Andrew Wakefield up before the GMC

[marina]

report here

I feel he has been treated very badly by the medical establishment - criticised in the Lancet for doing nothing more or less than most doctors have done in their careers (carrying out research which is funded by a drugs company) - losing his job - and he and his family driven out of the UK.

The MMR vaccine may be safe for many children but it's clearly not safe for all, and Dr Wakefield was right to raise his concerns when he did IMO.

I wish him luck.

Although Richard Horton (editor of the Lancet) seems to have not really criticised him at all when giving evidence (quite the opposite he praised the original paper).

Not just Wakefield up. Simon Murch and Prof Walker-Smith (who everyone seems to respect so no idea what his charges are actually).

I look forward to reading the reports on the Cry Shame website.

Transcripts won't be available until after the close of proceedings (estimated for october or something ludicrous).

Hear hear, Marina.

The number of times I read on here in response to MMR/autism queries 'the link has been rubbished and the man who proposed it (!) discredited' - must be hell to be demonised like that.

Your position on the MMR is mine exactly. ds2 will be having singles.

i wish him luck too. He has been treated despicably.

thoroughly agree.

isn't he accused of failing to disclose to the Lancet that he was advising solicitors acting for parents who had alleged their children had been damaged by MMR?

From Wikipedia, The charges include:

• He was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR, and failed to disclose this in his IRB.

• He ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications".

• Acting "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in failing to disclose how patients were recruited for the study, and that some were paid to take part.

• Performing colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without proper approval and contrary to the children's clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.

• Conducting the study on a basis which was not approved by the hospital's ethics committee.

• Purchasing blood samples - for £5 each - from children present at his son's birthday party, as described by Wakefield himself in a videotaped public conference.

So, did anyone ever manage to completely, medically disprove what he claimed?

lol scattybird, is that a leading question all?

Scattybird, it is almost impossible to completely, medically disprove anything

Instead of working to substantiate his own hypothesis Wakefield, went to the mainstream media - who are not very good at critically assessing such work - as shown by the nonsense about the recent SSRI study, and the publicised links between alcohol and autism.

I wish him luck because my goodness he is going to need it

I have no idea if he was correct or not, but the government reaction was so over the top it told me all I needed to know about how clear their consciences are.

what government reaction?

Richard Horton wrote a book on why he wished he had never published Wakefields studies and it was very critical of Wakefield.

I wholeheartedly agree with your OP, Marina.

The book wasn't that critical of Wakefield (I read it a few years ago, so not the best for memory), or not the research, just the fact he went beyond what his research actually showed to give general advice about MMR jabs. Kind of got carried away during a press conference after the research publication, then didn't retract the advice given.

Yes Cristina- that's where it stems from. And Horton has not been remotely critical of the paper at the GMC trial - he has described it as excellent Science that still stands.

The press conference stuff is interesting as it was discussed beforehand what the responses would be if asked whether the researchers recommended MMR. All did, except Wakefield. The co-ordinator of the press conference (head of the Royal Free I think) knew this and yet directed that question at Wakefield rather than one of the other researchers.

Can you imagine what the uproar would be then; if he was right?

MI5 would have to murder them all if their studies proved this

Agree with the OP.

Scattybird if it was accepted that he was right it would be catastrophically damaging for vaccine manufacturers, governments around the world and the medical establishment.

For that reason, more than anythiing to do with the research, it will probably never be accepted.

Plus note that a link between vaccines and autism has only just been accepted by a court -- and that's AFTER mercury has been removed.

By which I mean, it could never have been accepted beforehand as many thousands of parents would have stopped vaccinating immediately -- whereas now they can be told it's all safe now, the danger is in the past.

It's happened before with whooping cough. There's still a public line that pertussis vaccine is perfectly safe, but there's also an official acceptance that it has caused brain damage. I don't know what happens now paediatric single jabs are not available but the DTP was contradicted for people with epilepsy. (People with epilepsy were given DT instead).

The biggest clue was in the US vaccine damage compensation system where manufacturers had to fund compensation for vaccine damage by paying into a central pot per shot depending on how 'dangerous' the vaccine was. DT cost cents per shot, DTP dollars.

But 'publically' pertussis was/is totally safe.

Anyway pertussis has mutated and the vaccine doesn't protect against the new strain. Although that's not considered.

Sorry, but I am going to swim against the tide here.

If Dr Wakefield is guilty of those charges then he deserves any penalty they care to throw at him.

It's worth reading the Cry Shame reports of the trial before christmas really. I think the first 5 charges appear to be unravelling

It's a long but interesting read.

Ethics is an interesting issue. I used to think there was very much a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way. However, I've spent the last 2 days in email contact with 2 very high up individuals (one in then dept of health, one in the NHS) having directed what I thought was a straightforward question their way (it ended up with them because underlings didn't know the answer). At the end of it I'm none the wiser. They appear to have differing (opposite) opinions on the interpretation of some legal guidance (and both were copied in on the emails so they could see that). It doesn't actually make any difference to the structure of the research project I'm proposing or the way it would be carried out, but it will affect the way ethics approval is granted. If I get it wrong I think I could be potentially breaking the law. So it's important to get it 'right'.

I can see how ethical issues arise because often it's complex (and the work Wakefield et al was doing is far more ethically complex than mine) and there is no straight answer.

I think the birthday party thing was a joke (a friend was there when he said it and she thought it was a joke) but that hasn't been addressed yet. Will be interested in it.

The main (only?) complainant in this case is Brian Deer. A journalist.