News: High
Court judge criticises Andrew Wakefield for trying to
silence his critics
BMJ 2005;
331: 1104 (12 November 2005)
BMJ legal
correspondent Clare Dyer
Andrew Wakefield,
the doctor at the centre of the measles, mumps, and
rubella (MMR) vaccine controversy, was criticised by
a high court judge last week for trying to silence
critics by warning them that he was suing for libel
while at the same time failing to progress the case.
Mr Justice Eady said
that he was quite satisfied that Dr Wakefield, who
now works in Austin, Texas, “wished to extract
whatever advantage he could from the existence of the
proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to
give the defendants an opportunity of meeting the
claims.”
The judge refused Dr
Wakefield’s application to stay—put on
hold—the libel claim against Channel 4; 20-20
Productions; and a journalist, Brian Deer, over the
November 2004 Dispatches programme “MMR: What
They Didn’t Tell You.”
Dr Wakefield’s
lawyers had wanted this to be done, pending the final
outcome of the case brought against him by the
General Medical Council, due to be heard next summer.
Dr Wakefield led a
study published in 1998 in the Lancet on associations
between measles virus, autism, and bowel disease. At
a press conference to publicise the research, he
argued for single vaccines rather than the combined
MMR vaccination. The ensuing controversy led to a
dramatic drop in coverage.
The study focused on
tests carried out on 12 children with
gastrointestinal problems referred to the Royal Free
Hospital, where Dr Wakefield worked at the time. He
also received legal aid to carry out another study to
find out if parents who claimed their children were
damaged by the MMR vaccine had a case. Some children
were in both studies.
The Lancet later
said that this was a conflict of interest, which
would have ensured rejection of the paper, had the
journal known about it at the time.
Dr Wakefield’s
solicitors had written to Liberal Democrat MP Evan
Harris in February and the Cambridge Evening News in
June this year, warning them against repeating
defamatory statements made in the Dispatches
programme.
But the judge said
that the letters were misleading because they
referred to Dr Wakefield’s separate libel action
against the Sunday Times over articles by Mr Deer as
if it were current, when it had already been put on
hold by agreement.
The solicitors also
wrote, unsuccessfully, to the Department of Health,
asking it to remove links from its website to
information on the Dispatches programme on the
Channel 4 website and to Mr Deer’s website.
Mr Justice Eady
said, “It thus appears that the claimant wishes
to use the existence of the libel proceedings for
public relations purposes, and to deter other
critics, while at the same time isolating himself
from the “downside” of such litigation, in
having to answer a substantial defence of
justification.”
Dr Harris said,
“It is ironic that Dr Wakefield should try to
use such a ploy when he and his supporters allege
that he has been silenced by the medical
establishment.”
Dr Wakefield’s
solicitor, Simon Dinnick, said that the application
was “to avoid unnecessary duplication of time
and effort.” The legal proceedings would be
progressed with all due expedition, he said.
