Archive | Brian Deer RSS feed for this section

Was Dr. Wakefield the complainant in his own GMC case?

19 Feb

Pop quiz: of these two people, who was the first to request that the General Medical Council (GMC) investigate Dr. Andrew Wakefield

a) Brian Deer
b) Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

Ah–trick question! Brian Deer didn’t ask the GMC to investigate Dr. Wakefield. Mr. Deer offered and gave information to the GMC, but, it turns out, only after Dr. Wakefield called for an investigation.

Let me start by saying I hesitated to publish this post as it will be just make it seem like there is a real controversy here. There isn’t. But after noting that the addendum to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) complaint filed against Brian Deer included citations to LeftBrainRightBrain I decided to check into the “complainant” question.

Here’s the PCC complaint. Here’s the addendum.

There is a long “forensic analysis” argument to make the case that supposedly Brian Deer was the complainant. This struck me odd. Why do a “forensic” argument, unless you don’t have substantial proof.

In the matter of Dr Wakefield and the GMC, and based upon forensic analysis of all the available documentary evidence, one is entitled to believe that Mr. Deer was the original and only substantive complainant to the GMC, whether or not he was the ‘Complainant’ who instructed the legal prosecution of the case (which was the GMC through its lawyers Field Fisher Waterhouse).

OK, Brian Deer was the complainant, whether or not he was the ‘Complainant’. Everyone got that? Clear as mud?

It wasn’t to me, so I contacted the General Medical Council to ask a simple question:

I am sorry to bother you, but I was hoping you could help with a question. Is it public knowledge whether Mr. Brian Deer was a “complainant” for the Wakefield case? Was there any “complainant” or was this case brought forward by the GMC itself?

I received a very simple answer:

Dear Sir/Madam

The General Medical Council can act in response to complaints about doctors but we do not require someone to make a formal complaint to us before we can act. We can in fact initiate action against doctors of our own volition. This enables us to launch an investigation in response to publicly expressed concerns about the conduct of doctors, whether or not those concerns have been directly and formally referred to us.

The case against Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch was brought by the GMC there was no complainant in this case.

I hope you find this information helpful and if you have any further queries relating to this case please do not hesitate to contact me.

When I asked if I could make this public, I was informed that this information is already public. Yes, I forgot the fact that Brian Deer had a letter from the GMC’s attorneys already. That is from May, 2005. I guess this whole, “he’s a complainant even if he isn’t a Complainant” thing has been going on for some time.

The “forensic analysis” seems to rest on the fact that Brian Deer has communicated with the GMC. There doesn’t seem to be any actual complaint filed, but, as we are told:

But what Deer does not reveal is that on February 25, 2004, three days after his article attacking Wakefield had been published in the Sunday Times, he had written to the GMC…

Yes, according to this timeline, Brian Deer published his article and then contacted the GMC 3 days later. It is characterized as a “spontaneous” communication in the complaint. As in, Brian Deer just out of the blue decided he needed to contact the GMC.

Dr. Wakefield left out an important part of the timeline. Namely, his own call for a GMC investigation. Here is a timeline:

February 22, 2004, Brian Deer’s article, Revealed: MMR research scandal is published.

February 23, 2004: Dr Wakefield states, “I’d welcome inquiry”

“Serious allegations have been made against me in relation to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel disease, and the reporting of their disease. It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be investigated by the GMC. I not only welcome this, I insist on it and I will be making contact with the GMC personally.”

Two days later, on February 25, 2004: Brian Deer emails the GMC. This appears to be the first contact between Mr. Deer and the GMC. According to the excerpt in the PCC complaint filed by Dr. Wakefield:

email from Brian Deer to Tim Cox-Brown, Caseworker GMC, 12.16 pm 2.25.04. This is a sixpage letter concluding with the statement “As a matter of public duty, I write to offer this outline of my main findings, and to offer the GMC my fullest cooperation in getting to the bottom of these matters”.

