Andrew Wakefield, the never ending story
If you watch a lot of cop shows you soon come to recognize the basic plot lines. Perhaps the villain is obvious from the start but is able to elude justice until a dogged investigator uncovers the evidence that will put him away. Or else all the evidence points in one direction but a lone detective refuses to buy it and unearths the secret that saves an innocent man from a miscarriage of justice. Sometimes the guilty are protected by their friends in high places. Then along comes the brave maverick policeman who overcomes all obstacles to expose the corruption and justice prevails at the end.
I was reminded of this by responses to the recent judgement against Wakefield by the GMC and the subsequent retraction of his 1998 Lancet paper. Wakefield’s defenders still see him as the brave maverick. Vaccines are the villain and so far they have evaded justice thanks to the corruption at the heart of the medical/research establishment. We have reached that stage in the plot where everything seems hopeless. Our hero has been all but destroyed. The conspirators are congratulating themselves. Evil has triumphed. Or has it?
Now, when they least expect it, our hero strikes. They have no answer to his new and devastating evidence. They realize their mistake and try to silence him. Too late! The truth will out and Justice shall prevail. Of course real life is not like the movies. But that fact is lost on many of Wakefield’s supporters. They clutch at the flimsiest of straws to convince themselves that we are about to enter the final reel when all will be revealed.
One such straw is Arthur Krigsman’s long awaited paper which supports Wakefield’s premise that gastro-intestinal disease and autism are connected. In fact it is so faithful to the master’s original that Krigsman even replicates Wakefield’s breaches of medical ethics. We are promised more studies and devastating proof that Wakefield was right along. This proof is so devastating that it could not be used in his defence at the GMC and had to be held in reserve until after his public humiliation and the destruction of his professional reputation (aka “the witch hunt,” “kangaroo court,” “censorship,” “conspiracy,” etc., etc.,)
At this point in the script I should be saying that the plot thickens. But sadly for Wakefield et al it seems that the plot is unravelling instead. His most recent paper, an attempt to diversify into mercury and vaccines has been withdrawn by the editor. no reason was given. It may the undisclosed conflict of interest from lead author Laura Hewitson or simply the fact that it is an atrocious piece of work. Meanwhile his fan base are doing their best with a number of gambits.
No parent ever complained to the GMC.
The GMC brought the complaint after it was made aware of Brian Deer’s allegations. As Deer points out in this comment on LBRB Wakefield’s parent supporters may have packed the public gallery and joined protests outside the hearing but the only parent to give evidence appeared for the prosecution not the defence.
Not only could Wakefield have called anybody he wanted (and he called nobody whatsoever, and didn’t even ask questions of the government’s vaccine supremo), but a parent of one of the 12 kids – Rochelle Poulter – DID give evidence. She appeared in August 2007 for the prosecution, and gave them a mass of documents which were devastating to Wakefield’s case. One of the letters was to Walker-Smith where she says that he’d told her that the research might not help her child, but might help other children. Devastating stuff.
There was an estabishment conspiracy to silence Wakefield.
All I can say is they did not do a very good job. Two of the most pro establishment newspapers in Britain, the Mail and the Telegraph, regularly carry pro Wakefield stories. The BBC still gives the pro Wakefield website, JABS, web address alongside every MMR story it runs. The Spectator, unofficial house magazine of the Conservative Party, continues to carry pro Wakefield stories from Melanie Phillips. Fiona Phillips (no relation) is still writing paeans to Wakefield in the pro-Labour Daily Mirror. Even the Guardian Group succumbed with a terrible front page article in the Observer that had to be withdrawn and a fawning two page spread by sports writer turned health editor. Meanwhile science that refutes Wakefield has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media outlets.
Government witnesses lied to the GMC
This potentially libellous accusation from Ron Moody made a brief flurry but seems to have faltered along with an open letter to the GMC from a retired sex therapist and the We Support Dr Andrew Wakefield petition against Times Newspapers. Claiming to represent “multitudes of citizens worldwide” they have collected around 2000 signatures so far. But with names like Seymour Butz, Fivepounds Forkidsblood and Al Coholic, not every signatory is taking it seriously.
Good Cop or Bad Cop?
To return to my original theme, I think that they are all watching the wrong movie. What about the story where the cop goes after the bad guy and finds out that he is innocent? But he is so convinced of his guilt that he goes after him for something else. And when the evidence fails again he decides to fake it. The bad guy has to be guilty. No way is he going to escape on a technicality like lack of evidence.
Wakefield is a surgeon with a research interest in gastroenterology. He was supposed to be investigating the causes of Crohns Disease. He thought a potential cause was measles virus, possibly measles vaccine virus. But his research was flawed and when others failed to replicate his results the theory was forgotten.
