Retracted autism study an elaborate fraud - BMJ

[Ivan Seeking]

Retracted autism study an "elaborate fraud" - BMJ

(CNN) -- A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.

An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.

"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

 

[Evo]

That's old news, he was discredited years ago. We've discussed it. But always good to bring it up again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's old news, he was discredited years ago. We've discussed it. But always good to bring it up again.

I think the BMJ carries a little more weight than a PF discussion.

 

[Evo]

I think the BMJ carries a little more weight than a PF discussion.

No, it was retracted from medical research. We were discussing that it had been medically debunked and he had gone to some crackpot place and supported by nuts trying to get money for medical malprictice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...arch-debunking-MMR-autism-link-published.html

I don't have all of it, but it was bebunked back in 2003. It's hard to find all of the articles now since the flood of new articles takes over new searches.

The Lancet formally retracted it in 2008 or 2009. The other researchers withdrew from the bogus study in 2004.

 

[russ_watters]

Evo, what is new is not that it was bad research, what is new is the allegation that it was fraudulent. It's bad enough to draw spurious conclusions or even cherry-pick data, but it is even worse to fabricate the data itself. Bad research isn't necessarily fraud, but fabricating data certainly is. Bob Parks' "Voodoo Science" is subtitled "The Road From Foolishness to Fraud", indicating that often a bad researcher can start with an idea and gradually progress from poor analysis to outright fraud.

I was thinking of starting a thread in P&WA on whether charges should be brought against him or even if the legal system is equipped to handle this. People have likely died and thousands have certainly gotten sick because of him. He's a murderer in my book.

 

[DanP]

People have likely died and thousands have certainly gotten sick because of him. He's a murderer in my book.

You can't prove that. And the legal system can't do squat to him.

 

[Jack21222]

You can't prove that. And the legal system can't do squat to him.

People have died, including infants too young to be vaccinated (lack of herd immunity), because of the antivax movement. Wakefield is the one who started the antivax movement. Not enough to convict him in a courtroom, but enough to convict him in my mind.

Speaking of courtrooms, this is a gutsy move by the BMJ with the way libel laws are in the UK. They must think they have an air-tight case if they get sued. It is HUGE to call somebody a fraud in the UK.

 

[Evo]

Evo, what is new is not that it was bad research, what is new is the allegation that it was fraudulent.

Is it news because they plan to issue new charges? His medical license was revoked last May. It's been known for years that the research was fraudulent, and all of these facts were already known. Is the UK pressing charges, or is this just a formality? I'm surprised that this is news to people, but glad that the UK isn't letting it drop.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37313063/ns/today-today_health/

I was thinking of starting a thread in P&WA on whether charges should be brought against him or even if the legal system is equipped to handle this. People have likely died and thousands have certainly gotten sick because of him. He's a murderer in my book.

What kills me is that idiot parents all over the world still believe this quack. Jenny Mccarthy is a celebrity nut that crusades for this criminal. Outbreaks of measles have been increasing due to the increasing number of people that choose to believe this nonsense that vaccines cause autism.

I think you should start a thread in P&WA also.

 

[bobze]

You can't prove that. And the legal system can't do squat to him.

Uhh, actually you can;

Sporadic importations of measles into the United States have occurred since the disease was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000 (1). During January--July 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC, compared with an average of 63 cases per year during 2000--2007.* This report updates an earlier report on measles in the United States during 2008 (2) and summarizes two recent U.S outbreaks among unvaccinated school-aged children. Among those measles cases reported during the first 7 months of 2008, 76% were in persons aged <20 years, and 91% were in persons who were unvaccinated or of unknown vaccination status. Of the 131 cases, 89% were imported from or associated with importations from other countries, particularly countries in Europe, where several outbreaks are ongoing (3,4). The findings demonstrate that measles outbreaks can occur in communities with a high number of unvaccinated persons and that maintaining high overall measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage rates in the United States is needed to continue to limit the spread of measles.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm"

I seem to remember reading years ago, that he also had non-disclosed conflicts of interest (his study "discredited" the trivalent vaccines, but not the monovalent ones he had patents in for). Now we have idiots like Jenny "I know more about medicine than doctors" McCarthy running around telling people not to vaccinate their kids--Meanwhile measles and mumps are killing children again because of the idiocy associated with the "anti-vaccine" crowd (The cold hearted part of me says when your child dies from a completely preventable disease, not only should you be laughed at, scorned and ostracized, but thrown in jail for child endangerment to boot).

Wakefield was rightly delicensed, fired and cast out of medicine (legally, unfortunately he now tries to pawn his crap off on Americans), tarring and feathering should be added to that list--As well as jail time for fraud and practicing medicine with a disregard for human life.