Which, according to Dr. Wakefield, makes Brian Deer the “complainant” in the GMC hearing:

This reads as a spontaneous and intentional contact with the GMC for the purpose of requesting to put before them the substance of his complaint and in fact, doing so i.e. making a complaint.

Spontaneous? I guess if you leave out critical details like Dr. Wakefield’s own call for investigation. As I titled the post, couldn’t one say that Dr. Wakefield is the complainant? After all, it is Dr. Wakefield who appears to have called for the investigation.

Andrew Wakefield vs the PCC

18 Feb

On the 14th March 2009, David Kirby published a Huffington Post piece which stated:

Dr. Andrew Wakefield – the British physician who was accused in February by the Sunday Times of London of altering data in a 1998 paper on autistic children, bowel disease and the MMR vaccine – has filed a formal complaint against the freelance journalist who wrote the article.

….

Mr. Deer has failed miserably as a reporter and has done great harm to me and many others conducting autism research,” Wakefield said in the release.

The most sensational accusation against him printed in the Sunday Times held that Wakefield had altered and manipulated data on many of the 12 children who were written up in the paper.

David’s piece – as can be seen from the words of Wakefield above – show Wakefield as fairly salvering to get at Brian Deer and indeed, the Times stories were removed from their website. Wakefield reported this as the Times tacit admission the stories were wrong. This drew a stinging response from the Times who immediately republished some of the stories on its website indicating the truth which was that the stories were only removed at first as a courtesy to the PCC, not to Andrew J Wakefield.

As Mike notes in the above linked story, Wakefield is often the author of his own misfortune as he bumbles from one self created mess to another.

And now I’ve heard news that Wakefield no longer wants the PCC to hear the complaint he made until after he has appealed to the courts. In a private email corresponence with Brian Deer, he told me:

At my request, the PCC was last week asked if Wakefield will now pursue his complaint against The Sunday Times. His publicist James Moore, replied on his behalf. I can’t give you the email, as it is not for me to do that, but I can tell you that he has asked for the matter to be deferred until after any appeal to the courts by Wakefield.

Appeal? Why does Wakefield want to appeal? Wasn’t it he who stated:

I have no need of continued registration with the GMC…

If thats so, then why is he going to appeal? Could this be yet another delaying tactic by a man who has made something of a career out of delaying the game when it (as it always has) goes against him? After all, who can forget his now infamous bowing out of the libel case he pursued against Brian Deer? Particularly Justice Eady’s response to him when he tried to delay _that_ case;

It thus appears that the Claimant [Wakefield] wishes to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter other critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the downside of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification.

And so here we are yet again – Wakefield wants to delay proceedings _he_ initiated because he got hammered by the GMC. Brian also said:

I’ve had these issues hanging over my head for six years. Moreover,Wakefield’s allegations (and those of Mr Moore) are published online as part of a campaign against me, while two Sunday Times reports carry tags referring to his complaint.

The courts have made clear, in defamation cases, that prompt action is a hallmark of a genuine complaint. Wakefield previously sought summary adjudication of his dozens of complaints, demanding that they be ruled on in advance of his GMC hearing and without our full reply being received. Now
he’s changed tack and plainly wishes to abandon his complaint without the penalty of saying so.

Quite.

Andrew Wakefield – I have no need of continued registration

14 Feb

In a remarkable and somewhat odd statement put out by Andrew Wakefield, he states:

I have no need of continued registration with the GMC…

Which is somewhat contrary to his statement of 2004 that;

It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be investigated by the GMC. I not only welcome this, I insist on it…

Why would someone insist upon being heard by an organisation he holds so little respect for he longer wants to be a member?

During the rest of the statement, he provides thanks to the support of his economic fan base – the parents, imcluding no doubt the parents of the children whom counr amongst the 11 counts of sticking tubes and needles into developmentally-challenged children without ethical approval, and nine counts of doing so contrary to the children’s wellbeing.

In a private email Brian Deer stated his opinion – which I share – that:

There can’t by any doubt that with four charges of dishonesty, including research and financial misconduct, that he knows he will be erased from the medical register.

