DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD AND THE MMR CONTROVERSY

[Guest guest]

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/membership_extension.html

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.