Left Brain Right Brain

Andrew Wakefield has sent a threatening letter to Forbes and Emily Willingham claiming harm over their use of the word “fraud” in a recent article. I wrote about this recently but then thought, “I wonder how often the term ‘fraud’ shows up in the press. Here are some examples from a recent Google News search.

Vail Daily column: Vaccine: Not a 4-letter word

But before I continue, realize that a few years later Wakefield was found guilty of falsifying data in order to fit a desired conclusion and was stripped of his license to practice medicine. The hypothesis that MMR caused autism was declared fraudulent, and Wakefield is now living in Texas pushing homeopathic medicine (read: watered-down to the point it needs no FDA approval) to the gullible.

STONE: Vaccines save lives

First, let’s put to bed one of the more outlandish conspiracy theories brought on by the anti-vaccine movements that vaccines cause autism. Jenny McCarthy, fueled by a biased and fraudulent study in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield claiming autism was linked to the combined measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, used her celebrity stature to “raise awareness” for parents to reconsider vaccines for their children.

LETHBRIDGE: The victory of reason over my vaccination fears

In retrospect, it was the correct decision. Wakefield’s work was later found to be fraudulent. His research practices were ethically dubious, he falsified data and failed to declare certain vested interests.

The vaccine and its controversy

The MMR vaccine became the centre of a controversy following claims (which were subsequently established as fraudulent) that the vaccine was responsible for causing Autism-spectrum disorders in children. The controversy was kicked off in 1998 by the publication of a paper by British surgeon Andrew Wakefield in the medical journal The Lancet. Investigations later revealed that Wakefield had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest, had manipulated evidence, and had broken other ethical codes. The Lancet paper was partially retracted in 2004 and fully retracted in 2010, and Wakefield was found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010 and was struck off the Medical Register.

Collin Boots | Immune to reason
The Devil’s Advocate | The anti-vaccine movement, whether religious or secular, needs a dose of reality

Not only have countless follow-up studies directly contradicted this result, but The Lancet actually retracted the original article in 2010 when it was revealed to be fraudulent. Wakefield was also stripped of his medical license

Richard Feldman: Vaccines and autism: Numerous studies indicate no connection

British researcher Dr. Andrew Wakefield authored completely bogus research in 1998 that linked the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to autism. His fraudulent research was finally exposed; he was completely discredited and lost his British medical license.

Don’t let parents opt out of ‘mandatory’ vaccinations

In 2011, the British Medical Journal published an investigative piece by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer, debunking Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s vaccine/autism study as “an elaborate fraud.”

Only 12 children were studied. Doubts were raised about the manner in which they were recruited and the science with which the study was conducted.

As well, it was discovered Wakefield was on the payroll of a group that had launched a lawsuit against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine — and their claim would be based on his evidence.

What’s most shocking about this is that well-meaning, concerned parents around the world stopped vaccinating their children on the basis of this fraudulent study and Wakefield became the darling of the anti-vaccine activists movement.

Even though it’s been shown to be a giant fraud, there are those who still persist in parroting the untruths.

EDITORIAL: Vaccinate your children

Reasons vary. Some parents prefer a “natural immunity” to vaccine-acquired immunity; others believe vaccines overload a child’s immune system; others say we shouldn’t worry about diseases that have “disappeared.” Then there’s the Jenny McCarthy phenomenon. The former Playboy model has convinced some parents that vaccines cause autism. The one study that linked the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to autism, by British doctor Andrew Wakefield in 1998, has been discredited as fraudulent, and the published paper was retracted. Autism rates are the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

My position on immunization – Dr. Mark Fishaut

Editors of BMJ, the British medical journal, have even called the study “an elaborate fraud,” accusing author Andrew Wakefield of deliberately falsifying medical data.

Prevention is better than cure

It was also reported that his research methodology was questionable as patient data was manipulated to create the appearance of a link to autism. This conflict of interest plus the fraudulent research resulted in the withdrawal of Wakefield’s paper from The Lancet and revocation of his medical licence.

