 |
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 21, 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
|