At this point if his prime purpose was to research Crohns he would have dropped the failed measles hypothesis and explored other venues. But Wakefield had a prime suspect - MMR. If he could not tie it to Crohns he would get it for something else. Why not autism?
But what if the bad guy was innocent all along? What if the cop let his obsession cloud his judgement, leading him to ignore the real evidence and fabricate his own so-called proof. We all know how that movie ends.
Sadly for us as well, real life is not like the movies. While Wakefield’s career as a serious medical researcher may be over he appears to have made good his escape and seems set to enjoy his ill-gotten gains in his Texan hideaway for some time yet.
Comment by Do'C | February 15th, 2010
Hi Mike, thanks for an interesting round up. Another gambit I’ve seen, seems to be that an ethics ruling isn’t relevant to the science. I’ve seen assertion that the describes the GMC ruling as a condemnation of matters “completely collateral” to the substance of Wakefields research.
The matters looked at by the GMC were not “completely collateral” at all.
As aptly pointed out by Brian Deer over at ScienceBlogs:
Indeed. Those sections from the Fitness To Practise Hearing’s ruling (33-34, pages 45-46) are directly relevant to the substance of Wakefield’s science. Long story short, the Lancet paper did not actually study the type of patients it claimed to. I’d venture to guess that this prompted the Lancet’s official retraction.
Should this apparent finding of research misconduct, and a Lancet retraction, cause Neurotoxicology to withdraw the Hewitson-Wakefield piece? I don’t know. I suppose we’ll find out soon enough.
Comment by Mike | February 15th, 2010
Thanks for that, Do’C.
That paper is (or should we say “was”?) suspect in so many ways. i have just re-read Mike Fitzpatick’s account in MMR and Autism: What parents need to know and it makes me wonder what was Horton thinking of when he published it?
Peer reviewers had raised doubts about the paper’s methodology and its interpretation. They were also concerned about the impact on public confidence in vaccinations. It was Horton who insisted that the paper make it clear that there was no proof that MMR caused autism. He also commissioned Chen and Destefano to write a critical commentary published alongside Wakefield’s article. The press conference was supposed to assuage public doubts about MMR! Even without Wakefield’s grandstanding for the media it was almost guaranteed that the public perception would be
“There is no proof that
MMR causes Autism.”
Comment by patricia Pratt | March 18th, 2010
Wakefield never said that MMR causes Autism. I have not read anywhere that anyone has said that. But there is irrefutable evidence coming in from all round the world that it does cause brain damage in some children, brain damage which can lead on in some cases to autistic like symptoms. Enough evidence to require further serious examination. I wonder what is stopping that investigation?
Comment by Mike | March 18th, 2010
patricia
Wakefield has been publicly associated with the hypothesis that MMR causes autism since 1998. The parents who believe MMR causes autism have no doubt that he supports them.
We know that MMR causes brain damage in a tiny minority of children. We also know that such brain damage is 500 times more likely if you get measles. One in a million or one in 2000. You choose. If MMR causes autism, sorry, causes brain damage which causes autistic like symptoms, where are all the cases of autism like symptoms resulting from measles infection?
Comment by patricia | March 19th, 2010
This video answers all your questions.
http://www.cryshame.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=80
Halverson talks absolute sense. This vaccine should be stopped now. Single vaccines are sufficient.
Comment by patricia | March 19th, 2010
Not quite all your questions/comments. Let us be quite clear on one specific point. i.e. parents whose children have become extremely ill after the vaccine do not say it has caused autism. Like Wakefield they say it has caused bowel disease. Possibly a new kind of bowel disease similar (!) to that experienced by autistic children.
Comment by Mike | March 19th, 2010
Patricia,
I think the parents in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding were quite clear that they believed that MMR caused their child’s autism. And what did Wakefield intend to convey with his term “autistic enterocolitis” apart from the obvious interpretation that MMR causes a gut disorder that causes autism?
Comment by patricia | March 20th, 2010
What I have read, conversely is that they cried “what is this, what has happened here, it looks like autism!” And yes, what Wakefield said was what he found, namely “autistic enterocolitis”, but he also said “we think this may be a new form of bowel disease, we need to stop this vaccine now and examine this further”.
“DO NO HARM”……
What you are propagating is exactly what the Sunday Times, Brian Deer, and the Pharmaceutical industry desperately wish you believe i.e. that these parents and Wakefield and all his supporters are lunatics and irresponsible scaremongers who shouted “fire” when there is none.
These parents are living with a 24/7 living hell that began within hours, sometimes less, of the MMR jab. Isn´t the important thing here to simply support them and find out what
happened, what is still happening, and not to enter into semantic arguments that frankly lead nowhere but are purely designed to protect the pharmaceutical industry?