 

[NeoDevin]

Is it news because they plan to issue new charges? His medical license was revoked last May. It's been known for years that the research was fraudulent, and all of these facts were already known. Is the UK pressing charges, or is this just a formality? I'm surprised that this is news to people, but glad that the UK isn't letting it drop.

It is news because the BMJ, a well respected medical journal, is publishing, not simply that his results or methods were in error, but that his publication was intentionally fraudulent. My understanding is that such a move by a respected journal is almost unprecedented.

 

[cobalt124]

I'd forgotten all this. My wife and I went through the agony of deciding triple or three singles for our youngest child. We thoroughly researched the issues and asked dozens of parents their opinions. It was all futile, because the whole issue had become politicised presumably because of this flawed study. I learned after it was flawed, I wasn't aware it was intentionally fraudulent (possibly for financial gain). Plaudits to the BMJ for saying it's fraud. I'd also like to say (and stay in the guidelines) that Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a man of dubious parentage.

 

[NeoDevin]

(possibly for financial gain)

Not "possibly", the study was paid for by lawyers who wanted to sue the vaccine manufacturers.

 

[bobze]

By the way, here is the actual BMJ articles reported on (freely available) and it is my opinion should be read by anyone with children, anyone concerned about vaccine safety and autism or anyone who knows anyone with those concerns;

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347"

http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf"

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full"

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d22.full?sid=5635b207-1c0d-4699-8464-bd34ad7e76f1"

Please, read these and disseminate them! The terrible disease these vaccines neutralize will be for naught if we loose herd immunity!

 

[cobalt124]

Thanks for posting those Bobze, very interesting read. I know it's old news to some, here are the bits I was pleased to see (that it is possible to improve the situation):

from the third link:

...key players failed to investigate thoroughly in the public interest when Deer first raised his concerns...

...His coauthors seem to have been unaware of what he was doing under the cover of their names and reputations...However, this does not absolve them...

...This means that coauthors will have to check the source data of studies more thoroughly than many do at present—or alternatively describe in a contributor’s statement precisely which bits of the source data they take responsibility for...

...Secondly, research ethics committees should not only scrutinise proposals but have systems to check that what is done is what was permitted (with an audit trail for any changes) and work to a governance procedure that can impose sanctions where an eventual publication proves this was not the case...

and less pleased to see:

from the fourth link:

...The original paper has received so much media attention, with such potential to damage public health, that it is hard to find a parallel in the history of medical science...

...Science is based on trust. Without trust, research cannot function and evidence based medicine becomes a folly...

 

[bobze]

Thanks for posting those Bobze, very interesting read. I know it's old news to some, here are the bits I was pleased to see (that it is possible to improve the situation):

from the third link:

...key players failed to investigate thoroughly in the public interest when Deer first raised his concerns...

...His coauthors seem to have been unaware of what he was doing under the cover of their names and reputations...However, this does not absolve them...

...This means that coauthors will have to check the source data of studies more thoroughly than many do at present—or alternatively describe in a contributor’s statement precisely which bits of the source data they take responsibility for...

...Secondly, research ethics committees should not only scrutinise proposals but have systems to check that what is done is what was permitted (with an audit trail for any changes) and work to a governance procedure that can impose sanctions where an eventual publication proves this was not the case...

and less pleased to see:

from the fourth link:

...The original paper has received so much media attention, with such potential to damage public health, that it is hard to find a parallel in the history of medical science...

...Science is based on trust. Without trust, research cannot function and evidence based medicine becomes a folly...

I agree, the damage done by Wakefield et al is insurmountable. Even for people who now understand the fraud behind his publication and wild theories, these people's next question is "well how then can we trust other research was not 'wrong'"--And rightly so.

I want to make some comment about the damage that 3rd rate journals can cause by their laxity of publishing stipulations, but this was published in the Lancet for christs sake!

And this damage to public health has really been long lasting and far reaching. We get assigned hospital spots for experience in the different departments. This past block one of mine was in NICu and this question came up a lot, "is it safe to get my child these vaccines? I thought they could cause autism..." And this is over a decade later!

I understand the parents fears, being a parent myself, but health education in this country unfortunately comes mostly from the media. I would do my best to point parents to a reliable source when I could and remain calm when talking with them. I'd see older clinicians get mad and it would show. I understand their frustration, but letting the emotion play through doesn't help inspire confidence in one's doctor.

 

[mugaliens]

What kills me is that idiot parents all over the world still believe this quack. Jenny Mccarthy is a celebrity nut that crusades for this criminal. Outbreaks of measles have been increasing due to the increasing number of people that choose to believe this nonsense that vaccines cause autism.

+1. Parents, do what's right by your children and help protect them from virulent harm.

 

[nismaratwork]

+1. Parents, do what's right by your children and help protect them from virulent harm.

Amen. Kids dying from PERTUSSIS?! Do we really need to wait for these terrified parents to see their children get polio before they come to their senses?

