Taxpayer cash
for MMR action is stopped after £15m
that stoked fear was spent
This page
is research from an award-winning investigation, concluding in
2011, by Brian Deer for The Sunday
Times of London into a campaign linking
the MMR children's
vaccine with autism based on fraudulent
research by British former doctor Andrew
Wakefield
After
£15m of public money was spent on
pursuing a High Court action - money
which fed directly into creating the
scare over MMR - the UK Legal Services
Commission cut the cash. Despite the
investment, there simply was no
convincing evidence of what the Lancet
paper had suggested: that the triple
shots may be linked with autism. Here are
two press releases which marked the end
of the road
1 October 2003
DECISION TO REMOVE FUNDING
FOR MMR LITIGATION UPHELD ON APPEAL
The Legal Services Commission's
(LSC's) decision to remove funding
for the Measles, Mumps and Rubella
(MMR) litigation was upheld by a
Funding Review Committee at a hearing
yesterday.The Funding Review
Committee is an independent body,
made up of solicitors and barristers
from private practice. The Funding
Review Committee that heard the MMR
appeal consisted of an eminent Queens
Counsel barrister and solicitors who
are experts in this area.
The parents involved in this action
believe the MMR vaccine has injured
their children. It is clear to see
that the children are suffering from
a number of conditions, most
seriously, regressive autism or a new
type of bowel disease. These
illnesses are severe and of
sufficient wider public interest to
justify the LSC's significant
investment of £15million in this
case.
Despite this investment, medical
research has yet to prove a
conclusive link between the MMR
vaccine and Autistic Spectrum
Disorder. Additionally, no link has
been proven by any other medical
body. There remains no acceptance
within the worldwide medical
authorities that MMR causes the
symptoms seen in these children.
Therefore, the litigation is very
likely to fail. It would not be
correct to spend a further
£10million of public money funding a
trial that is very unlikely to
succeed.
Clare Dodgson, Chief Executive of the
LSC said: "I appreciate that
this decision will come as a great
disappointment to the parents
involved. I sympathise with their
situation. Their children are clearly
ill and they genuinely believe the
MMR vaccine caused their illnesses.
However, this litigation is very
unlikely to prove their suspicions.
It would be wrong to raise their
hopes unreasonably by proceeding with
this litigation." All the
research paid for by the LSC will be
sent to the Medical Research Council
who are investigating the causes of
autism.
Notes to Editors
1. The Legal Services Commission is
responsible for providing legal aid
for Multi-Party Actions, providing
the individuals involved meet our
financial means test and the case has
good legal merits.
2. The LSC, formerly the Legal Aid
Board, has funded the MMR litigation
since 1992. The funding provided has
primarily been spent on research into
the medical link between the
children's symptoms and the MMR
vaccine.
3. The MMR case has been brought
under the Consumer Protection Act
1987, on the basis that MMR is a
defective product and should not have
been used. There is a limit of 10
years on the time in which an action
can be brought under the Consumer
Protection Act. Therefore, it was
necessary to start court proceedings
before the medical research had
concluded. The court has scheduled a
6 month trial starting in April 2004,
where the possible link between MMR
and the children's symptoms will be
tried.
4. Under the Legal Aid Act 1988 the
LSC is obliged to withdraw funding
where a case no longer meets the
legal merits test. Cases must have
reasonable prospects of success, and
the cost of the action must be
reasonable, compared with the
potential damages. If funding is
withdrawn by the LSC, any legally
aided individual has a right of
appeal to a Funding Review Committee.
5. This was the first case in which
research had been funded by legal
aid. In retrospect, it was not
effective or appropriate for the LSC
to fund research. The courts are not
the place to prove new medical
truths. The Medical Research Council
(MRC) is the appropriate body to
investigate the cause of these
children's illnesses. The latest MRC
report on autism states that the
causes "remain, to a large
extent, unidentified". The MRC
are looking for research into the
medical "mechanisms"
causing autism.
27 February 2004
JUDICIAL REVIEW AGAINST MMR
FUNDING DECISION DISMISSED
In the High Court today, Mr Justice
Davis has dismissed the judicial
review against the Legal Services
Commission’s decision to remove
legal aid for the MMR litigation. The
judicial review was brought by
Alexander Harris solicitors on behalf
of a child whose parents believe he
was harmed by the MMR vaccine. That
child is part of the larger group
action known as the MMR litigation.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC)
withdrew funding for the MMR
litigation on 29 September 2003 on
the grounds that the litigation,
which was seeking to establish a link
between MMR and autism or bowel
disease did not have any reasonable
prospect of success. On 30 September
2003, this decision was supported by
a Funding Review Committee, an
independent appeal body, made up of
an eminent Queens Counsel barrister
and three expert solicitors.
Clare Dodgson, Chief Executive of the
LSC, said: “I welcome
today’s judgement. I was always
satisfied our decision and that of
the Funding Review Committee was
correct. I have every sympathy for
the parents. Their children are
clearly ill and they genuinely
believe the MMR vaccine caused their
illnesses. However, I am not
convinced that legal action is the
best way of deciding this matter. Any
more legal challenges will drag out
the process, which could ultimately
result in further distress for the
families.”
Notes to editors
1. The Legal Services Commission
(LSC) is responsible for providing
legal aid for Multi-Party Actions,
providing the individuals involved
meet our financial means test and the
case has good legal merits.
2. Under the Legal Aid Act 1988, the
LSC is obliged to withdraw funding
where a case no longer meets the
legal merits test. Cases must have
reasonable prospects of success and
the cost of the action must be
reasonable, compared to the potential
damages. When the LSC withdraws
funding, any legally aided individual
has a right of appeal to a Funding
Review Committee
|