MMR
DOCTOR GIVEN LEGAL AID THOUSANDS
The
Sunday Times (London) December 31 2006
Brian
Deer
ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose
campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a
collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than
£400,000 by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine
was unsafe.
The
payments, unearthed by The Sunday Times, were part of
£3.4m distributed from the legal aid fund to doctors
and scientists who had been recruited to support a
now failed lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.
Critics
this weekend voiced amazement at the sums, which they
said created a clear conflict of interest and were
the “financial engine” behind a worldwide
alarm over the triple measles, mumps and rubella
shot.
“These
figures are astonishing,” said Dr Evan Harris,
Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.
“This
lawsuit was an industry, and an industry peddling
what turned out to be a myth.”
According
to the figures, released under the Freedom of
Information Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in
fees, plus £3,910 expenses.
Wakefield’s
work for the lawyers began two years before he
published his now notorious report in The Lancet
medical journal in February 1998, proposing a link
between the vaccine and autism.
This
suggestion, followed by a campaign led by Wakefield,
caused immunisation rates to slump from 92% to 78.9%,
although they have since partly recovered. In March
this year the first British child in 14 years died
from measles.
Later
The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s claim and
apologised after a Sunday Times investigation showed
that his research had been backed with £55,000 from
lawyers, and that the children in the study used as
evidence against the vaccine were also claimants in
the lawsuit.
At
the time Wakefield denied any conflict of interest
and said that the money went to his hospital, not to
him personally. No disclosure was made, however, of
the vastly greater sums that he was receiving
directly from the lawyers.
The
bulk of the amount in the new figures, released by
the Legal Services Commission (LSC), covers an eight
to 10-year period. All payments had to be approved by
the courts.
Those
who received money include numerous Wakefield
associates, business partners and employees who had
acted as experts in the case.
Five
of his former colleagues at the Royal Free hospital,
north London, under whose aegis The Lancet paper was
written, received a total of £183,000 in fees,
according to the LSC.
Wakefield
now runs a business in Austin, Texas, two of whose
employees are listed as receiving a total of
£112,000 in fees, while a Florida physician, who
appointed the former surgeon as his “director of
research”, was paid £21,600, the figures show.
All
have appeared in media reports as apparently
confirming Wakefield’s claims.
It is
understood that the payments — for writing
reports, attending meetings and in some cases
carrying out research — were made at hourly
rates varying between £120 and £200, or £1,000 a
day.
“There
was a huge conflict of interest,” said Dr John
March, an animal vaccine specialist who was among
those recruited. “It bothered me quite a lot
because I thought, well, if I’m getting paid for
doing this, then surely it’s in my interest to
keep it going as long as possible.”
March,
who the LSC allowed almost £90,000 to research an
aspect of Wakefield’s theories, broke ranks this
weekend to denounce both the science of the attack
and the amount that the case had cost in
lawyers’ and experts’ fees.
“The
ironic thing is they were always going on about how,
you know, how we’ve hardly got any money
compared with the other side, who are funded by large
pharmaceutical companies. And I’m thinking,
judging by the amounts of money you’re paying
out, the other side must be living like
millionaires,” he said.
Also
among those named as being paid from the legal aid
fund was a referee for one of Wakefield’s
papers, who was allowed £40,000. A private GP who
runs a single vaccines clinic received £6,000, the
LSC says.
Following
The Sunday Times investigation, immunisation rates
have risen and the General Medical Council launched
an inquiry. This is due to culminate in a three-month
hearing next summer, where Wakefield faces charges
— which he denies — of dishonesty over his
research.
The
LSC is also unlikely to escape criticism. Three years
ago the commission, which administers a £2 billion
budget to give poor people access to justice,
acknowledged that the attempt to make a case against
MMR with taxpayers’ money was “not
effective or appropriate”.
The
total cost for the attack on the vaccine was
£14,053,856, plus Vat.
Following
media campaigning, lawyers eventually registered
1,600 claimants in the lawsuit. None received any
money.
This
weekend Earl Howe, a Conservative party health
spokesman, called for a parliamentary inquiry.
“It’s astonishing,” he said.
“This is crying out for select committee
scrutiny.”
Wakefield
said in a statement that he had worked on the lawsuit
for nine years, charged at a recommended rate, and
gave money to charity.
“This
work involved nights, weekends and much of my
holidays, such that I saw little of my family during
this time,” he said. “I believed and still
believe in the just cause of the matter under
investigation.”
Copyright,
Brian Deer. All rights reserved. No portion of this
article on MMR, Andrew Wakefield and the legal aid
fund may be copied, retransmitted, reposted,
duplicated or otherwise used without the express
written approval of the author. Responses,
information and other feedback are appreciated - via
the briandeer.com
homepage.