Vaccinations are pretty, but not completely safe, and that's always been the case. Why can't people understand that it's for every man, woman, and child on EARTH that we do this?!

Honestly, I think this 'man', should be extradited to California (pertussis deaths) on Depraved Heart/Indifference homicide charges. In that case a clear link was made between a group of un-vaccinated children, and SPECIFIC deaths due to freaking Whooping Cough...

It's so frustrating, trying to help people while they think you're a monster who wants to destroy their child. This endless talk of 'regressions' due to vaccines, as though regression in Autism is UNUSUAL??

*needs to take a break*

 

[bobze]

Can the evidence get more damning? I agree with CNN the guy really needs prosecuted. Read on to your own dismay and horror at the abuse and seemingly easy manipulation of the system perpetuated by Wakefield et al in part 2 of BMJ's report!;

John Walker-Smith, professor of paediatric gastroenterology, hurried to Malcolm ward on the sixth floor of the Royal Free Hospital, London, with what any doctor would think was bad news. An 8 year old boy, admitted for five days of investigations, had been provisionally diagnosed with Crohn’s disease. But when the child’s mother—here anonymised as “Mrs 2”—years afterwards recounted what happened, she seemed pleased to have received information she expected and made it sound as if Walker Smith was glad too.

“He skipped into that room like a 2 year old,” she told me. She remembered he said: “[Mrs 2], you were right.”

Brightly painted with murals, Malcolm ward was Walker-Smith’s. It came with his employment contract. Exactly one year previously, in September 1995, he had been lured to the Royal Free with many perks, of which this was one. Previously the hospital had no children’s bowel service, but with him it had a chance of the best.

The initiative to recruit him, however, had not come from management. It came from an academic researcher in the gastroenterology department: a former trainee surgeon, Andrew Wakefield.1 He wanted Walker-Smith, who would bring access to children’s gastrointestinal tracts, to help him prove a personal theory. This was that Crohn’s disease was caused by persisting measles virus infections2—most notably, he came to suggest, from vaccines.3

“You used to hear Wakefield’s people talking about how they would win the Nobel Prize for this,” remembers Brent Taylor, the Royal Free’s head of community child health, who frequently clashed with the pair. “The atmosphere here was extraordinary.”

But instead of honours, the two men reaped disgrace. In January and May 2010, the UK’s General Medical Council found them guilty of a raft of charges over a project involving child 2.4 Wakefield, now 54, was judged by a five member panel to be guilty of some 30 charges, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 of causing children to be subjected to invasive procedures that were clinically unjustified; Walker-Smith, 74, was deemed irresponsible and unethical.4 Both were struck off the medical register5 6 and have since filed High Court appeals.

Working on a lawsuit

Their misconduct arose out of a fishing expedition, in which Malcolm ward was the pond for the measles theory. Since February 1996, seven months before child 2’s admission, Wakefield had been engaged by a lawyer named Richard Barr, who hoped to bring a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.7 8 Barr was a high street solicitor, and an expert in home conveyancing,9 but also acted for an anti-vaccine group, JABS. And, through this connection, the man nowadays popularly dubbed the “MMR doctor” had found a supply of research patients for Walker-Smith.

“The following are signs to look for,” Barr wrote in a newsletter to his vaccine claim clients, mostly media enlisted parents of children with brain disorders, giving a list of common Crohn’s disease symptoms. “If your child has suffered from all or any of these symptoms could you please contact us, and it may be appropriate to put you in touch with Dr Wakefield.”

The first to be admitted—in July 1996—was a 3 year old boy with autism. But, according to his records, reviewed by the GMC panel, he was so constipated that, despite two attempts, the endoscopist could not reach his small intestine. So child 2, who had diarrhoea (found to be constipation overflow) was the first to have his ileum intubated.

Child 2 also had autism, the first signs of which came on “a few months” after MMR vaccination.10 His mother was referred to Wakefield by the JABS organiser,11 and the boy would not only be the lead test case in Barr’s eventual, failed, lawsuit but would feature with 11 other children in a now notorious, retracted, Lancet paper linking the vaccine with bowel and brain problems.12

He was admitted on Sunday 1 September 1996 and endured a gruelling battery of investigations.13 These included magnetic resonance imaging of his brain, electroencephalography and evoked potentials, radioactive Schilling test, blood and urine tests, and lumbar puncture—all specified in an agreement with Barr.14
Previous SectionNext Section
A viral diagnostic

The following day, Monday, child 2 had an ileocolonoscopy, which, in common with seven other children reported in the paper, the GMC panel would find was not clinically warranted. Tuesday was Wakefield’s 40th birthday. And on Wednesday, with the news that the boy—still on the ward—might have Crohn’s disease, the doctor produced a remarkable document. It was an 11 page draft of a scheme behind the vaccine scare, now revealed for the first time in full.

