Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.2 In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.
Archive by Author
Lancet retracts Wakefield paper
2 FebAndrew Wakefield – What happens next?
31 JanSo Andrew Wakefield has been found proved guilty of the vast majority of the accusations against him and been found dishonest and acting irresponsibly with both the children under his ‘care’ and the not inconsiderable sums of public money he had occassion to recieve and ‘manage’.
None of this would have come as a surprise to anyone who had taken the time to carefully read Brian Deer’s thorough works on the subject. That it was a major shock to the John Stone’s and Martin Walker’s of this world tells you more about their capacity for self delusion than how shocking the findings regarding Wakefield were.
So whats next for Andrew Wakefield? Now that the official findings have been made public, the GMC must consider:
…whether those facts found proved or admitted, were insufficient to amount to a finding of serious professional misconduct. The Panel concluded that these findings, which include those of dishonesty and misleading conduct, would not be insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct.
Yeah, pointless double speak aside (would not be insufficient??) the panel are basically saying that Andrew Wakefield’s behaviour could easily constitute serious professional misconduct.
So what can result from that? Brian Deer, writing in the Times Online provides a possible answer:
Lawyers have told me that any one of the more than 30 charges that were proved against Wakefield would typically lead to his being struck off. His days as a medical practitioner will soon be history…
And so what is the next step?
In the next session, commencing 7 April 2010, the Panel, under Rule 28, will hear evidence to be adduced and submissions from prosecution counsel then Dr Wakefield’s own counsel as to whether the facts as found proved do amount to
serious professional misconduct, and if so, what sanction, if any, should be imposed on his registration.
From April 7th then Andrew Wakefield will be fighting for the right to refer to himself and be referred to by others as ‘Doctor’. That will be a victory for anyone concerned with patient care in the UK.
Oh Deer…
31 JanApart from people who have boosted Andrew Wakefield’s discredited and dishonest wild theories about MMR vaccine over the years (Lucy Johnston, Melanie Phillips, Fiona Phillips et al), one journalist will forever be associated with Wakefield: Brian Deer.
Brian Deer is no shill for the pharmaceutical industry. Back in the 90s he tackled the harms of Septrin (a widely prescribed antibiotic), and later went on to tackle Merck over Vioxx. Brian has pursued Wakefield in the same way as he carried out his investigations of “big pharma”. Not that this has protected him from allegations about his motivations, his detractors being unable to accept that a journalist might investigate the Wakefield hoax without help from “big pharma” or a conspiring UK government. Melanie Phillips alleged he was part of a witch hunt, although she was incorrect. Last year, the increasing lunatic fringe of the UK’s anti-vaccine movement alleged Brian’s sexuality was the reason for his investigative reporting:
By all accounts a gay man and therefore unlikely ever to have to face the multiple vaccine risk agonised over by parents from around the world in relation to their children, Brian Deer has made it his business to portray the parents of these autistic vaccine damaged children as deluded mendacious chancers.
We now know that the man with callous disregard for children’s welfare was the man they have supported; Andrew Wakefield. He had a financial conflict of interest. He treated children unethically. He exposed children to “high-risk” procedures without ethical approval and against their best clinical interests [Here’s an example of what can happen].
Brian was also subjected to a libel action brought against him by Wakefield, the current toy of the rich (Wakefield leads a comfortable life in Texas now, working at a quack treatment centre for £170,000 a year). In an article at the Sunday Times today, Deer talks of the benefits of exposing Wakefield.
Wakefield will probably never admit to his errors. But exposing his methods has been worthwhile, according to medical sources.
“People can’t understand whether a scientific study is valid or invalid,” said a senior doctor who had watched vaccination rates slump, even in the face of endless research on MMR safety. “But they can understand ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, and they can understand ‘honest’ and ‘dishonest’.”
Lawyers have told me that any one of the more than 30 charges that were proved against Wakefield would typically lead to his being struck off. His days as a medical practitioner will soon be history. A further hearing will determine whether “serious professional misconduct” was committed.
Yet more troubling for Wakefield’s future are his prospects for research, or at least of getting it published.
“Any journal to which a researcher shown to be dishonest submitted a paper would reject it,” said Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, this weekend. “They would say, ‘This man can’t be trusted’. His career as a researcher is effectively over.”
On the latter point, I’m not so sure. His days as a real researcher are over, but he and his friends already have a plan to tackle that obstacle.
