Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the MMR Controversy

[Guest guest]

SECOND OPINION - SPECIAL EDITION

REDFLAGSDAILY.COM

http://www.redflagsdaily.com

 

DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD AND THE MMR CONTROVERSY

 

By Nicholas Regush, RFD Editor

 

It doesn’t look very good for Dr. Andrew Wakefield, an English physician

and researcher who has championed the need to investigate the potential

relationship between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism.

 

Today, the scavengers of British journalism surfaced and attacked him and

his work, and attempted to destroy whatever chance he may have to rescue

his scientific reputation.

 

And today, British mainstream medicine hit-men also surfaced to stick him

with a knife and twist it round and round.

 

I am not surprised by these events. It is what one can expect these days

when a so-called “maverick” researcher dares to challenge the Medical

Establishment. And it is certainly what one expects when the “maverick”

runs against the drift of vaccine promotion and zealotry. And it is also

what one expects of the mainstream press when someone has been wounded.

 

Nor am I surprised that politics have now entered the fray. Tony Blair,

undoubtedly still traumatized by his recent encounters with Iraqi

realities, has stepped in to add his cent or two, calling for an end to the

MMR vaccine debate. An end to the MMR vaccine debate? Really? But I suppose

this is a fitting sophmoric intellectual stand for a British Prime Minister

who desperately needs to remove attention from his own trials by stuffing

his nose once again where it doesn’t belong.

 

As for Wakefield , let there be no doubt that he appears to have been

caught in a vice of his own making. In 1998, his study (along with numerous

colleagues) published in The Lancet, possibly linking bowel disease with

autism and suggesting, however briefly, that the relationship may have been

triggered by the three-in-one shot MMR vaccine, should have included a

disclosure, indicating that he had received money from a legal aid group

via a lawyer representing parents, to conduct a separate investigation of

whether the MMR was linked to autism. The fact is, he reportedly didn’t

even bother to tell his research colleagues about this contract.

 

At a time when conflict of interest issues were percolating in medicine (at

long last), there was no excuse to not have this potential conflict

foremost in mind. The Lancet might have regarded the science differently

had it known about Wakefield ’s financial relationship with attorneys who

were seeking to prove an MMR-autism link. To say, as Wakefield has, that he

had nothing to be embarrassed about – apparently the journal’s

simplistically-stated test at the time for conflict of interest – is to

show a tremendous lack of smarts for what needs to be done to protect one’s

reputation and integrity in science. I’m assuming here, of course, that the

timeline established in an investigative piece yesterday in the Sunday

Times is accurate, namely that Wakefield had already received up to $55,000

pounds sterling from the legal aid group prior to publication of his study

in The Lancet .

 

There have been calls for an inquiry. Even Blair immediately knee-jerked in

this direction, following others who want to see the General Medical

Council investigate.

 

Here is what Blair told the press: “There’s absolutely no evidence to

support this link between MMR and autism…If there was, I can assure you

that any Government would be looking at it and trying to act on it.” If

Blair actually believes what he said, he must either be loopy or very

poorly briefed..

 

A defiant Wakefield is also eager for a broad airing of the issues

surrounding the 1998 study. By his expressed desire to participate in an

investigation, one assumes that Wakefield either has something in his hip

pocket that might dispel the conflict-of-interest accusation or that he

believes he can make a strong case for the integrity of the science he

produced. This will be a tall order because it is generally and rightly

believed that a conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict taints a

study, no matter how it may have been conducted. The issue is credibility

and this is why conflict of interest rules are in place – to allow others

to decide whether to look upon research seriously or not. Conducting

science is not an objective enterprise. Human personality and desires enter

the picture whether one realizes this or not. Too many doctors and

researchers think they are somehow immune to this process. They actually

believe they can withstand outside influence of any kind – if they wish to

do so. How utterly foolish this is. What do they teach in medical school?

 

When the Wakefield story first broke, my immediate reaction was that the

hit-men of the Medical Establishment would exploit the opportunity to

condemn the very idea that the MMR could be associated in some way with

some cases of autism. This is what has happened.

 

Imagine the so-called “top doctor” in Britain, Liam Donaldson, telling the

press today that “Dr. Wakefield’s original study was poor science...(and)

independent experts and independent medical bodies around the world have

criticized it.” So what? Numbers win in science? Apparently yes. But here

we also discover the type of hyperbole that appears to be political. Either

that or Donaldson is blissfully uneducated about the scant research of

value actually done on the MMR and the fact that there is insufficient

evidence to rule out a relationship between the vaccine and autism. Top

Doctor wouldn’t have a prayer in a public forum on the issue with some

intelligent researchers who understand the complexity and difficulty of

researching vaccines. Donaldson also avoids, out of ignorance or stealth,

the simple fact that there is some evidence produced elsewhere in the world

that suggests that Wakefield may have been on a good track to get to the

bottom of a major medical mystery. But more about that in another column.

 

As for the other man on the hot seat, editor Richard Horton of The Lancet,

he is also living on another planet. He’s been quoted as stating that the

MMR is safe. How revealing. And he is the editor of The Lancet? I think

it's time for him to go. And How does he know that the MMR is safe? I'd

give a tooth or two to be on a public stage with him. I thought he was a

scientist, but apparently he is into some sort of crystal-ball gazing. Or

worse.

 

The simple fact is, Wakefield has raised some major issues about autism and

vaccines and the entire area is begging to be investigated in great detail,

and not in the shameful manner that drug companies and their drone

researchers conduct business.

 

The press. Well, what can one say that hasn’t been said many, many times

before? That ludicrous headlines trample on any attempt to get at the

truth? No, that’s often been said. That many health reporters show their

ignorance of basic ethics and the fundamentals of research all too often

when they tackle medical controversies? No, that’s also been said many

times. In other words, business as usual.

 

The sad part of all this is that this sorry episode will likely drain

further attempts to better determine if the MMR is safe. The conclusion

that it is absolutely safe, now so strongly pushed by the Medical

Establishment and the press, is a huge disservice to parents, children and

the whole damn world.

 

 

Related News: (BBC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3508167.stm

Journal regrets running MMR study

The medical journal that published a controversial study linking MMR to

autism says, with hindsight, it would not have published the paper.