Meaning of a
programme: what Channel 4 Dispatches
revealed about "MMR doctor"
This page
is material from the award-winning investigation by Brian Deer for The Sunday Times of London, the
UK’s Channel 4 TV network and BMJ, the British
Medical Journal, which exposed vaccine
research fraudster Andrew Wakefield |
Investigation
summary
Following
the broadcast of Brian Deer's Dispatches
investigation, MMR - What they
didn't tell you, in November 2004, Dr Andrew Wakefield, the programme's
subject, issued a claim for libel.
Although Wakefield's lawyers immediately
attempted to stay, or freeze, the action,
he was ordered in the High Court to
proceed with it. But, on 2 January 2007,
he abandoned his claim, and
agreed to pay the defendants' costs.
Below is how the parties explained to the
court what the programme said about the
anti-MMR campaigner
| In his
claim for libel, Andrew Wakefield
submitted that Brian Deer's
Channel 4 Dispatches
investigation, "MMR - What
they didn't tell you",
broadcast on 18 November 2004,
alleged that he, Wakefield: |
In their
defence, pleading justification,
Channel 4 Television Corporation,
Twenty Twenty Productions Ltd and
Brian Deer submitted that the
Dispatches programme, in fact,
alleged that Wakefield: |
(i) Spread
fear that the MMR vaccine might
lead to autism, even though he
knew that his own laboratory had
carried out tests whose results
dramatically contradicted his
claims in that the measles virus
had not been found in a single
one of the children concerned in
his study and he knew or ought to
have known that there was
absolutely no basis at all for
his belief that the MMR should be
broken up into single vaccines.
|
(i) Had
dishonestly and irresponsibly
spread fear that the MMR vaccine
might cause autism in some
children, even though he knew
that his own laboratory's tests
dramatically contradicted his
claims and he knew or ought to
have known that there was
absolutely no scientific basis at
all for his belief that MMR
should be broken up into single
vaccines. |
| (ii) In
spreading such fear, acted
dishonestly and for mercenary
motives in that, although he
improperly failed to disclose the
fact, he planned a rival vaccine
and products (such as a
diagnostic kit based on his
theory) that could have made his
fortune. |
(ii) In
spreading such fear, also acted
dishonestly and irresponsibly, by
repeatedly failing to disclose
conflicts of interest and/or
material information, including
his association with contemplated
litigation against the
manufacturers of MMR and his
application for a patent for a
vaccine for measles which, if
effective, and if the MMR vaccine
had been undermined and/or
withdrawn on safety grounds,
would have been commercially very
valuable. |
| (iii) Gravely
abused the children under his
care by unethically carrying out
extensive invasive procedures (on
occasions requiring three people
to hold a child down), thereby
driving nurses to leave and
causing his medical colleagues
serious concern and unhappiness. |
(iii) Caused
medical colleagues serious unease
by carrying out research tests on
vulnerable children outside the
terms or in breach of the
permission given by an ethics
committee, in particular by
subjecting those children to
highly invasive and sometimes
distressing clinical procedures
and thereby abusing them. |
| (iv)
Improperly and/or dishonestly
failed to disclose to his
colleagues and to the public at
large that his research on
autistic children had begun with
a contract with solicitors which
were trying to sue the
manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. |
(iv) Has been
unremittingly evasive and
dishonest in an effort to cover
up his wrong-doing. |
| (v)
Improperly and/or dishonestly
lent his reputation to the
International Child Development
Resource Centre which promoted to
very vulnerable parents expensive
products for whose efficacy (as
he knew or should have known)
there was no scientific
evidence”. |
(v) Has
improperly lent his reputation to
the International Child
Development Resource Centre which
exploited very vulnerable parents
by promoting to them expensive
products the efficacy of which
(as he knew or should have known)
had no scientific basis. |
| These meanings,
alleged by the claimaint, are
reported by Eady J in a judgment
handed down on 4
November 2005 |
These meanings,
admitted by the defendants, are
reported by Eady J in a judgment
handed down on 21
December 2006 |
|