Brian Deer in the Sunday Times on the GMC decisions
31 JanI had a strong feeling that an article by Brian Deer would appear in today’s Sunday Times. Brian Deer has followed the story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield closer than anyone, uncovering much of what has now brought the doctor one step away from being struck off the register in the U.K.. So, I was not surprised when I found ‘Callous, unethical and dishonest’: Dr Andrew Wakefield on the Sunday Times’ website.
The article describes the events as the GMC decision was read out. Brian Deer was there, Andrew Wakefield was not.
Dr. Wakefield was found guilty on multiple counts, but the most important from my perspective:
Other proven charges included nine of mistreating developmentally challenged children: causing invasive “high-risk” research to be carried out without ethical approval and against their best clinical interests.
Mr. Deer points out that this ls likely the end of Dr. Wakefield’s career as a researcher. Well, yes and no. I think his career as a mainstream researcher was over years ago. But, as a contributor (and editor) to the world of third-tier research, he appears to be moving ahead.
Based on previous public statements by Mr. Deer, I am hopeful that more articles delving into the details of the research Dr. Wakefield performed at the Royal Free Hospital are forthcoming.
Autism Insights, another journal for questionable autism research?
30 JanThe double standards applied by the autism alternative medicine community never cease to amaze me. Typically they do a game of “six degrees of separation” with any one they disagree with. Do you have ties to anyone who has worked on vaccines? Do you have ties to anyone who knows anyone who might have worked with a governmental agency? Well, if so, anything you say is ignored as biased.
Funny that no one took a good look at the Journal that the recent “confirmation” of Dr. Wakefield’s research was published in. The alt-med community doesn’t question research they like.
Confused? Here’s the back story. A recent article was published Clinical presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal symptoms in a journal called “Autism Insights”. The paper came out the day before the decision from the GMC on Dr. Wakefield. The paper was touted as “Wakefield’s Science Proven Valid Again In New Study That Replicates Findings” in a blog post (guess where?)
Have you ever heard of “Autism Insights“? Neither had I. Don’t feel bad. Unless you read one of the two other articles published in that “journal”, you couldn’t have heard of it.
Yes, two other articles. One is an editorial.
This new article brings the total published in “Autism Insights” to 3.
The first:
Trends in Developmental, Behavioral and Somatic Factors by Diagnostic Sub-group in Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Follow-up Analysis
Authors: Paul Whiteley, Lynda Todd, Kalliopi Dodou and Paul Shattock
Then an editorial:
Autism Etiology: Genes and the Environment
Authors: A.J. Russo
and now
Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Authors: Arthur Krigsman, Marvin Boris, Alan Goldblatt and Carol Stott
Yep, that’s it. The entire production of “Autism Insights” is two papers and one editorial.
So far, every paper has had an author on the journal’s editorial board.
Take a look at the Editorial Board. This paper, timed to come out exactly when Dr. Wakefield needed good press has no fewer than four people from Dr. Wakefield’s own clinic, ThoughtfulHouse.
Bryan Jepson, MD
Director of Medical Services, Medical Center at Thoughtful House Center for Children, Austin, TX, USAArthur Krigsman, MD
Director of Gastrointestinal Services, Pediatric Gastroenterology, Thoughtful House Cener for Children, Austin, TX, USACarol Mary Stott, PhD
Senior Research Associate, Research Department, Thoughtful House, Austin, TX, USAAndrew Wakefield, MBBS, FRCS, FRCPath
Research Director, THoughtful House Centre for Children, Austin, TX, USA
There are prominent DAN doctors, Richard Deth, and others from the alt-med community on the editorial board as well.
Come on guys. Is this really the standard of science that is acceptable to support Dr. Wakefield?
As an aside, a year or so back I emailed some friends with a speculation that the alt-med community would create their own journal. As far as predictions go, this wasn’t really a longshot. Still, it is interesting to see the prediction come true.
As to the paper itself? I’ll only say a few brief words as it really isn’t worth the time.
1) I recall in the Omnibus hearings that many of the GI “findings” claimed by the petitioners were found to be misinterpretations by the experts who reviewed them
2) No one has ever said that autistic kids are somehow immune from GI complaints, including inflammation.
3) There are multiple details where, even if correct, this research is very dissimilar from that of Dr. Wakefield’s original Lancet paper and later work.
It is too bad that these researchers chose to make clinical findings into what amounts to a political statement of support for Dr. Wakefield. If there is any valuable information gained from these children, I don’t see how this paper respects their contribution.
edit to add: I forgot to acknowledge that this post came from a tip from Prometheus at the Photon in the Darkness blog.