That’s, what, 10 examples in only the past few weeks?

None have any notation that Mr. Wakefield has contacted them. I have not heard of any such letters being sent other than the one to Forbes and the lawsuit instigated against Brian Deer and the BMJ.

Odd, isn’t it, that all of a sudden Mr. Wakefield decides to threaten one of the Age of Autism’s favorite targets and no one else?

—
By Matt Carey

One of the advantages of taking some time off writing and the internet autism discussions is not hearing about Andrew Wakefield. Otherwise it seems a day can’t go by without some news article or blog post going up where the same 4-5 people will descend and tell us, once again, about how Andrew Wakefield isn’t an unethical guy but a combination of Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one.

If you don’t recall and think I’ve gone way over the top with that phrase: it’s a quote. Yeah, really. J.B Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue actually said that to a reporter at the New York Times for his article The Crash and Burn of an Autism Guru.

A decade ago Brian Deer exposed the first of the ethical lapses to come to light involving the MMR/Autism research Mr. Wakefield had undertaken. That’s when it became clear that Mr. Wakefield had financial conflicts of interest, hidden from the public and even his own colleagues. While this ground has been gone over many times in the past 10 years, it’s worth reading about it again if only to hear Mr. Wakefield’s colleague, Simon Murch, chime in on what it was like to discover that Mr. Wakefield had hidden financial interests:

Simon Murch, one of the leading doctors involved with Wakefield’s research at the Royal Free, said yesterday that news of the £55,000 legal funding was “a very unpleasant surprise”. “We didn’t know. We were pretty taken aback. The timing of it before the paper is something we have all been shocked by. If you have a colleague who has not told you, if you have not been informed you are going to be taken aback.”

He went on: “I am not going to join the queue of people rushing up to kick Andy. But it is right that this has come out: there has been a complete conflict of interest.”

Murch said it was never made clear that the payment was in place before the report was published. “We never knew anything about the £55,000 — he had his own separate research fund,” said Murch. “All of us were surprised . . . We are pretty angry.”

In response for his 2004 reporting of such stories, Mr. Deer was served with a lawsuit. A lawsuit that Mr. Wakefield eventually dropped, paying Mr. Deer’s legal fees. But before it was dropped, a judge made the following statements in a judgment and those comments are worth reading again (at least I think so):

It thus appears that the Claimant 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.

The Claimant in the above being Mr. Wakefield. Who appears to have been facing a rather strong rebuke for “us[ing] the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes..” etc..

Before we get to the matter at hand, here’s one more paragraph of background. Readers of Left Brain Right Brain may be aware that Mr. Wakefield has again sued Mr. Deer, this time for articles which appeared in the BMJ. Mr. Wakefield lost the first round of this lawsuit against the BMJ and Brian Deer and is appealing (docket here). Mr. Wakefield took exception to his work being called fraudulent and himself being called a fraud. Well, he took exception to the word fraud in the BMJ and spoken by Mr. Deer, but as Todd W notes at Harpocratese Speaks, Mr. Wakefield has since let a lot of other mentions of the word “fraud” go by unchallenged. Most notably, to me, a Time magazine article: Great Science Frauds.

Mr. Wakefield has now taken offense at an article written by Emily Willingham, Ph.D., a researcher and science writer whose work appears, among other places, on Forbes.com. Emily Willingham wrote an article, Blame Wakefield For Missed Autism-Gut Connection in which she used the “f” word (fraud):

So why is it that no one attends to this clear (to me) link when it come to autistic children? Well, the Pediatrics review by McElhanon et al. happens to cite that reason several times: Wakefield’s MMR/autism/gut red herring and the subsequent noxious cloud that his fraud (link added 5/2/14) left over any research examining autism and the gut. So we don’t know anything about the real underlying causes of these digestive problems among autistic children. The Pediatrics authors state it unequivocally, as they have done before (link added 05/02/14):

It is clear that greater clinical and research scrutiny is needed to increase awareness on this topic and thus support development of the best standards of care. Previous controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine and proposed causal link between ASD and infection of the GI tract probably deterred investigators from dedicating resources to examine GI functioning in this population while fostering uncertainty in the ASD community regarding the validity of this line of inquiry.