Just _one_ of these substantiated charges would be enough to get a GP struck off. With the amount Andrew Wakefield has against his name it would be a small miracle if this didn’t happen and he is pre-emptively striking back at the GMC, declaring he doesn’t care if they do strip him of his right to be referred to as ‘doctor’.

I’ll leave the last words to Brian Deer, the man who single handedly brought down Andrew Wakefield:

His latest statement illustrates a more sinister aspect of Andrew Wakefield’s conduct: the mismatch between what has occurred outside the hearing and what has gone on inside. Outside – appealing to his economic base – he claims he is a victim of sinister forces – the drug industry and government and so forth – when he’s not the slightest evidence of this, (and neither have I). He was taken down by an old fashioned journalistic investigation, executed in the public interest.

And yet, inside the hearing, his behaviour was quite different. He called no witnesses whatsoever. While the prosecution called a parent who provided devastating evidence, he didn’t risk putting any of the ringleaders outside the building into the witness chair, where they could be cross-examined over how vulnerable children came to be brought to a hospital with no department or reputation for evaluating developmental disorders, and where doctors seemed all-but-entirely uninterested in the children’s futures. Nor did he put any questions whatsoever to the government’s vaccine chief, despite Wakefield supporters turning up for a much-hyped showdown. Nothing was asked, because Wakefield has nothing.

What the Wakefield project was all about was getting into the small intestines and spines of children without anybody finding out the reason. *And this is where, rightly, that project has brought him.*

With the facts against them Dr. Wakefield’s supporters appeal to emotion

3 Feb

I should stop being shocked and amazed at how little groups like the Age of Autism blog think of their readership. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it is pretty clear that they expect us all to just read what they have to say and never go to the original sources and think for ourselves.

Case in point, the GMC hearing on Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield was guilty of ethical violations in the treatment of his disabled patients. Not once, not twice but many many times. But you wouldn’t know that to read some of the reports on the blogs and even a couple in newspapers.

We have the NAA SafeMinds and TACA telling us all about how bad this ruling is. We have been told that there was “false testimony”.

OK, take a look at the actual charges. Just for a moment. Here are a few examples

1) Dr. Wakefield took money from the Legal Aid Board (LAB) for procedures paid by the NHS. He then diverted some of the LAB money to other projects.

2) Dr. Wakefield got ethical permission to do his study in December 1996, only on patients enrolled after that date. However, he had already started research on children. Here are two examples:

Child 2 had an MRI, colonoscopy and lumbar puncture in September of 1996.

Child 1 was also a research subject without ethical approval. Tests were performed which were not in the clinical interests of the child.

3) For people who promote the myth that “the only thing he did was start early”, note that Dr. Wakefield’s team did invasive tests that were not called for. For example:

Child 3 was also a research subject without ethical approval, having started before the approval. He underwent a lumbar puncture even though: “The Panel has taken into account the fact that there is no evidence in Child 3’s clinical notes to indicate that a lumbar puncture was required.”

Was this the result of some “false testimony? According to the GMC ruling, experts on both sides stated that the lumbar puncture was not clinically indicated.

Experts on both sides, Professor Rutter and Dr Thomas both considered that such a test was not clinically indicated.

Dr. Thomas is not accused by the defenders of Wakefield as “giving false testimony”.

The above are only a few of the examples of clear misconduct on the part of Dr. Wakefield.

How many times must a man be found guilty of not doing what was in his patients’ clinical interests before we are allowed to consider him as, well, someone who doesn’t always put his patient’s clinical interests first?

Kim Stagliano has taken to the Huffington Post with “The Censorship of Autism Treatment“. No mention of the actual charges. No mention of the fact that Andrew Wakefield was guilty. No mention of the fact that Andrew Wakefield’s research efforts for the past 12 years have centered on repairing his own damaged reputation, not on autism treatment.

Can you find a single mention of the word “ethics” in her post? How about any comment about the actual charges levied against Dr. Wakefield?

