Meaning
of a programme: what Channel 4's Dispatches said
about MMR scare doctor
This page is
research from an investigation by Brian Deer for the UK's Channel 4 Television
and The Sunday Times of London into a campaign
linking the MMR children's
vaccine with autism. | Go to part I:
The Lancet scandal | Go to part II:
The Wakefield factor
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 12 December
2006 |
|