The document was headed “Inventor/school/investor meeting 1.”15 Based on a patent Wakefield had filed in March 1995 claiming that “Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis may be diagnosed by detecting measles virus in bowel tissue, bowel products or body fluids,”16 it proposed starting a company that could reap huge returns from molecular viral diagnostic tests. It predicted a turnover from Britain and America of up to £72.5m a year.

“In view of the unique services offered by the Company and its technology, particularly for the molecular diagnostic,” the document noted, “the assays can command premium prices.”

To help finance the scheme, Wakefield looked to the government’s legal aid fund—meant to give poorer people access to justice. For the previous seven months, child 2 had been enrolled with Barr’s firm,17 which since February 1996— two years before the paper’s publication— had been paying the researcher undisclosed fees of £150 an hour, plus expenses.8

“The ability of the Company to commercialise its candidate products,” the draft plan continued, “depends upon the extent to which reimbursement for the cost of such products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health providers and, in the context of the molecular diagnostic, the Legal Aid Board.”

As it turned out later, child 2 did not have Crohn’s disease, but three weeks after drafting the plan, Wakefield met three others to discuss it. One was his mentor, Roy Pounder, the Royal Free’s professor of gastroenterology and later vice president of the Royal College of Physicians. The others were Bryan Blatch, the medical school’s secretary, and Cengiz Tarhan, its finance officer.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full#ref-28"

 

[cobalt124]

I've been trying to find some links on the actual court case, it doesn't seem like much actually happened. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#In_the_UK:

U.K.:

"Commenced before the Civil Procedure Rules were promulgated, The MMR Litigation had its status as group litigation achieved by the then Lord Chief Justice’s practice direction of 8 July 1999. On 8 June 2007, the High Court judge, Justice Keith, put an end to the group litigation because the withdrawal of legal aid by the legal services commission had made the pursuit of most of the claimants impossible. He ruled that all but two claims against various pharmaceutical companies must be discontinued.[98] The judge stressed that his ruling did not amount to a rejection of any of the claims that MMR had seriously damaged the children concerned.[99]

A pressure group called JABS (Justice, Awareness, Basic Support) was established to represent families with children who, their parents said, were "vaccine-damaged". £15 million in public legal aid funding was spent on the litigation, of which £9.7 million went to solicitors and barristers, and £4.3 million to expert witnesses.[100]

Several British cases where parents claimed that their children had died as a result of Urabe MMR had received compensation under the “vaccine damage payment” scheme.[101]"

Two points. Firstly I'm not against people getting legal aid to fight big corporations but £15M to barristers and experts over this! More wicked people with their snouts in the trough?. Secondly compensation is given out under claims that MMR caused deaths. I'm assuming this is some kind of out of court settlement to make the problem go away for the drug company in question.

U.S.:

"The Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP)[102] is a coordinated proceeding before the Office of Special Masters of the U.S Court of Federal Claims—commonly called the vaccine court. It is structured to facilitate the handling of nearly 5000 vaccine petitions involving claims that children who have received certain vaccinations have developed autism. The Petitioners' Steering Committee have claimed that MMR vaccines can cause autism, possibly in combination with thiomersal-containing vaccines.[103] In 2007 three individual test cases were presented to test the claims about the combination; these test cases failed. The vaccine court ruled against the plaintiffs in all three cases, stating that the evidence presented did not validate their claims that vaccinations caused autism in these specific patients, or in general.[12]

In some cases, the plaintiffs' attorneys opted out of the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, which were concerned solely with autism, and also issues concerned with bowel disorders, and argue their cases in the regular vaccine court:

On 30 July 2007, the family of Bailey Banks, a child with pervasive developmental delay, won their case versus the Department of Health and Human Services.[104] Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the Banks had successfully demonstrated that "the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer." In his conclusion, he ruled that he was satisfied that MMR had caused a brain inflammation called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM).

In other cases, attorneys also did not claim that vaccines caused autism, but sought compensation for encephalopathy, encephalitis, or seizure disorders.[105]"

MMR causing damage is accepted by the courts. So the courts are being left to decide the science whilst Wakefield rakes in the money?

Japan:

"The Urabe strain, which was different from the strain used in UK,[106] was introduced in 1989 and discontinued in 1993 due to causing a high incidence of aseptic meningitis and other low-level disorders, and it was replaced by the three different vaccines.[106][107] The problems were caused by the anti-mumps component.[108] The MMR scare caused a low percentage of mumps vaccination (less than 30%), which keeps causing outbreaks in Japan.[107] Measles causes deaths in Japan while there is none in UK, but it's apparently due to Japan applying the vaccine at a later age; a spokesman for the Ministry of Health said that the discontinuation had no effect in measles, although also saying that there were more deaths by measles while MMR was being used.[106] Forced by the 1993 MMR scare, the government had to drop in 1994 the vaccination requirement for measles and rubella.[109][110]:2 Japan is nowadays the only developed country with large measles epidemics, and it has been called a "measles exporter" by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[110] As another consequence of the scare, in 2003, 7 million schoolchildren had not been vaccinated against rubella.[111]

