 2010, said:
"Following the
judgment of the UK
General Medical Council's
Fitness to Practise Panel
on Jan 28, 2010, it has
become clear that several
elements of the 1998
paper by Wakefield et al
are incorrect, contrary
to the findings of an
earlier investigation. In
particular, the claims in
the original paper that
children were
'consecutively referred'
and that investigations
were 'approved' by the
local ethics committee
have been proven to be
false. Therefore we fully
retract this paper from
the published
record."
In a media furore similar
to the events of 2004,
described on this page,
The Guardian newspaper
reported: The
medical journal's editor,
Richard Horton, told the
Guardian today that he
realised as soon as he
read the GMC findings
that the paper, published
in February 1998, had to
be retracted. It
was utterly clear,
without any ambiguity at
all, that the statements
in the paper were utterly
false, he said.
I feel I was
deceived.
The full retraction came
just two weeks short of
six years after Brian
Deer first revealed
Wakefield's conflicts of
interest and dishonest
research methods, leading
to the partial retraction
described on this page.
At that time, the Lancet
dismissed most of the
very serious charges
found proven by the GMC
panel in January 2010.
Horton even wrote a book,
again rejecting what he
would later admit to be
true.
"A prominent British
medical journal on
Tuesday retracted a 1998
research paper that set
off a sharp decline in
vaccinations in Britain
after the papers
lead author suggested
that vaccines could cause
autism," reported
The New York Times.
"The retraction by
The Lancet is part of a
reassessment that has
lasted for years of the
scientific methods and
financial conflicts of Dr
Andrew Wakefield, who
contended that his
research showed that the
combined measles, mumps
and rubella vaccine may
be unsafe."
The Times said: "A
British medical panel
concluded last week that
Dr Wakefield had been
dishonest, violated basic
research ethics rules and
showed a 'callous
disregard' for the
suffering of children
involved in his research.
Dr Richard Horton, editor
in chief of The Lancet,
said that until that
decision, he had no proof
that Dr Wakefields
1998 paper was
deceptive.'That was a
damning indictment of
Andrew Wakefield and his
research,' Dr Horton
said.
In the report, Times
writer Gardner Harris,
explained: "Dr
Wakefields paper
reported on his
examinations of 12
children with chronic
intestinal disorders who
had a history of normal
development followed by
severe mental
regressions. He
speculated that the
combined measles, mumps
and rubella vaccine may
have caused some sort of
chronic intestinal
measles infection that in
turn damaged the
childrens brains.
He suggested that the
combined vaccine should
be split into three
separate shots and given
over a longer period of
time.
"But an
investigation by a
British journalist found
financial and scientific
conflicts that Dr
Wakefield did not reveal
in his paper. For
instance, part of the
costs of Dr
Wakefields research
were paid by lawyers for
parents seeking to sue
vaccine makers for
damages. Dr Wakefield was
also found to have patented
in 1997 a measles vaccine
that would succeed if the
combined vaccine were
withdrawn or
discredited."
The retraction didn't
answer all the questions,
however. Deer's
investigation also
revealed, in February
2009, wholesale
mismatches between data
in the Wakefield paper
and the medical records
of children enrolled in
his research.
Andrew
Wakefield: "my quest
for truth"
Wakefield's final
disgrace in 2010, when he
and his research were
confirmed as dishonest,
contrasts with the heady
days of just a few years
before. On 22 April 2002,
for example, he declamed
to a crowd at a
"Power of One
Idea" rally in
Washington DC, alleging
not only that MMR caused
autism, but that other
doctors knew this and
were covering it up.
"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."