Did Andrew Wakefield plan to develop “vaccine alternatives”?
29 JanOne question that has been actively discussed here on LeftBrainRightBrain is whether Dr. Wakefield’s patent covered the use of his “transfer factor” as a preventive vaccine against measles. This is important because it would indicate an undisclosed conflict of interest.
One of the charges the General Medical Council investigated had to do with a proposed company to work on the “transfer factor” that Dr. Wakefield was a co-inventor on (i.e. Dr. Wakefield was one of the inventors on the patent). A proposal was submitted to the Royal Free Hospital (Dr. Wakefield’s employer) about the possible company. The proposal was drafted by “Mr 10”, the father of child 10 in the Lancet study.
That Lancet paper was published on February 28th, 1998. The proposal was submitted to the Royal Free on March 4th, 1998.
The “transfer factor” is discussed in charge #40. Subsection f of charge 40 discusses the company. I quote the GMC charge sheet as it stood last week, before the decisions were handed down.
f. A proposal, dated 4 March 1998 and drafted by Mr 10, was submitted to the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in relation to the proposed company,
Admitted and found provedi. seeking funding for a clinical trial of Transfer Factor in the treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder, and for research into using Transfer Factor as an alternative measles specific vaccine,
Admitted and found proved with the exception of the words ‘an alternative’
So, you can see that a company proposal was submitted (admitted and found proved). Further, in sub-subsection “i” of subsection “f” (complicated, isn’t it?), you see that there was a charge that the “Transfer Factor” could be used as “an alternative measles vaccine”. Dr. Wakefield admitted to this with the exception of the words ‘an alternative’. This is consistent with his public statements (e.g. on Dateline) that the vaccine was a treatment only.
Here is how that section reads today, in the GMC ruling. Note the final paragraph which was added for the ruling.
f. A proposal, dated 4 March 1998 and drafted by Mr 10, was submitted to the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in relation to the proposed company,
Admitted and found proved
i. seeking funding for a clinical trial of Transfer Factor in the treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder, and for research into using Transfer Factor as an alternative measles specific vaccine,
Admitted and found proved with the exception of the words‘an alternative’
Found proved in respect of the words “an alternative” on the basis of the proposal referred to above in 40.f. where it states, “The company will also investigate the potential of Transfer Factors as vaccine alternatives.”
Yes, the GMC ruled that the company proposal showed that the intent was to “…for research into using Transfer Factor as an alternative measles specific vaccine”.
In other words, the GMC appears to accept that, in addition to the use of the transfer factor as a “theraputic agent”, there was an intent to investigate the potential for the transfer factor as “vaccine alternatives”. I hope the full document is made public so we can see this sentence in full context.
As recent as last year, on Dateline, Dr. Wakefield steadfastly denied that his patent and plans had anything to do with a measles vaccine. Below is that clip.
Here is Brian Deer discussing the patent activities with Matt Lauer:
I wonder if Mr. Lauer’s reporting would differ, now that the existence of the company proposal is made public. It appears clear from this proposal demonstrate that Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues (Mr. 10 and whoever else was going to be in the company) had the intent to investigate the “transfer factor” as a vaccine alternative. This proposal was submitted a few days after the Lancet article was published, and after the news conference. I don’t see that excusing not informing the public of the potential commercial interests.
The GMC ruling states:
At or around the same time as the events set out at paragraphs
40.a.and 40.b., you were involved in a proposal to set up a company called Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltd to specialise in the production, formulation and sale of Transfer Factor,
(amended) Admitted and found proved with the exception of ‘40.a.’
Note that paragraph 40b describes events of February 2, well before the publication of the Lancet Article and the press conference. I.e. the intent to form a company dates from before the study became public.
I am left wondering how “The company will also investigate the potential of Transfer Factors as vaccine alternatives” can be interpreted differently than how the GMC has read it.
Wakefield’s Inquisition: Abuse of the legal system and media by anti-vaccine doctor
29 JanAs the GMC approaches a verdict on the misconduct of Andrew Wakefield, anti-vaccine sources are engaged in a concerted effort to make the “doctor” into a martyr rather than a failed researcher. It is vital to ensure that the general public is not in any way lulled into sympathy for the “doctor”. In my judgment, the most important point to drive home is that, while Wakefield and associates play up the image of the “doctor” being persecuted for his ideas, he is the one who has persistently acted to suppress any discussion not entirely in his favor. To that end, I have compiled the following list, complete to the best of my ability, of recorded frivolous lawsuits, libels, complaints and harassment by Wakefield and his immediate associates against his numerous critics.