Autism rates continued to rise in Japan after the discontinuation of the MMR vaccine, which discards any large scale effect of vaccination,[108] and means that the withdrawal of MMR on other countries is unlikely to cause a reduction in autism cases.[112] The Japanese Government doesn't think that there is any link between MMR and autism[106] and by 2003 it was still trying to find a combined vaccine to replace MMR.[113]

It was later discovered that some of the vaccines were administered after their expiry date, and that the MMR compulsory vaccination was only retracted after the death of three children and more than 2000 reports of adverse effects.[111] By 1993 the Japanese Government had paid $160,000 in compensation to the families of each of the three dead children.[111] Other parents received no compensation because the government said that it was unproven that the MMR vaccine had been the cause, and they decided to sue the manufacturer instead of suing the government.[111] The Osaka district court in Japan ruled on March 13, 2003 that the death of two children (among numerous other serious conditions) had been indeed caused by Japan's strain of Urabe MMR.[101][114] In 2006, the Osaka High Court stated in another ruling that the state was responsible for failing to properly supervise a manufacturer of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, which caused severe side effects in children"

So here the legitimate issues with the Urabe vaccine seem to get confused with the mess Wakefield has caused.

Richard Barr, the solicitor involved in the case, seems to have no problems with mentioning his involvement here:

http://richardbarrlaw.co.uk/#

Blood simmering. I'll read bobzes lastest link when I get chance and bring it to the boil again.

 

[nismaratwork]

Great...
Thousands, if not tens of thousands of big and small GOOD papers and studies, but this is the jerk the general public will remember FOREVER.

Ugh. I think I felt ill reading bobze's post... (not his part of course)... man; Walker is some piece of work.

 

[bobze]

In response to Cobalt and Nismaratwork;

Yeah, I don't know how this guy can be so full of himself to actually go back into the public arena and debate that what he did wasn't "wrong" or that this methodology was "sound". The British General Medical Council's report is rather damning and I've no idea how the anti-vax crowd still support this guy even. You can read the full report here; http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf"

Its filled with such scathing quotes as;

You,
i. failed to cause the Legal Aid Board to be informed that
investigations represented by the clinicians as being clinically
indicated would be covered by NHS funding,
Found proved
The Panel is satisfied that you had a duty to disclose to the
LAB, via Mr Barr, that clinically indicated investigations
would be funded by the NHS, and that, despite having
opportunities to do so, you failed in that duty.
ii. caused or permitted the money supplied by the Legal Aid
Board to be used for purposes other than those for which you
said it was needed and for which it had been granted,
Found proved in relation to the second instalment of
£25,000.
The Panel is content that the first instalment of £25,000 was
used for the purposes for which it was granted.
The Panel is convinced by documentary, and your own
evidence, that you used the second instalment for, amongst
other things, research staff wages, not the items listed in
3.d.i and 3.d.ii.
b. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 4.a.i. was,
7
i. dishonest,
Found proved
The Panel is satisfied that this action, was dishonest,
judged by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest
people. It is further satisfied that you knew that some or
most of the funds would not be used for the reasons you
had stated, because you had agreed a process with Mr Barr
by which children would be selected for the study from
those who had already been investigated at the Royal Free
Hospital and who would have therefore been funded by the
NHS.
ii. misleading,
Found proved

Your,
i. involvement in the MMR litigation as set out at
paragraph 3.,
Found proved
ii. receipt of funding for part of Project 172-96 from the
Legal Aid Board;
Found proved
constituted a disclosable interest which included matters which could
legitimately give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest in relation
to your involvement in Project 172-96 which you did not disclose to the
Ethics Committee,
Found proved
The Panel accepts your evidence that you should have declared
the funding from the LAB. It is satisfied that your involvement in
the MMR litigation also had ethical implications and should have
been disclosed.