You know you are in trouble just with the title from this story: MMR doc’s just guilty of caring . At least that article makes one clear statement:

It [the GMC ruling] focused on the methods of research used, some of which were undoubtedly questionable, but which were performed in the name of finding solace for desperate parents convinced their children had changed for ever following their one-size-fits-all MMR injection.

Yes, you can be unethical if you are “finding solace for desperate parents”.

A blog post by the National Autism Association stated:

“Many parents of children with autism view the GMC investigation as little more than character assassination of a physician brave enough to investigate controversial issues”

Well, not this parent. Anyone who paints the GMC investigation as “character assassination” didn’t read the ruling. Seriously, trying to dismiss this fact-filled ruling as “character assassination” is just plain bizarre.

another post comments, discussing the work Dr. Wakefield’s team performed on his study subjects:

the procedures involved were routine

and

No children were harmed and no parent or guardian has complained about the care these three men provided.

Lumbar punctures are hardly “routine”. Further, there is no reason to do them if not clinically indicated. Colonoscopies are not routine, especially in patients whose symptoms don’t warrant them. Say, as in Child 1.

One child suffered a perforated bowel (in 12 places!). His family won a lawsuit against the Royal Free hospital.

High Court papers alleged that the colonoscopy procedure performed on Jack in 1998 was ‘not clinically indicated or justified’. They also claimed the ‘principal reason’ for the surgery was to further research into links between autism and bowel conditions rather than Jack’s clinical needs.

How does that not count as not “harmed”? Is it because he wasn’t one of the original 12 from the study in The Lancet?

The behavior of the Wakefield supporters is totally predictable. They have no science. They have no first (or second) tier researchers. They rely heavily on Dr. Wakefield. Who else has the perceived stature of Dr. Wakefield for them? When Brian Deer broke the story that Dr. Wakefield may have “fixed” data in his study last year, there was an immediate reaction from the Wakefield supporters: give him faux awards! Make him the keynote speaker at their conventions!

For the past year the message has been “Dr. Wakefield has not been discredited”. They’ve lost that now.

We’ve been warned that they are bringing out their big guns. Yes, David Kirby will blog about this on the Huffington Post. With apologies to Mr. Kirby, but when he’s their “ace in the hole”, you know they don’t have much.

As I finished this, David Kirby came up with his post: “The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing”. Joining in the style of the times, Mr. Kirby also ignores the actual GMC ruling. Nothing that actually defends Dr. Wakefield against the real charges.

Seriously, go read for yourself. It’s David Kirby with his usual talking points and straw men.

I hope David Kirby is wrong. I hope that things have changed. I hope that the future is a world where the loudest voices in the autism communities fight for a better life for autistics, rather than for a political goal of recognition for bad science, badly done.

I hope.

Andrew Wakefield – What happens next?

31 Jan

So 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 Jan

Apart 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.

Andrew Wakefield – what were you expecting to happen?

28 Jan

The 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.

Brian Deer: Truth of the MMR vaccine scandal

24 Jan

The General Medical Counsel (GMC) hearings on doctors Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch are over and the decision is expected to be made public this week. Brian Deer, the reporter who broke the story exposing the possible misdeeds involved in the MMR-causes-autism research conducted at the Royal Free Hospital by Wakefield et al., has a story out in the Sunday Times:

Truth of the MMR vaccine scandal
After an epic misconduct hearing, the doctors who caused panic over the vaccine are about to learn their fate. A report on the greatest health scare of recent times

The story re-introduces the readers to the story of MMR scare and how it began. I suspect the real story will come out after the GMC decision is handed down and details from the patient records are discussed as in Brian Deer’s recent articles such as MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

Mr. Deer faces a pretty major smear campaign from Dr. Wakefield’s supporters. I can only expect it to get worse after the decision is handed down–whatever that decision may be.

