transcript Dr Andrew Wakefield on the Birthday blood tests

[Guest guest]

Q 5: Dr Andrew Wakefield - The Birthday

Bloods. What Happened at the birthday party? For the full

interview visit

 

http://goldenhawkprojects.blogspot.com/2010/04/dr-andrew-wakefield-in-his-own-words-q5.html

 

[Transcript] There are 2 mistakes about the birthday party. One was

taking blood from children at a birthday party, or having blood taken at

a birthday party, and the other was telling the story about it in a way

that was designed to tell people, an audience of parents of children with

autism and professionals, about my children's contribution to these

investigations.

I was proud of them, but I also wanted to temper that

by illustrating the mercenary nature of children, so the story itself was

a gross exaggeration. There were actually, 7,8,9 children at the

birthday party who gave blood with fully informed consent. There

was absolutely no problem. In the story I tell, the children were

fainting and all that sort of thing, was a stupid story. Humour is

in the moment. I thought it was funny at the time, it wasn't funny

then, it isn't funny now, but nonetheless there it was, and the children

were absolutely fine. Yes, I paid them 5 pounds each, or rewarded

them 5 pounds each for their altruism, for their willingness to

participate in this. It was done in a perfectly respectable way,

and there were no problems, and they were all entirely willing, and their

parents had given fully informed consent, and children are often

altruistic and will help out, and my children who were some of those

involved in that, knew the autistic children, they knew what it was all

about. These children came to stay with us or have lunch with us

when they had come up over from America. For example they were more

than willing to help. My son Sam has just come back from teaching

in an autism camp in Aspen Colorado. My children have a tremendous

sense of duty and caring, and they had no problem, or their friends at

the time, about giving a sample of blood for this test.

So it was a grossly exaggerated story and that is a shame, but it should

never have been told in that setting, and you could reasonably argue it

would bring the reputation into disrepute, and that is what they have

argued.

The ethical side of doing it, or at least the lack of ethics committee

approval, there was no approval to do it and nor did I think approval was

necessary because it was done away from the Royal Free, it was done off

site in a domestic setting if you like. That was naive and nowadays

you would definitely need ethical committee approval, and you probably

did then.

I didn't know about that and I wouldn't have told the story, obviously,

if I had been aware that it was a problem or had been a problem at the

time, so a combination of naivety and a bad sense of humour, but there

was no, absolutely, abuse of the children and they were all very, very

happy, and would do it again any time, not that they did, so it is just

one of those things and if ultimately that is what they find me guilty of

then that is a small charge in my mind compared to the much graver charge

of having conducted dishonest and inappropriate research on children with

autism.