b. On 1 August 1995 Child 2 attended an outpatient consultation
with Professor Walker-Smith at St Bartholomew’s Hospital following
which Professor Walker-Smith concluded that there was no evidence of
Crohn’s disease or chronic inflammatory bowel disease and he did not
arrange to see Child 2 again,
Admitted and found proved
c. On 16 May 1996 Professor Walker-Smith wrote to Child 2’s
mother asking to see Child 2 again and stating that he had had
discussions about Child 2 with you and that you and
Professor Walker-Smith had a plan for investigations,
Admitted and found proved
d. On 24 June 1996 Professor Walker-Smith wrote to you stating
that Child 2 was the most appropriate child to begin your programme,
Found proved
The Panel interprets the word “your” to mean you, Professor
Walker-Smith and others.
e. Child 2 was admitted to the Royal Free Hospital on or about
1 September 1996 under Professor Walker-Smith’s clinical care,
Admitted and found proved
f. Child 2’s admission clerking note recorded that he had been
admitted for investigation of the possible association between
gastrointestinal disease/autism/measles,
Admitted and found proved
g. Between 1 September 1996 and his discharge on or about
9 September 1996 Child 2 underwent a colonoscopy, a barium meal
and follow-through, an MRI scan of his brain, a lumbar puncture, a
Schilling test, an EEG and other neurophysiological investigations, and
a variety of blood and urine tests,
Admitted and found proved
h. Of the tests set out in 8.g. above, on 2 September 1996 you
signed the request form for the EEG and for other neurophysiological
investigations to be undertaken on Child 2, stating that the reason for
the request/relevant history included disintegrative disorder,
Admitted and found proved
i. Dr Berelowitz, Consultant Paediatric Psychiatrist, and
13
Dr Harvey, a Consultant Neurologist, assessed Child 2 after he had
undergone the lumbar puncture, EEG and other neurophysiological
investigations, referred to at 8.g. above;
Admitted and found proved
‘9. a. You caused Child 2 to undergo a programme of investigations
for research purposes without having Ethics Committee approval for
such research,
Found proved
In reaching its decision, the Panel is satisfied that you had a
number of conversations with Mrs 2 regarding Child 2’s condition,
which resulted in the referral of that child to Professor Walker-
Smith. After his assessment of Child 2 at St Bartholomew’s
Hospital on 1 August 1995, Professor Walker-Smith concluded
that gastro-intestinal investigations were not indicated and he did
not arrange to see Child 2 again.
In May 1996, after you had further contact with Mrs 2 regarding
Child 2’s condition and subsequent discussions with Professor
Walker-Smith, Child 2 was re-assessed by him on 21 June 1996.
Professor Walker-Smith recorded in the notes: “Arrange
admission with Dr Wakefield.” After that out-patient consultation,
Professor Walker-Smith wrote to Dr Cartmel (Child 2’s GP) (letter
dated 28 June 1996) in which he states: “I think Crohn’s disease is
unlikely. Dr Wakefield has the view that there may be some kind of
other inflammation which may be a relevant factor in Child 2’s
illness and we now have a programme for investigating children
who have autism and a possible reaction to immunisation”. The
Panel has concluded, on the basis of the medical records, that the
programme of investigations that Child 2 underwent was for
research purposes and for which there was no Ethics Committee
approval.

You ordered that the investigations set out at
paragraph 8.h. above be carried out on Child 2,
15
Found proved
The Panel is satisfied that by signing the forms you did order the
investigations and does not accept your explanation of your role
as being purely administrative.
i. without having the requisite paediatric qualifications to do
so,
Found proved, as is evident by your CV.
ii. in contravention of the limitations on your Honorary
Consultant appointment as set out at paragraph 2. above,
Found proved on the basis of the wording of your job
description and your letter of employment (contract).
h. Your conduct as set out above was contrary to the clinical
interests of Child 2;
Found proved
In reaching its decision, the Panel has had regard to its findings
in relation to 9.a., 9.c. and 9.g.

And on and on, for each child and aspect of this "study". I'll say it again, he really needs some jail time for the lack of ethical practice and medical competency he "preformed" his duties with.

Anyway, its all there to read. Its 143 pages, but deals with 2 of the other doctor's negligent behavior as well. You can also find his punishment hearing at the GMC's website as well.

 

[nismaratwork]

In response to Cobalt and Nismaratwork;

Yeah, I don't know how this guy can be so full of himself to actually go back into the public arena and debate that what he did wasn't "wrong" or that this methodology was "sound". The British General Medical Council's report is rather damning and I've no idea how the anti-vax crowd still support this guy even. You can read the full report here; http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf"

Its filled with such scathing quotes as;


And on and on, for each child and aspect of this "study". I'll say it again, he really needs some jail time for the lack of ethical practice and medical competency he "preformed" his duties with.

Anyway, its all there to read. Its 143 pages, but deals with 2 of the other doctor's negligent behavior as well. You can also find his punishment hearing at the GMC's website as well.

He's had YEARS to delude himself... kind of like L. Ron Hubbard, you know what I mean? That, and he could be a total sociopath, but that seemly unlikely. He's probably either lying, or just too much of a coward to face the responsibility he has for so much death and suffering. I think he's the coward.

 

[cobalt124]

I rather suspect the similarity with Hubbard is that they both know/knew exactly what they are/were doing, and that the ends justified the means.

 

[cobalt124]

Right, I've read bobzes latest instalment.

"Barr was a high street solicitor, and an expert in home conveyancing"

A "good" start.

"To help finance the scheme, Wakefield looked to the government’s legal aid fund—meant to give poorer people access to justice"

I've let this one ride as I thought the legal aid was on behalf of the parents of the twelve children, which, all else aside, would be OK. How the hell did he get away with this?