John Stone/Polly Tommey claim oversight

26 Sep

The first official sounding of the death knell for the ‘hidden horde’ hypothesis of autism (it must be vaccines because there aren’t 1 in 160/150/100 adult autistics) was recently sounded (as reported by Anthony) when an NHS study announced that the rate of autism amongst adults was 1% – exactly the same as for kids.

Fully aware of the implications for their beloved anti-vaccine hypothesis John Stone and Polly Tommey write/star in a recent post on that repository of all things bullshitty – Age of Autism.

NHS Autism Report suggests the increase in autism in recent years was all down to an oversight

Says John Stone, trying to reassure his readership theres still life in the terminal old dog of the hidden horde hypothesis. And why does he say this?

“Are we really able to believe all that we hear on such important subjects, or is there a stronger hand with adifferent agenda behind it?”

Ahhhh, of course! When a piece of science/news story doesn’t support your point of view then it _must_ be the work of….oh, whoever – Illuminati? Out of control government? GAVI? Take your pick.

But surely Stone and Tommey have better reasons than that…? Don’t they?

Well no, not really. They didn’t like the perfectly valid Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule that was used. Although they don’t refer to it by name, instead they cherry pick questions to try and demean the validity of the test.

The report was based on adults living in households throughout England and the assessments were done in two stages. Stage One asked individuals to rate how well they agreed with 20 statements about their likes, dislikes and abilities – such as whether they preferred going to ‘libraries’ or ‘parties’.

…If the full range of ability had been included in the NHS report, alongside the verbally fluent, high functioning adults living at home, there would surely be far more than 1 in 100. So, either there are more adults than children with an ASD and autism is on the decline(!?) or there is something wrong with the report.

A quick glance at many mainstream autism orgs claim on prevalence would show Stone that yes, there are more autistic adults than children. This report could indeed be interpreted to show a decline in autism.

People will claim that thats counter intuitive but it really isn’t. As autism has become more recognised, better diagnosed and there are more centers worldwide for its early detection, child numbers have not risen but have become more apparent. This is true across the whole ‘spectrum’.

Taking the NAS numbers on prevalence They say that at a rate of 1 in 100 children gives a total of around 133,500 kids with an ASD. This leaves 366,500 adults. A rate of 0.8%.

So the estimate prior to the new report was 0.2% out. But Stone was right, there are now (and always were) more ASD adults than kids. Thats because there are more adults in the general population than kids. In terms of whether the _rate_ of autism has decreased there’s no research to compare this to but an estimate of 0.8% is pretty damn close to 1%. In real terms the NAS were only out by 733 adults. So I would say that this report reflects reality – with no doubt regional variance and other factors, the adult rate is (and always was) around 1%.

But the stoopid continues apace:

One thing is clear, however, the report has no relevance to children withautism like my son Billy and the many thousands like him.

Quoth Polly Toomey who somehow missed the point that this was a study of adults and thus was never going to have much relevance to her children.

We’re then treated to the science of Carol ‘try me shithead‘ Stott who personally received over £100,000 of legal aid money to prop up the dead MMR hypothesis. She claims (after further digs at ADOS) that a ‘further detailed critique’ will be appearing in that robust science journal AutismFile….owned and operated by one Polly Tommey.

So there we have it. This new study, which whilst far from 100% perfect is also far from the dead dog portrayed by the purveyors of science at The Autism File and Age of Autism. They think theres a conspiracy to ‘big it up’ and refuse to see the statistical truth. ASD hasn’t ever been in epidemic, theres been a stable rate for a long time. These dealers in anti-vaccinationism will just have to deal with that.

What are the allegations against Dr. Wakefield?

16 Sep

Dr. Andrew Wakefield, not of Thoughtful House in the U.S., has recently been called before the General Medical Council for a “fitness to practice hearing”. The allegations stem from activities related to his research of about 10 years ago on children (many autistic).

I recently discussed two of incidents being investigated: a birthday party where blood was drawn from typically developing children (for controls) and activities related to his invention and the subsequent patent his hospital (the Royal Free) applied for. I found it interesting to see these layed out, so I decided to post them here for others to read as well.

