Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words. Transcript Question 1: Professor Zuckerman Forgets & Dr Armstrong and the BMA

[Guest guest]

Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words. Transcript Question 1:

Professor Zuckerman Forgets & Dr Armstrong and the BMA

 

transcript by John of whale.to

 

http://whale.to/a/dr_andrew_wakefield.html

Part 3 Professor Zuckerman Forgets [Zuckerman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRmK_DHkgRw & feature=player_embedded

[Transcript] Interestingly, the Dean of the medical school, Prof Ari

Zuckerman, world renowned virologist, expert in Hepatitis B, worked

very closely with the WHO, was deeply involved with hepatitis B

vaccination, a great advocate of hepatitis B vaccination, different

story, but nonetheless, there he was in the general apparatchik (?)

of the vaccine advocates. And he said to me that he had been

contacted by the Department of Health and a certain members of the

Royal College of Child Health who had made him aware of this funding,

and I said yes, this is a grant we got from them and perfectly

respectable, and we are conducting the science, and he said there was

a conflict of interest, a clear conflict of interest, and I couldn't

understand it, why?

 

Why was there a conflict of interest? I had no conflict of interest,

I was asked to take this grant to conduct a piece of science and give

an answer. That wasn't a conflict of interest. The funding would be

disclosed in the paper that wrote up the science, the funding came

from the Legal Aid Board, but beyond that where was the

conflict? Anyway, I wrote back to him and said your suggestion that

there is a conflict of interest has exercised my mind greatly over

the last several months and I cannot see where it lies, and i laid

out for him the context of my discussions with the lawyers and the

work that was to be done, and he wrote back to me and couldn't

precisely define what the conflict was, but talked about if a legal

action was anticipated, and preliminary discussions had already taken

place then there was a conflict, and it didn't really make a lot of

sense to me.

 

I wrote back to him again and reiterated that we had been asked to do

a piece of science that wasn't seeking a particular answer. I

wouldn't have got involved in the first place if there was any effort

of coercion or demanding that......we own the data, the lawyers

didn't own it. We would do what we felt was scientifically

appropriate, and I had every faith in the lawyers, they seemed very

concerned, genuinely concerned about these children, they weren't in

any way ambulance chasers but nonetheless there was some clear

problem for the Dean in this, and he ultimately refused to take the

money, and I said send it back, we don't want it, if you are not

going to let us do this, we won't do it.

 

Anyway, one of my colleagues said we will put it into an account at

the hospital, a charitable account...and see if that is OK. So we

did, now, interestingly the Dean has just appeared as a witness on

behalf of the prosecution at the GMC. Professor Ari Zuckerman, now 7

years retired and clearly deeply frustrated that he should be dragged

out of retirement to have to give his evidence in this case, but

nonetheless his first foray was to say, yes, when this money was

transferred by the accountant of the Royal Free Medical School it was

too late, I didn't know about it, it had already happened, I couldn't stop it.

 

It is interesting that he actually signed the cheque for the

transfer. Surprising that, given the fact that it had already

happened by the time he knew about it, nonetheless an interval of 11

years can cloud ones mind, memory of things. There we are. But that

was the first error he made.

 

Part 4 Dr Armstrong and the BMA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiqHI5vPwvQ & feature=related

[Transcript] What he disclosed, interestingly, to me during that

period was that he had written to the ethics committee of the British

Medial Association (BMA), to take their advice, how to deal with this

perplexing issue that was causing him concern about conflicts of

interest that has was really unable to articulate to me. So he wrote

to Dr Armstrong at the BMA ethics committee to ask their opinion, and

in it unbeknown to me at the time, he had said he had been contacted

by the Department of Health who said to him that the government stood

to be sued by the parents of children affected by MMR or apparently

affected by MMR vaccine, and that this to him was a conflict of

interest. That government was going to be sued.

 

Do you understand, I came into this with the lawyers believing the

case was against the vaccine manufacturers, the government didn't

even come into it, but he was clearly under the impression that the

government were going to be sued. He also said that this may be

embarrassing for the medical school. Now, we were never party to the

ultimate response of Dr Armstrong of the BMA. We were never told

about it. All we did when he wrote back to me is to say you will

know that I have taken advice on this matter from the BMA and leave

it that, as though the BMA had ruled completely against it.

 

When in fact we got the documents, as we did do as part of the

disclosure for the GMC, there it was, the letter from Dr Armstrong,

not only endorsing the fact this study could and should be done

because it was morally and ethically proper that it should be done,

but that not to do it because it was embarrassing to an institute or

because it meant the government might be sued was not a sound moral

argument. His words.

 

So in other words the BMA ethics committee said this is fine. It

said actions of this kind or research of this kind is often funded by

a group with a particular interest. Of course they are, the Multiple

Sclerosis Society funds research for MS in the hope that it can make

patients better. So here we have another group of people with a

vested interest funding a piece of research. As long as it is

ethical, and as long as it is conducted in a way that it is

published, whether it is positive or negative, then that is fine.

 

Nonetheless Prof Zuckerman did not get the answer he wanted. he

never disclosed that to us, he just kept beating us over the head

with the certain knowledge that he had contacted the BMA and they had

given him an opinion.