Mr. Wakefield responded with a letter (linked at Forbes) in which he has informed Willingham and Forbes that while he isn’t bringing a suit forward now but he intends to bring suit. He also sent a copy of the letter sent to the Age of Autism blog which posted it.

Let’s go to the heart of Mr. Wakefield’s assertion, where he pulls a line out of the Forbes article and comes to a conclusion of malicious intent (he starts with a quote from the Forbes article):

Well, the Pediatrics review by McElhanon et al. happens to cite that reason several times: Wakefield’s MMR/autism/gut red herring and the subsequent noxious cloud that his fraud… The Pediatrics authors state it unequivocally:

On any ordinary reading, the intent of your statement is clear: to imply that the authors of the Pediatrics paper cite fraud on my part. What McElhanon et al actually say is substantially different from your false and defamatory allegation i.e.,

Well, I guess by Mr. Wakefield’s standards I did not give the article an “ordinary reading” as I did not see that purported intent. I stand apart from Mr. Wakefield on many standards. Why didn’t I make the association Mr. Wakefield claims?. Because I know without reading the Pediatrics article that no where in it does it have the phrase “noxious cloud that his fraud”. I know this because I read scientific journals, write for scientific journals, have edited an issue of a journal and more. Perhaps Mr. Wakefield missed the obvious conclusion that the phrase he focuses upon is clearly in Emily Willingham’s voice and that is obvious “on any ordinary reading”.

Mr. Wakefield asserts that the Forbes article was written “maliciously” and that “[Emily Willingham’s] defamatory statements about me will undoubtedly cause me to suffer significant personal and financial damage.” Now, I can’t speak for Emily Willingham, but I can speak for myself–when I write my opinions of Mr. Wakefield and his work, I don’t think about it in terms of causing him damage. Frankly, if forced to consider it, I’d guess that when I write I likely enhance his stature among his supporters and donors, by supporting the image of Mr. Wakefield as some wronged maverick with myself as cast in the role as part of the machine which is grinding him down.

When I saw that Mr. Wakefield had threatened Forbes and Emily Willingham I thought, has he never heard of the Streisand Effect? I mean, here was a blog post at Forbes that had a couple of thousand views and was quickly on its way to the archives. Then I thought, yep, I bet he has heard of the Streisand Effect. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s counting on me and others writing about him. What was it that judge said 10 years ago in a different suit? It thus appears that the Claimant wishes to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes. I could be wrong. Probably am. I can no more read minds than can Andrew Wakefield, who projects malicious intent where I see none.

Consider a very recent interview he gave for a podcast. He’s introduced as “one of those dudes… [who] won’t back down” who has been “through living hell”. That group, by the way, is helping raise money for Mr. Wakefield.

So, here I am, playing into the mythos that is Andrew Wakefield, a man bravely facing critics like me in order to do what he does best: listen to the mothers of autistic children with GI disease. Except when those mothers disagree with him, apparently. Oh, did you miss that? Emily Willingham *is* the mother of an autistic child. And *two* of her kids have dealt with GI diseases. It’s in the comments of the article on Forbes.

In case it is not clear in the above, this is far from a trivial matter. Threats of legal action are never minor. I recall when Kathleen Seidel (autism parent and writer) was subpoenaed by Cliff Shoemaker, a vaccine attorney (Mr. Shoemaker was sanctioned). I recall when J.B. Handley threatened Kev Leitch (disabled adult, father of an autistic child and founder of Left Brain Right Brain). Even when you know you are in the right, lawsuits create a lot of uncertainty and distress.

—
By Matt Carey