All about Andy
Even if everything Andrew Wakefield says about the safety of MMR were true it would still not advance the claim that it causes autism.
Having failed, over the past 15 years, to come up with evidence for his theory of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism (or even for his original claim of a link between measles virus and inflammatory bowel disease), Andrew Wakefield has resorted to making wider (and wilder) claims about the safety of MMR. Moving away from his former field of academic gastroenterology, Wakefield has embarked upon studies in paediatrics, vaccinology and public health. These are spheres in which he has neither expertise nor experience – and it shows. He has alleged that surveys associated with the introduction of MMR in Britain 25 years ago were methodologically inadequate, too small in scale, too short in duration or otherwise unsatisfactory. He claims that evidence of adverse reactions was suppressed, conflicts of interests among public health authorities were undisclosed and whistleblowers were silenced. Critics of the programme are alleged to have had their phones tapped, their homes burgled and to have been persecuted by the medical/political/pharmaceutical establishment. Most recently Wakefield has claimed that procedures for dealing with potential anaphylactic reactions within the MMR programme were inadequate.
I do not intend to revisit here the case against Wakefield’s claims about the safety of MMR which is presented in my book MMR and Autism: What Parents Need To Know. (1)On the red-herring of anaphylaxis, including a report of a curiously high incidence in association with separate measles vaccine in a private clinic, see these studies. (2,3,4) Here I would like to pose three questions that arise for anybody who accepts his allegations about the introduction of MMR in Britain after 1988.
1. What about the other countries in which MMR has been introduced?
Surely, if there are significant dangers associated with MMR – which were supposedly ignored in Britain – these would have been noticed in the 60 countries in which the vaccine has been introduced (both before and after 1988)? In fact, the excellent safety record of MMR – 500 million doses and counting – is a major reason for its successful worldwide use. Several countries in Europe and the Americas have been able to declare measles eradicated, apparently without experiencing the sort of adverse effects Wakefield and anti-vaccine campaigners have attributed to MMR in Britain. Indeed, even if public health authorities had succeeded in suppressing reports of adverse reactions to MMR 20 or 25 years ago, these must surely have become apparent by now?
2. Did MMR not dramatically reduce the incidence of mumps meningitis (even if one strain of the vaccine caused a small number of cases)?\
One of the recurring complaints of Wakefield and his supporters is that in the early years of the programme, British vaccine authorities used a brand of MMR including a strain of the mumps virus (Urabe), which was associated with a small number of cases of meningitis, a recognised complication of mumps. In 1992 this was replaced by another strain (Jeryl Lynn) which does not cause this problem. However, if the Jeryl Lynn strain had not been available, it would still have been preferable to carry on with the MMR including Urabe because the benefit of dramatically reducing the incidence of mumps (in the 1980s the commonest cause of viral meningitis) far exceeded the risk of vaccine-related meningitis. A judgement of this sort was made for many years in relation to the use of the oral polio vaccine which caused a handful of cases of polio every year (until it was finally replaced by the currently used injected polio vaccine, which does not carry this risk).
3. Even if MMR is shown to be unsafe in general, how does this support the specific claim that it causes autism?
Wakefield’s strategy appears to be that, if the safety of MMR in general can be put in doubt, the credibility of any particular risk attributed to the vaccine is raised. In reality, this strategy merely draws attention to his failure – over 15 years – to produce any evidence in support of the MMR-autism theory.
Given his failure to substantiate the MMR-autism hypothesis, Wakefield’s persistence in his campaign against MMR has acquired an increasingly irrational character, confirmed by his bizarre video diatribes against leading figures associated with the MMR programme. He is still bitterly aggrieved that British authorities did not accede to his preposterous demand (issued at the notorious 1998 press conference to launch his now retracted Lancet paper) for the replacement of MMR with separate vaccines given 12 months apart. Not a single member of his own team supported this proposal, which was not included in the paper and was in no way supported by it. Such a scheme has never been implemented in any country. Wakefield is further incensed that vaccine authorities insisted on upholding the integrity of the MMR programme in face of his proposal.
If Wakefield had any experience of child health he might have a better understanding of the importance of the organisation of a vaccine programme. Before the introduction of MMR, a measles vaccine had been available in Britain for 20 years, but its administration was unsystematic, uptake remained unsatisfactory and outbreaks continued to occur. In a similar way, rubella vaccine had been given to schoolgirls with considerable success, but occasional cases of congenital rubella were still reported. Mumps vaccine had never been made widely available and cases were seen commonly in surgeries and hospitals. The introduction of the new combined MMR vaccine – within a comprehensive administrative framework, inviting parents into clinics when their children’s jabs were due, properly recording them – brought within a few years a dramatic improvement in children’s health.
If Wakefield had seen, as I have, children suffering from measles, or if he had admitted children to hospital, as I have, with mumps meningitis, or if he had cared for adults with the multiple handicaps of the congenital rubella syndrome, as I have, he might not be so casually disparaging of the MMR programme. But, unfortunately, for Wakefield it is all about Andy and his petty personal grudges against the vaccine authorities who have quite properly put children’s health before his combination of bad science and egotism.
Now, what about that debate?
1. Michael Fitzpatrick, MMR and Autism: What Parents Need To Know, Routledge 2004; p 128-133.
2. Lakshman R, Finn A (2000). MMR vaccine and allergy, Arch Dis Child 2000;82:93-95 doi:10.1136/adc.82.2.93.
3. Erlewyn-Lajeunesse M, Manek R, Lingam R, Finn A, Emond A (2008). Anaphylaxis following single component measles and rubella immunization, Arch Dis Child 2008; 93:974-975. doi:10.1136/adc.2008.138289;
4. Erlewyn-Lajeunesse M, Hunt LP, Heath PT, FinnA (2011). Anaphylaxis as an adverse event following immunisation in the UK and Ireland, Arch Dis Child 2011; doi:10.1136/archdischild-2011-301163.
By Michael Fitzpatrick