“The ability of the Company to commercialise its candidate products,” the draft plan continued, “depends upon the extent to which reimbursement for the cost of such products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health providers and, in the context of the molecular diagnostic, the Legal Aid Board"

And get away with it for financial gain!

"So the legal money (which eventually totalled £50 000 and seed funded the business scheme"

GRRRRRRRRRR!

"The press conference and video boosted the commercial plans, which were moving forward behind the scenes"

"Trading was to be fronted by Carmel Healthcare Ltd—named after Wakefield’s wife. Firmly rooted in Barr’s lawsuit, which eventually paid Wakefield £435 643, plus expenses,32 the business was to be launched off the back of the vaccine scare, diagnosing a purported—and still unsubstantiated33—“new syndrome.” This, Wakefield claimed, comprised both brain and bowel diseases, which, after Crohn’s disease was not found in any of the Lancet children, he dubbed “autistic enterocolitis.”"

Speechless!

“It is estimated that the initial market for the diagnostic will be litigation driven testing of patients with AE [autistic enterocolitis] from both the UK and the USA, ... It aimed at raising an initial £700 000 from investors and forecast extraordinary revenues. “It is estimated that by year 3, income from this testing could be about £3 300 000 rising to about £28 000 000 as diagnostic testing in support of therapeutic regimes come on stream.”

Good priorities!

Carmel was registered in the Irish Republic, where Wakefield would also become a director of another business. This was Unigenetics Ltd, incorporated in February 1999 with a Dublin pathologist, John O’Leary. After Wakefield submitted a confidential report to the Legal Aid Board,36 Unigenetics was awarded—without checks—£800 000 of taxpayers’ money 28 to perform polymerase chain reaction tests on bowel tissue and blood samples from children passing through Malcolm ward."

"Carmel was to be based at the Coombe Women’s Hospital, Dublin, where legal aid money paid for a laboratory."

How do they get away with this?

"This latter document was never signed, and strictly therefore of no effect. But University College London (UCL) honoured its spirit, ensuring that the scheme went unreported. And when I was tipped off about Wakefield’s business arrangements, the
college fought me for three years under the freedom of information act to keep its involvement hidden."

And the evil spreads.

"He was promised help for a study of 150 children (to try to replicate his Lancet claims from just 12)"

I let this one ride as well. How much can you conclude from a study of 12, even if done properly, and should this be enough to get it into the Lancet (sorry I haven't read the study). The only number I know is from opinion polls where you need at least a thousand to get anything meaningful.

Even child abuse is a justifiable act (in this mans eyes) to make personal financial gain.

 

[bobze]

The third and final piece of the saga was published this week. Despite Wakefield trying to sue Deer to silence and large institutions trying to gag-order their involvement, down and down the rabbit hole he went;

Preparing to give evidence in London to a UK General Medical Council fitness to practise panel, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, nodded in turn to three accused doctors, seated among their lawyers to his left. First, Simon Murch, almost close enough to touch. Next, John Walker-Smith, more distant. Finally, Andrew Wakefield, at the far end of the hearing room. Each smiled thinly and nodded back.

The four had last met together three and a half years before, at the Lancet’s offices, nearly two miles north. There they had begun the journey that now brought their reunion in this, the longest medical disciplinary inquiry ever. Running for 217 days, between July 2007 and May 2010, it would probe the research and a paper that launched the MMR vaccine scare, and would lead to Wakefield and Walker-Smith being struck off.1 2

Their previous encounter was in 2004, on the afternoon of Wednesday 18 February. They had gathered in Horton’s office to deal with an approach from me concerning a four month Sunday Times investigation. For five hours that morning, I had briefed the Lancet’s senior staff about a now notorious 1998 paper in their journal.3 It reported on 12 children seen at the Royal Free hospital, north London, and claimed to have discovered a possible “new syndrome” involving regressive autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR.

Mostly I had stood, occasionally pulling documents, as Horton, with five editors, took notes. I told them that the paper’s first author, Wakefield, was retained by a lawyer and was funded to help sue vaccine manufacturers. Admissions criteria for the study had been manipulated and ethical safeguards flouted. A group of developmentally challenged children of parents who blamed MMR had been brought to the hospital to create a case against the vaccine. I said I thought that the study was “rigged.”

"[URL
Read on[/URL]

 

[nismaratwork]

The third and final piece of the saga was published this week. Despite Wakefield trying to sue Deer to silence and large institutions trying to gag-order their involvement, down and down the rabbit hole he went;


"[URL
Read on[/URL]

Wow... I really could learn to hate this guy. Oh wait... already there!

 

[bobze]

Wow... I really could learn to hate this guy. Oh wait... already there!

Yes, been there for a while myself.