3 October 1996: Wakefield files a complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Commission over a broadcast critical of his claims that MMR was associated with Crohn’s disease.
1998-2003: Nick Chadwick withholds negative results suppressed by Wakefield from the public, apparently as required while litigation was ongoing.
February 2002: Wakefield files or threatens to file complaints to the GMC against critical colleagues. One formal complaint involved a statement made in 1997. He reportedly told government chief medical health officer Sir Liam Donaldson: “It has come to my attention that you have sought details of our studies from the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free NHS trust. I infer from this that faced with an increasingly compelling scientific case against the MMR vaccine you are seeking to discredit the scientists involved. Your attempts to interfere in the scientific process are unacceptable. Not only do you have no right whatsoever to this information without permission, but also your action has had an indirect but nonetheless profound effect upon our ability to help these desperately ill children. I am seeking advice prior to taking this issue up with the General Medical Council.”
27 February 2004: The Sunday Times and the Lancet a letter from Wakefield’s attorneys denying Feb. 20 reports that Wakefield failed to disclose conflicts of interest related to the 1998 paper, with the stated purpose “to invite you to agree promptly to publish a full apology to our client”.
November 2004: Wakefield files a lawsuit against Brian Deer and Channel 4 for libel. At around the same time, his attorneys send a letter falsely alleging that Deer “has made a formal statutory complaint to the General Medical Council against Mr Wakefield and others concerning these matters.” The letter also refers prominently to “a current Press Complaints Commission” of Brian Deer, though no such complaint is on record. The claim of a complaint by Deer is taken up by Carol Stott, and continues to circulate to the present despite repeated denials by Deer and the GMC. Curiously, a February 27, 2004 BBC article stated, “The General Medical Council is now carrying out an investigation into Dr Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who led the 1998 study.” This statement, coming only five days after Deer’s first report was published, not only weakens any suggestion that Deer directly initiated the investigation, but raises the possibility that some form of GMC inquiry on Wakefield (conceivably rising from his own past complaints against others) was under way even before Deer’s allegations were made public.
March-October 2005: Wakefield’s attorneys seek to freeze further action in the libel suit against Deer. Justice Eady “The claim form was issued on 31st March but only served on 22nd June 2005. Thereafter, it seems, the particulars of claim were served with some reluctance following prompting by the Defendants and an order of Master Rose on 27th July of this year. They eventually appeared on 10th August. There has thus apparently been a rather relaxed and dilatory approach towards litigation of a kind which is supposed to achieve vindication of reputation.” He further questions Wakefield’s motives in the lawsuit as a whole: “Claimant wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to give the Defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims.”
31 January 2005: Wakefield files a second lawsuit against Deer, over content of briandeer.com, and a third against the Sunday Times and Channel 4.
29 June 2005: Cambridge Evening News receives a letter from Wakefield’s attorneys over a citation of a Brian Deer report (worded as “the article alleged…”), calling on the paper to “publish an apology”.
July 2007: Martin J. Walker initiates smears against Brian Deer. Claims include allegation that Deer initiated GMC hearings against Wakefield. Though Wakefield condemns Walker on 3 November 2008, Deer reports a December 2009 newsletter for Wakefield’s “network” requesting donations to pay an additional 5,500 pounds to Walker.
6 February 2009: A letter sent to Brian Deer requests that an article (published 2 days later) presenting evidence that Wakefield case histories in 1998 paper not be published: “(Y)ou appear to be considering publishing an account which covers much of the same material as is being considered by the Panel. Publication of your allegations and account at this time will give rise to serious risk that the GMC process will be prejudiced and the faimess of the hearing compromised. You also know that, at this juncture in the GMC process it would be inappropriate for Dr Wakefield to give a detailed response to you. He has denied t he allegations and gave a detailed response over many days to the GMC Panel.”
13 March 2009: Andrew Wakefield files complaint with Press Complaint Commission, over Feb. 8 story. The key allegations are that Deer “knew that these allegations were either false or misleading, based on incomplete records – or, at the very least, open to question” and that “it was he who brought the original complaint. He therefore has an undeclared interest in its conclusions.”
