Journalist
hits back over "inexcusable" journal
that "risked children's safety"
This page is
research from an investigation by Brian Deer for The Sunday Times of London and
the UK's Channel 4 Television into a campaign
linking the MMR children's
vaccine with autism. | Go to part I:
The Lancet scandal | Go to part II:
The Wakefield factor
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.''
|
