Lawyers reply to Wakefield investigation more than a year after UK TV broadcast

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

On November 17 2004, Channel 4 broadcast MMR: What they didn't tell you, investigating British former surgeon Andrew Wakefield's role in creating a worldwide scare over the safety of the children's vaccine. Repeated requests were made for his views and responses, but his lawyers said it would be inappropriate for him to supply them. However, Wakefield issued a number of statements, and, on December 22 2005, his lawyers issued a concise summary of his position:

The summary says that, contrary to popular opinion, Dr Wakefield was not the cause of the MMR scare. Rather, “his hypothesis of a possible link between MMR and autism was but one episode in a much longer public health debate about vaccine safety.” His participation in this debate was “conscientious, reasonable and responsible for a research doctor in his position.”

Dr Wakefield’s work on MMR and his connections with the lawyers Dawbarns and the Legal Aid Board (now the Legal Services Commission) were “well known both in the general media and amongst his colleagues from an early stage”.

Brian Deer and his editors have a poor understanding of Dr Wakefield’s patent applications and the underlying science and technology. In fact, Dr Wakefield’s invention [a single measles vaccine combined with a treatment, possibly a “complete cure” for autism] “could never compete with MMR”.

Brian Deer and his editors have “badly misunderstood the quite separate nature and purposes” of the ethical approval obtained at the Royal Free hospital, known as 172/96, a pilot study being performed for the Legal Aid Board, and the paper published in the Lancet in February 1998.

The referral of children to the Royal Free hospital “was orthodox”, reflecting Dr Wakefield’s well-known interests, and children were not “recruited” to the study. When presented with “a child demonstrating regressive autism and bowel symptoms the clinician is bound to investigate the child’s symptoms”. Beyond approving the use of data derived from investigations “ethics approval had little or no material role to play”.

Brian Deer and his editors “ignore altogether that all clinical decisions and procedures conducted in relation to children were by Professor Walker-Smith and his team, in relation to gastrointestinal investigations, and by other appropriate specialist paediatric practitioners in relation to, for example, lumbar puncture.”

Allegations that the Royal Free hospital “laundered” money from the Legal Aid Board for Dr Wakefield's research benefit are unfounded.

The summary also made a number of other points.