20 March 2009: Andrew Wakefield files addendum to complaint over Brian Deer’s statement, “I did not lay the initial complaint against Wakefield. This allegation is a fabrication, albeit rather a small one in the MMR issue.” Bizarrely, Wakefield presents truth of his own allegation as immaterial: “(W)hether or not Mr. Deer initiated the GMC investigation as ‘complainant’ in his letter dated Feb. 25, 2004, or acted as an ‘informant’ in an investigation already begun by the GMC, he did not disclose his own direct participation in the GMC investigation in his most recent accounts in the Sunday Times, intending to give the public the misimpression that he was acting as a neutral and disinterested reporter.“
3 July 2009: Thoughtful House release, “Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR journalist’s Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper’s Web Site”, alleges, “The PCC decision today appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories,” despite implicit admission in Feb. 6 that Deer reported only what had been alleged by others.
9 July 2009: Second press release, “Sunday Times Defies Press Complaints Commission”, alleges that “the Sunday Times has now defied the PCC by putting the stories back online after complaining Dr. Wakefield publicly announced the PCC’s directive.”
8 September 2009: NAA press release “Offit’s Failure to Disclose Jeopardizes Swine Flu Vaccine Program” is carried by Reuters. The stated location of “Austin, Texas”, in contrast to NAA headquarters location of Nixa, Missouri, strongly suggests that Wakefield and/or Thoughtful House are the creators of the release. The release defends Wakefield, attacks Paul Offit, and by extension attacks Dateline broadcast in which Wakefield was portrayed critically. It includes the claim, first made in a hoax published by Age of Autism, that “Offit’s share of a royalty sale for the Rotateq vaccine to Merck is a minimum of $29 million and may approach $50 million.” Wakefield’s use of a third party to promote the hoax in September raises the possibility that he significantly contributed to the hoax itself, in which figures were inflated through an inapplicable 2007 CHOP policy and documents from a patent which preceded the one which was sold.
27 January 2009: On the day before the GMC released its first findings against Wakefield, a 104-page complaint is filed with the GMC by multiple or. The most straightforward and prominently publicized claim is that Drs. Horton, Salisbury, Zuckerman, Pegg, and Rutter “gave false statements”. Obviously prepared long in advance, this complaint can be presumed without merit, and could easily be used as a basis for countersuits. Its greatest significance will almost certainly be as yet another obstacle to timely disclosures of findings and to further legal actions, of which US disciplinary proceedings against Wakefield and litigation against him and Thoughtful House are the most threatening to the “doctor’s” interests.
In hindsight, there are many things that were “off” about Wakefield. He relied (perhaps not wholly by his own choice) on an image of a “young maverick”, though he was in fact a well-established but not distinguished researcher with dozens of previous publications (none of which is listed in a Thoughtful House bibliography!). He earned his doctorate in 1981, at the strikingly early age of 25, yet PubMed records only 3 papers of his published before 1991. He held several formal titles at Royal Free, yet his contract stipulated that he have “no involvement in the clinical management of patients.” His previous efforts to link MMR with Crohn’s disease came very close to drawing charges of fraud (see review ) His publications in the affair show a shifting roster of coauthors and repeated changes in publishing journals. I find the path of his career (particularly his early display of apparent talent followed by surprising early difficulties) strikingly like that of artists who go on to commit forgery.
The bottom line is that the only thing necessary to stop Wakefield was for those who knew the most about his conduct to speak up before his spurious claims became cultural currency. The best way to ensure that similar (or even worse) offenders are exposed before they do harm is to reform the courts, so that litigation is NEVER allowed to trump timely criticism among scientific professionals.
GMC on the birthday party blood draws
29 JanOne subject that has been discussed on this blog a number of times is the birthday party for one of the Wakefield children, where blood samples were taken from children for research purposes. Given that, and given that one key part discussed here has been found “not proved”, I thought I would use that as the first segment of the decision to discuss here.
Here is the section:
The Birthday Party
‘42. a. On a date unknown prior to 20 March 1999 at your son’s
birthday party you,i.
tookcaused blood to be taken from a group of children to use for research purposes,
(amended) Found proved
The Panel considers that the amendment is necessary to
reflect the state of the evidence.
ii. paid those children who gave blood £5 each for doing so,
Found proved
The Panel is satisfied by your own evidence (Day 55p41)
that you paid the children “as a reward at the end of the
party the children who had given blood all received £5”b. On 20 March 1999 you gave a presentation to the
MIND Institute, in California, USA in the course of which you,
Admitted and found proved to the words ‘California, USA’i. described the incident referred to in 42.a. above in
humorous terms,
Found proved
ii. expressed an intention to obtain research samples in
similar circumstances in the future;
Found proved
The Panel is satisfied that this has been found proved in its
entirety, having viewed the video.‘43. a. Your conduct as set out in paragraph 42.a. above was unethical
in that,
i. you did not have ethics committee approval for your
actions,
Found proved
The Panel does not accept your explanation that you did
not consider this action to be unethical or that Ethics
Committee approval was required.
