 |
Dr Andrew
Wakefield,
in his own words:
"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 parent's and
children, are the source of the
inspiration and strength for our
endeav-ours; our quest for truth
through science - a science that
is compassionate, uncomprom-ising
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."
Andrew Wakefield, April 22,
2002, "Power of One
Idea" rally, Washington DC.
*****
"I did not
disclose to the Lancet that a
minority of the 12 children in
the 1998 Lancet report were also
part of a quite separate study
that was funded in part by the
Legal Aid Board. It is the
Lancet's opinion but not mine
that such a disclosure should
have been made since it may have
been perceived as a conflict of
interest. This is despite that
fact that the funding was
provided for a separate
scientific study. It needs to be
made clear that the funds from
the Legal Aid Board were not used
for the 1998 Lancet study, and
therefore I perceived that no
financial conflict of interest
existed."
Andrew Wakefield, statement
published on worldwide web,
February 2004.
*****
"As
far as Ethical Practices
Committee approval is concerned,
this was sought as soon as it
became apparent that the children
with autism who were undergoing
appropriate medical investigation
for their clinical symptoms
actually had an inflammatory
intestinal
disease."
Andrew Wakefield, letter to
Brian Deer, 12 February 2004.
*****
"Each child
who became a subject of the LAB
Pilot Study was necessarily a
client of Dawbarns (although not
necessarily a potential
litigant). That is because it was
Dawbarns who knew which of their
client children were in receipt
of legal aid, and notified [Dr
Wakefield] which of these
children had, by their guardians
or parents, told Dawbarns that
they had been referred to
Professor Walker-Smith and/or RFH
for investi-gation of their
symptoms."
Andrew Wakefield, reply to
Channel 4, 19 December 2005.
*****
"Almost 6
years have passed since AJW
disclosed in a letter published
in The Lancet that he was
undertaking a pilot study on
behalf of the Legal Aid Board
(later to become the Legal
Services Commission)."
Andrew Wakefield, letter to
The Lancet, 17 April 2004.
*****
"No vaccine or
anything resembling a vaccine was
ever designed, developed or
tested by me or by any of my
colleagues at the Royal Free
Hospital; it has never been my
aim or intention to design,
produce or promote a vaccine to
compete with MMR ...
"The reference to the
possible use of TF to protect
children against measles
infection – the thrust of
the Sunday Times’ conspiracy
theory – was put in as an
afterthought in the patent."
Andrew Wakefield, statement
published on worldwide web,
November 2004.
*****
"By the time
we applied the viral detection
technology to the intestinal
tissues of children with autism,
new and more sensitive technology
had come to my attention. This
includes the technique of TaqMan
PCR and was state-of-the-art
technology being used by a few
expert centres, including that of
Professor John O’Leary
(JO’L), then at Cornell
University in New York. I went to
New York to meet with JO’L.
He presented evidence that his
technique could detect down to 2
viral copies, compared with
NC’s 10,000.
"The advantages were obvious
and the possibility that
NC’s results were falsely
negative (i.e. that the virus was
present in the tissues but at
very low levels that NC’s
technique could not detect) could
now be addressed by the new
technology."
Andrew Wakefield, statement
published on worldwide web,
November 2004.
*****
"To
the extent the same was required,
Dr Wakefield had in place valid
ethical approval for his
researches at all times. In
contrast to a clinical research
study requiring ethical approval,
the Early Report was a report of
clinical findings of tests which
had been performed solely on the
basis of clinical need."
Letter from Andrew
Wakefield's solicitor, January
2005.
*****
"The
money that I received was, after
tax and out of pocket expenses,
donated to an initiative to
create a new center, in the first
instance at the Royal Free
Hospital, for the care of
autistic children and those with
bowel disease. This was
unsuccesful at the Royal Free but
ultimately succeeded in the US.
This intention was made clear, in
writing, to senior members of the
medical school."
Andrew Wakefield, email
concerning expert fees, 22
December 2006.
*****
A further
index of documents - on the Royal Free hospital - is
available to view at this
website.
Contact
Brian Deer
|