Journalist hits back over "inexcusable" journal that "risked children's safety"

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 a five-hour confidential briefing on Wednesday 18 February 2004 by Brian Deer to six Lancet senior staff and a member of parliament, editor Dr Richard Horton broke an embargo agreed with The Sunday Times and rushed out an admission that the journal was wrong to have published the research. Here is how the Press Association reported the story

LANCET DOUBTS VALIDITY OF CONTROVERSIAL MMR REPORT;

HEALTH;MMR Substitute
Byline: By Tim Moynihan, PA News
Issue Date: Friday February 20, 2004

Eminent medical journal The Lancet tonight cast serious doubt on the paperit published six years ago which started the scare over the MMR jab.

The publication in 1998 of the study by Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleaguesat London's Royal Free Hospital led to fears of a possible link between themeasles, mumps rubella vaccine and autism, which continue to lead to reducedtake-up of the vaccine today.

Tonight The Lancet said Dr Wakefield had been carrying out studies both forthe Royal Free and for the Legal Aid Board which created the risk of a conflict of interest.

The journal rejected allegations, though, that ethics approval for the investigations on the children reported in the study had not been given.

Its editor Richard Horton told BBC TV News: ``If we knew then what we know now, we certainly would not have published the part of the paper that related to MMR, although I do believe there was, and remains, validity to the connection between bowel disease and autism, which does need further investigation, but I believe the MMR element of that is invalid.''

Dr Wakefield said in a statement to the editors of The Lancet: ``The clinical and pathological findings in these children stand as reported.''

He added: ``My colleagues and I have acted at all times in the best medical interests of these children and will continue to do so.''

The journal's editors said that on Wednesday they were made aware of serious allegations, put to them by investigative reporter Brian Deer working for The Sunday Times, of research misconduct concerning the article.

They rejected claims that ethics approval for the investigations conducted on the children reported in the study had not been given.

They also dismissed an allegation that the children were not consecutively referred to the hospital, but instead invited to participate by Dr Wakefield and Professor John Walker-Smith, thus biasing the selection of children in favour of families reporting an association between their child's illness and the MMR vaccine.

It was also alleged that some of the children in the Lancet study were also part of a Legal Aid Board funded pilot project, led by Dr Wakefield, which had the aim of investigating the grounds for pursuing legal action on behalf of parents of allegedly vaccine-damaged children.

It was claimed that Dr Wakefield received Pounds 55,000 from the Legal Aid Board to conduct the pilot project and that, since there was a substantial overlap of children in both studies, this was a financial conflict of interest which should have been declared to the editors and his co-authors.

The editors said Dr Wakefield had two roles in this work.

``First, he was the lead investigator of a Royal Free study into the nature of a new syndrome with bowel and psychiatric symptoms.

``Second, he was commissioned through a lawyer to undertake virological investigations as part of a study funded by the Legal Aid Board.

``At the time of submission and eventual publication of his 1998 Lancet paper, this second study had not been disclosed to the editors of The Lancet and his co-authors.''

They said ``the perception of a potential conflict of interest remains'', adding: ``This funding source should, we judge, have been disclosed to the editors of the journal.''

Prof Walker-Smith denied in a statement to the editors that there had been bias in the pattern of referral for the children in the Lancet paper.

``No children were invited to participate in the study,'' he said.

Dr Wakefield agreed in his statement that the children were referred according to clinical need.

``Whether parents perceived an association with MMR vaccine or not, whether parents had approached lawyers with the intent to seek legal redress, or whether children were in receipt of legal aid funding or not, had no bearing whatsoever on their selection for clinical investigation or inclusion in the Lancet report.''

He said he had had no specific knowledge of the legal status of the children on whom he was undertaking the virological studies.

He added: ``Funds received from the Legal Aid Board were paid into, and properly administered through, a research account with the special trustees of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.''

The Royal Free and University College Medical School and the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust told the editors: ``We are entirely satisfied that the investigations performed on the children reported in the Lancet paper had been subjected to appropriate and rigorous ethical scrutiny.''

Tonight, Sunday Times reporter Deer told PA News: ``Following a five hour confidential briefing to the Lancet by myself on Wednesday, Richard Horton, the editor, has chosen to attempt to defend his own inexcusable publication of the MMR paper, which has jeopardised the health and safety of millions of children around the world.

``He has attempted a classic tabloid journalistic `spoiler' in an attempt to distract attention from the very serious allegations which will be published in The Sunday Times this week.''

Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, a member of the science and technology select committee who has seen the paperwork underlying the Sunday Times story, told PA News: ``What the Lancet has found is a serious matter of non disclosure and conflict of interest, which has an impact on the credibility and validity of the interpretation of the research findings.

``Given the importance attached to the work of the Royal Free Hospital group by the media in the MMR debate, an inquiry is needed to establish what actually happened during this study and related studies and how Legal Aid Board funding was spent.

He added: ``The Lancet and Royal Free have investigated themselves, and parents worried about MMR will need a fully independent inquiry.''