ii. youtookcaused blood to be taken from children in an
inappropriate social setting,
(amended) Found proved
The Panel considers that the amendment was necessary to
reflect the state of the evidence.
iii. you offered financial inducement to children in order to
obtain blood samples,
Found not proved
The Panel accepts that the children were not persuaded to give blood by being offered money first.
iv. you showed a callous disregard for the distress and pain
that you knew or ought to have known the children involved
might suffer,
Found proved
The Panel is satisfied by your evidence that the children
were “paid for their discomfort”(day 67p23), which it
concluded was evidence of a callous disregard.
v. in the circumstances you abused your position of trust as
a medical practitioner,
Found proved on the basis of the above findings.b. Your conduct set out in paragraph 42.b. was such as to bring
the medical profession into disrepute;’
Found proved on the basis of the above findings.
The section found “not proved” is where Dr. Wakefield was reported to have offered money to the children to induce them to offer blood samples.
you offered financial inducement to children in order to obtain blood samples,
Found not proved
The Panel accepts that the children were not persuaded to give blood by being offered money first.
As I understand it, Dr. Wakefield’s explanation before the GMC was that the children were given the money at the end of the party in their goodie bags.
I guess this wasn’t funny enough to make it into the story given at the MIND Institute “…so we lined them up, wih informed parental consent of course, they all get paid five pounds, which doesn’t translate into many dollars I’m afraid, and they put their arms out with a cuff on and have blood taken. It’s all entirely voluntary [audience laughs]” He then went on to discuss in a humorous manner the discomfort of the children and how “they charge me a fortune”.
As funny now as it was then. (as in, not at all). My read is that he is left with having giving a false account of how the research was performed, during a presentation of that research, given the sequence of events he gave at the MIND Institute. That makes a good example of what was and was not a part of the GMC inquiry. They inquired into subjects that pertain to the doctor’s “fitness to practice” medicine. They didn’t not inquire into his research ethics outside of that.
Let’s consider another, very important point, which was found proved:
you did not have ethics committee approval for your actions,
Found proved
The Panel does not accept your explanation that you did not consider this action to be unethical or that Ethics Committee approval was required.
This exemplifies why Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues were investigated by the GMC–for ethics violations pertaining mostly to the children either under their care or, as in this instance, outside their care and outside of their ethics board approval.
General Medical Council hands down first decision on Andrew Wakefield
28 JanKev put it well–“Andrew Wakefield – what were you expecting to happen?“. I doubt many people expected a different outcome than, “dishonest” and “Irresponsible”.
Kathleen Seidel at Neurodiversity.com has blogged this as well U.K. General Medical Council Rules Wakefield & Co. “Dishonest,” “Irresponsible”.
You can read the decision for yourself at Neurodiversity.com.
Dr. Wakefield has responded, and the BBC is hosting a video of that. Dr. Wakefield has invited people to look for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I have. I agree with the GMC. The BBC is also hosting video of Dr. Wakefield joking about the birthday party blood draws.
I’ll touch on some parts of the decision as time permits. There is enough of a blog storm going on with people defending Dr. Wakefield, often with, quite frankly, bogus arguments. I see none of them addressing the real charges or, for that matter, the real purpose of the hearings.
For example, here is an important quote from the decision:
The Panel wish to make it clear that this case is not concerned with whether there is or might be any link between the MMR vaccination and autism.
Whenever you read people talking about this being about the research itself (as opposed to the ethics of the research methods), you are reading someone who is misinformed or worse.
Andrew Wakefield – what were you expecting to happen?
28 JanThe first of Andrew Wakefield’s days of judgement unfolded today amid hectic scenes of supporters running screaming from the room as the inevitable damning judgements were read out.
Wakefields action was proven to be dishonest and misleading, he was found in breach of managing public finances and that the funds he was in control of were not used for their intended purposes and a whole myriad of others. One of the most shocking is that it was found proved that:
You caused Child 2 to undergo a programme of investigations for research purposed without having Ethics Committee approval for such research.
And thats Andrew Wakefield’s career toasted in the UK. Read the whole thing at your leisure.
I would have gotten this post to you sooner but I was accompnying my two step-daughters to their H1N1 vaccinations as the decisions were being handed down.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Recent Comments