Comment by Mike | March 20th, 2010
Patricia
If we are to continue please provide evidence for the existence of autistic enterocolitis and how it is caused by the MMR vaccine.
Comment by patricia | March 20th, 2010
The children are the living proof Mike.
And if you cannot accept that then we certainly have nothing further to say to each other.
Comment by patricia | March 20th, 2010
But as a final testament to these damaged children and in case you have not yet viewed it I recommend the following film.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/
In particular the story of Josh.
Comment by Chris | March 20th, 2010
Patricia, videos are neither admissible in a courtroom, nor are they considered scientific evidence. They are just anecdotes, and the plural of anecdote is not data.
Comment by patricia | March 20th, 2010
The video was never intended to provide “evidence”. Its intention was, as I am sure you know, to draw attention to the missing witnesses i.e. the children and their parents, who were not allowed a voice at the GMC hearing.
“Anecdotes” are what patients tell their doctors. It is where prognosis begins.
Comment by Mike | March 21st, 2010
Patricia,
do you not recall that one parent did give evidence before the GMC? Why didn’t Wakefield call the parents as witnesses if they had valid testimony to give? And did you mean diagnosis when you wrote prognosis?
Comment by patricia | March 21st, 2010
Mike
The GMC stated at various times that it was not there to disprove or to prove anything about the MMR vaccine. It was held as a result of complaints initiated by a journalist employed by the Sunday Times and was solely about the discrediting of Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues.
I meant both diagnosis and prognosis. Couldn´t edit.
Comment by Mike | March 21st, 2010
Patricia
the parents could have been called as witnesses to testify to Wakefield’s ethical conduct.
The origin of the complaint is irrelevant. The GMC chose to act on the basis of information received. It could have disregarded that information. Deer did not make a complaint to the GMC. He turned over his evidence to them. Wakefield not only welcomed the hearing. He said that he insisted on it so he could clear his name, which he has signally failed to do.
The GMC enquiry was initiated to establish the facts. It is those facts that discredit Wakefield.
Comment by patricia | March 21st, 2010
Mike
I think you have read as much and probably more than I about the Hearing and I am sure you are also aware of the fact that Wakefield is at this moment preparing a proper and more vigorous appeal something he had declined to do earlier partly because he deeply resented the time it required of him spent away from his proper work.
It is not inconceivable that those parents will now be called to defend his and his colleagues actions. If Wakefield can be called guilty of anything it is in my opinion that he could be accused of a certain naivete and unworldliness in the arena of commercialism. A truly honest man does not always foresee the evil that can be done by others to himself. He now has the luxury of hindsight. Let us wait to see what further developments there are in the pipeline.
He has a battle of epic and IMO heroic proportions facing him when one considers the full might of his opponents.
And by the way the GMC could not possibly have ignored the complaints against all 3 doctors. It would have been conceived as politically incorrect for a starters. And no I will not enlarge on that statement.
Comment by Chris | March 21st, 2010
Please do not forget that the retracted study was:
1) just twelve case studies
2) did not associate the MMR with autism
So even without the subsequent findings of fraud and dubious payments from a lawyer, there was no real evidence to support any claim that the MMR was associated with autism (especially since the same vaccine in use since 1992 had been used in the USA since 1971).
In a sane world, no one would have heard of that paper, and not even of Wakefield. If Wakefield is having problems, they are of his own making. He conducted the press conference that implied things that were not in the paper.
Patricia, you are chasing a fairy tale. I suggest you rejoin the sane world and get over it.
Comment by patricia | March 21st, 2010
Chris the party´s not over yet. Let´s just wait and see shall we?
Comment by Chris | March 22nd, 2010
Sure, honey… the last I heard Andrew Wakefield was on Facebook looking for friends. The party is over. The fairies turned out to be paper cutouts.
He is old news, and is completely irrelevant in regards to science.
Get over it. Move on. Perhaps you should try joining the sane world.
Comment by Mike | March 22nd, 2010
Well,
after the panel decide on his fate we will see whether or not Wakefield does take his appeal to the high court. I believe he will more likely opt for the court of public opinion via his Facebook page.
Comment by john | May 24th, 2010
I think the real issue is should we be pumping into baies man made chemicals at this age ? instead shouldnt we be looking to empower the NATURAL immune system , we already have many 100’s of years of genetic immunity to many of these illnesses , i believe alot of this is about drugs companies and money and also the system seeking to control , the medical world is obsessed with drugs , and yet does nothing about the CAUSE OF illnesses .The mmr vaccine is to much for some children , it causes them to overload……its very sad , the government and medical world know this but its seen as a statistic risk thats worth the downside as it creates good efficient vaccination and a super sterile modern world where were all Immune.Wakefield was not right but he was wrong about the real problem - mercury and some babies being unable to take these high dosages.