I suppose, of this new round on him, what surprised me the most (and probably shouldn't have) is the degree to which the institutions which were associated with him and the paper went "protect" him and really didn't take the time to look into him or his research once the allegations were out in the open.

I mean the guys at the Lancet and Royal Free are quick to judge him now and I suspect that is to save grace for themselves. But I never realized just how much blame should be leveled at the heads of those bodies as well. Its easy to lay the blame on one "crazy", but Lance and Royal Free certainly aren't blame free in this fiasco (in my opinion).

 

[Evo]

Yes, been there for a while myself.

I suppose, of this new round on him, what surprised me the most (and probably shouldn't have) is the degree to which the institutions which were associated with him and the paper went "protect" him and really didn't take the time to look into him or his research once the allegations were out in the open.

I mean the guys at the Lancet and Royal Free are quick to judge him now and I suspect that is to save grace for themselves. But I never realized just how much blame should be leveled at the heads of those bodies as well. Its easy to lay the blame on one "crazy", but Lance and Royal Free certainly aren't blame free in this fiasco (in my opinion).

It has to do with relationships, professional and personal.

 

[nismaratwork]

It has to do with relationships, professional and personal.

Never underestimate the power of 'the network'... especially in political, financial, and academic settings.

 

[bobze]

It has to do with relationships, professional and personal.

Never underestimate the power of 'the network'... especially in political, financial, and academic settings.

Yeah, and I realized this--But its one of those practical knowledge vs seeing it in action things.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, and I realized this--But its one of those practical knowledge vs seeing it in action things.

I believe that's a fair description of life.

 

[bobze]

I believe that's a fair description of life.

 

[cobalt124]

My thoughts on episode three:


"But within 48 hours, and working with the paper’s three senior authors, the journal was to publish a 5000 word avalanche of denials, in statements, unretracted to this day"

Disappointing. The Lancet editor got sucked into this as well.

"Facing public alarm over MMR and professional scepticism towards the research, for years he had championed his former colleague. “I do not regret publishing the original Wakefield paper,” he said in a 2003 book, at the height of the UK scare."

Or did he? It sounds a bit like an Old Boys Network. To what extent does a former colleague constitute a conflict of interest for the Lancet editor?

"“The objective,” he and his retaining solicitor had written in the application to the legal board, “is to seek evidence which will be acceptable in a court of law of the causative connection between either the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine or the measles/rubella vaccine and certain conditions which have been reported with considerable frequency by families of children who are seeking compensation"

Obviously the wrong way round. Never court case first.

"In short, the accused were investigating themselves—an investigation that Horton would say “cleared Wakefield""

Ugly.

"Is it customary,” asked Parimala Moodley, a member of the council of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, “for an investigation of possible serious research misconduct to be carried out by the people who have been so accused of the misconduct?” Horton paused to gather his thoughts. “It is customary for the institution to lead an investigation and to gather the data which will inevitably involve those who took part in the investigation,” he replied. “It is then the responsibility of the institution to make sure that there is some kind of separation between its interpretation of those findings and those who are involved in the investigation who are being in some sense accused of a set of allegations, and once that interpretation by the institution has taken place and has been conveyed to whoever has brought the allegations to them then we can go forward. So there certainly should be some separation, which is why in the first instance I wanted to get the reaction from Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith, and Dr Murch, but after that my duty was to go to the head of the institution, the vice-dean, in this case Professor Hodgson.”

But there had been no separation and no independent inquiry—as both the hospital and medical school later confirmed"

He talks like a cornered politician.

"Before I go on to the statements by the doctors, which were published in the Lancet, and by the Royal Free,” Sally Smith said to Horton at the hearing, “can I ask you, have there been other occasions when you have had to investigate allegations made about a research paper and its propriety, in general terms?”

“Frequently.”

“Is it customary to discuss and take the word of those against whom the allegations are made?”

“It is.”"

Disgraceful.

Reading the recent comments in this thread, whilst I understand the sentiment, I feel events have been far too generous to Mr Horton, and that he should have lost his job as editor of the Lancet.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah... it's not the best moment to take pride in medicine reading this kind of material. It's so hard to see why this wasn't an issue at the time!

 

[cobalt124]

Yeah... it's not the best moment to take pride in medicine reading this kind of material. It's so hard to see why this wasn't an issue at the time!

It would seem that by default they were respected and trusted, possibly within some "old boys network" or some such like. This suggestion is possibly reinforced by seeing how much effort it took to expose them.

Just had a skim through the GMC report, the nearest thing to a positive outcome in this whole affair that we have (the fact that it had to be done in the first place is hardly positive). On my skimming of it, the report doesn't seem to miss a thing, and of the 143 pages, the vast majority deals with what happened to the twelve children, rather than highlighting the odious acts of the perpetrators, which we knew anyway. It seems that aspect of the affair (the victims viewpoint) is underepresented in this case.