These are allegations. The process has not concluded, nor has any decision been reached.

This is a short version. A detailed list (93 pages) can be found on Brian Deer’s website. Note that these 93 pages include allegations against Doctors Murch and Walker-Smith.

Dr Andrew WAKEFIELD GMC Reference number: 2733564

Professor John WALKER-SMITH GMC Reference number: 1700583

Professor Simon MURCH GMC Reference number: 2540201

The GMC’s statutory purpose is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.

We investigate complaints about individual doctors in order to establish whether their fitness to practise is impaired and whether to remove or restrict a doctor’s registration.

The GMC does not regard its remit as extending to arbitrating between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research.

The following is a summary only of the allegations which will be made before the Panel at the forthcoming hearing.

The Panel will inquire into allegations of serious professional misconduct by Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, in relation to the conduct of a research study involving young children from 1996-98.

Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, were at the relevant times employed by the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine with Honorary Clinical contracts at the Royal Free Hospital.

It is alleged that the three practitioners were named as Responsible Consultants on an application made to the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust (“the ethics committee”) in 1996 to undertake a research study involving children who suffered from gastrointestinal symptoms and a rare behavioural condition called disintegrative disorder. The title of the study was “A new paediatric syndrome: enteritis and disintegrative disorder following measles/rubella vaccination”. The Panel will inquire into allegations that the three practitioners undertook research during the period 1996-98 without proper ethical approval, failed to conduct the research in accordance with the application submitted to the ethics committee, and failed to treat the children admitted into the study in accordance with the terms of the approval given by the ethics committee. For example, it will be alleged that some of the children did not qualify for the study on the basis of their behavioural symptoms.

It is further alleged that the three practitioners permitted a programme of investigations to be carried out on a number of children as part of the research study, some of which were not clinically indicated when the Ethics Committee had been assured that they were all clinically indicated. These investigations included colonoscopies and lumbar punctures. It is alleged that the performance of these investigations was contrary to the clinical interests of the children.

The research undertaken by the three practitioners was subsequently written up in a paper published in the Lancet in February 1998 entitled “Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children” (“the Lancet paper”).

It is alleged that the three practitioners inaccurately stated in the Lancet paper that the investigations reported in it were approved by the ethics committee.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith acted dishonestly and irresponsibly in failing to disclose in the Lancet paper the method by which they recruited patients for inclusion in the research which resulted in a misleading description of the patient population in the Lancet paper. It is further alleged that Dr Wakefield gave a dishonest description of the patient population to the Medical Research Council.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith administered a purportedly therapeutic substance to a child for experimental reasons prior to obtaining information about the safety of the substance. It is alleged that such actions were irresponsible and contrary to the clinical interests of the child.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield was involved in advising solicitors acting for persons alleged to have suffered harm by the administration of the MMR vaccine. It is alleged that Dr Wakefield’s conduct in relation to research funds obtained from the Legal Aid Board (“LAB”) was dishonest and misleading. It will be alleged that Dr Wakefield ought to have disclosed his funding from the LAB to the Ethics Committee but did not.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield ordered investigations on some children as part of the research carried out at the Royal Free Hospital from 1996-98 without the requisite paediatric qualifications to do so and in contravention of his Honorary Consultant appointment.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield failed to disclose his involvement in the MMR litigation, his receipt of funding from the LAB and his involvement in a Patent relating to a new vaccine to the Editor of the Lancet which was contrary to his duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper.

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield acted unethically and abused his position of trust as a medical practitioner by taking blood from children at a birthday party to use for research purposes without ethics committee approval, in an inappropriate social setting, and whilst offering financial inducement.

We cannot guarantee that all those wishing to attend the hearing will be able to do so, as seating is limited. If you plan to attend the hearing please email the GMC press office press@gmc-uk.org. In the event that we have to allocate seats those people who have notified the press office will be seated before others.
-Ends-

Greater detail can be found in this document, hosted on Brian Deer’s website. It is 93 pages of details of the allegations against Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →