Response from Fiona Godlee re: MMR

[Guest guest]

From: FGodlee@...

kblanco1

Subject: Re: Response from Fiona Godlee re: MMR

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:45:27 +0000

Dear Blanco

Thank you for your enquiry.

In answer to the questions you raise, the BMJ stands by its 5 January

article and editorial on MMR and Wakefield.[1][2]

The article, which was subjected to

peer review and editorial checking, was based on enquiries carried out

over some seven years, involving, among other things, interviews with

parents of children enrolled in Wakefield's research. Four such

parents are quoted in the article. As made clear in the article, the core

data on which the findings were based were evidenced, except in the case

of one child, by the transcript of a General Medical Council fitness to

practise hearing which sat between July 2007 and May 2010.

Your email suggests that

Wakefield did not have access to GP records and therefore could not be

responsible for discrepancies between those records and what was

published in the Lancet in February 1998. The case we presented

against Wakefield that the 1998 Lancet paper was intended to

mislead is not critically reliant on GP records. It is primarily

based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by

clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free

from GPs and consultants.

We draw attention to the finding of the fitness to practise panel, on

which we are entitled to rely, that " the project reported in the

Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated

new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all.

Because you [Wakefield] drafted and wrote the final version of the paper,

and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the

patient population, the panel is satisfied that your conduct was

irresponsible and dishonest. "

Contrary to other suggestions received in your email, we made no

allegation of dishonesty against Wakefield's co-authors, or indeed

against anybody else. As the GMC panel heard, it was Wakefield who

wrote the Lancet paper, using data which he anonymised, with little

oversight by other authors. We confirm that under the uniform

requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals all authors

should be in a position to speak to data, but the evidence is that in

this case they were not.

We are aware of recent claims made by Wakefield that " new

documents have come to light " purportedly confirming his claims in

the Lancet. The material he cites was presented to the GMC panel

two and a half years ago. Wakefield was last year erased from the

medical register and he has chosen not to appeal that decision. As

indicated, the very many charges proven against him include dishonesty in

his research.

We are unaware of any peer reviewed paper replicating Wakefield's

research or confirming his claims to have identified a new syndrome of

regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease associated with MMR

vaccination. With respect to gastrointestinal issues, we draw attention

to an authoritative consensus statement published last year by

experienced specialists in this field [3] and particularly to statement

4: " The existence of a gastrointestinal disturbance specific to

persons with ASDs (eg “autistic enterocolitis”) has not been

established. "

Thank you for your interest in the BMJ.

Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief,

BMJ

References

1. Deer B. How the case against the

MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ 2011; 342:c5347 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5347

2. Godlee F, J, Marcovitch H.

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ

342:doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452

3. Buie P, DB, Fuchs GJ, et al. Evaluation, diagnosis, and

treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a

consensus statement. Pediatrics 2010;125;S1-S18.

Dr Fiona Godlee FRCP

Editor in chief, BMJ

BMJ Group

BMA House

Tavistock Square

London WC1H 9JR

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6002/+44 (0)1223 872084

Fax: +44 (0)207 383 6418

BMJ Group: http://group.bmj.com

Personal Assistant, Burrell

jburrell@...

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6102

_______________________________________________________________________

The BMJ Group is one of the world's most trusted providers of medical

information for doctors, researchers, health care workers and patients

group.bmj.com. This email and any attachments are confidential. If you

have received this email in error, please delete it and kindly notify us.

If the email contains personal views then the BMJ Group accepts no

responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this

email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ Group accepts no

liability for any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by

the BMJ Group may be monitored for size, traffic, distribution and

content. BMJ Publishing Group Limited trading as BMJ Group. A private

limited company, registered in England and Wales under registration

number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, Tavistock Square, London

WC1H 9JR, UK.

_______________________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

From: FGodlee@...

kblanco1

Subject: Re: Response from Fiona Godlee re: MMR

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:45:27 +0000

Dear Blanco

Thank you for your enquiry.

In answer to the questions you raise, the BMJ stands by its 5 January

article and editorial on MMR and Wakefield.[1][2]

The article, which was subjected to

peer review and editorial checking, was based on enquiries carried out

over some seven years, involving, among other things, interviews with

parents of children enrolled in Wakefield's research. Four such

parents are quoted in the article. As made clear in the article, the core

data on which the findings were based were evidenced, except in the case

of one child, by the transcript of a General Medical Council fitness to

practise hearing which sat between July 2007 and May 2010.

Your email suggests that

Wakefield did not have access to GP records and therefore could not be

responsible for discrepancies between those records and what was

published in the Lancet in February 1998. The case we presented

against Wakefield that the 1998 Lancet paper was intended to

mislead is not critically reliant on GP records. It is primarily

based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by

clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free

from GPs and consultants.

We draw attention to the finding of the fitness to practise panel, on

which we are entitled to rely, that " the project reported in the

Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated

new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all.

Because you [Wakefield] drafted and wrote the final version of the paper,

and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the

patient population, the panel is satisfied that your conduct was

irresponsible and dishonest. "

Contrary to other suggestions received in your email, we made no

allegation of dishonesty against Wakefield's co-authors, or indeed

against anybody else. As the GMC panel heard, it was Wakefield who

wrote the Lancet paper, using data which he anonymised, with little

oversight by other authors. We confirm that under the uniform

requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals all authors

should be in a position to speak to data, but the evidence is that in

this case they were not.

We are aware of recent claims made by Wakefield that " new

documents have come to light " purportedly confirming his claims in

the Lancet. The material he cites was presented to the GMC panel

two and a half years ago. Wakefield was last year erased from the

medical register and he has chosen not to appeal that decision. As

indicated, the very many charges proven against him include dishonesty in

his research.

We are unaware of any peer reviewed paper replicating Wakefield's

research or confirming his claims to have identified a new syndrome of

regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease associated with MMR

vaccination. With respect to gastrointestinal issues, we draw attention

to an authoritative consensus statement published last year by

experienced specialists in this field [3] and particularly to statement

4: " The existence of a gastrointestinal disturbance specific to

persons with ASDs (eg “autistic enterocolitis”) has not been

established. "

Thank you for your interest in the BMJ.

Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief,

BMJ

References

1. Deer B. How the case against the

MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ 2011; 342:c5347 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5347

2. Godlee F, J, Marcovitch H.

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ

342:doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452

3. Buie P, DB, Fuchs GJ, et al. Evaluation, diagnosis, and

treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a

consensus statement. Pediatrics 2010;125;S1-S18.

Dr Fiona Godlee FRCP

Editor in chief, BMJ

BMJ Group

BMA House

Tavistock Square

London WC1H 9JR

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6002/+44 (0)1223 872084

Fax: +44 (0)207 383 6418

BMJ Group: http://group.bmj.com

Personal Assistant, Burrell

jburrell@...

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6102

_______________________________________________________________________

The BMJ Group is one of the world's most trusted providers of medical

information for doctors, researchers, health care workers and patients

group.bmj.com. This email and any attachments are confidential. If you

have received this email in error, please delete it and kindly notify us.

If the email contains personal views then the BMJ Group accepts no

responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this

email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ Group accepts no

liability for any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by

the BMJ Group may be monitored for size, traffic, distribution and

content. BMJ Publishing Group Limited trading as BMJ Group. A private

limited company, registered in England and Wales under registration

number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, Tavistock Square, London

WC1H 9JR, UK.

_______________________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

From: FGodlee@...

kblanco1

Subject: Re: Response from Fiona Godlee re: MMR

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:45:27 +0000

Dear Blanco

Thank you for your enquiry.

In answer to the questions you raise, the BMJ stands by its 5 January

article and editorial on MMR and Wakefield.[1][2]

The article, which was subjected to

peer review and editorial checking, was based on enquiries carried out

over some seven years, involving, among other things, interviews with

parents of children enrolled in Wakefield's research. Four such

parents are quoted in the article. As made clear in the article, the core

data on which the findings were based were evidenced, except in the case

of one child, by the transcript of a General Medical Council fitness to

practise hearing which sat between July 2007 and May 2010.

Your email suggests that

Wakefield did not have access to GP records and therefore could not be

responsible for discrepancies between those records and what was

published in the Lancet in February 1998. The case we presented

against Wakefield that the 1998 Lancet paper was intended to

mislead is not critically reliant on GP records. It is primarily

based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by

clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free

from GPs and consultants.

We draw attention to the finding of the fitness to practise panel, on

which we are entitled to rely, that " the project reported in the

Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated

new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all.

Because you [Wakefield] drafted and wrote the final version of the paper,

and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the

patient population, the panel is satisfied that your conduct was

irresponsible and dishonest. "

Contrary to other suggestions received in your email, we made no

allegation of dishonesty against Wakefield's co-authors, or indeed

against anybody else. As the GMC panel heard, it was Wakefield who

wrote the Lancet paper, using data which he anonymised, with little

oversight by other authors. We confirm that under the uniform

requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals all authors

should be in a position to speak to data, but the evidence is that in

this case they were not.

We are aware of recent claims made by Wakefield that " new

documents have come to light " purportedly confirming his claims in

the Lancet. The material he cites was presented to the GMC panel

two and a half years ago. Wakefield was last year erased from the

medical register and he has chosen not to appeal that decision. As

indicated, the very many charges proven against him include dishonesty in

his research.

We are unaware of any peer reviewed paper replicating Wakefield's

research or confirming his claims to have identified a new syndrome of

regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease associated with MMR

vaccination. With respect to gastrointestinal issues, we draw attention

to an authoritative consensus statement published last year by

experienced specialists in this field [3] and particularly to statement

4: " The existence of a gastrointestinal disturbance specific to

persons with ASDs (eg “autistic enterocolitis”) has not been

established. "

Thank you for your interest in the BMJ.

Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief,

BMJ

References

1. Deer B. How the case against the

MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ 2011; 342:c5347 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5347

2. Godlee F, J, Marcovitch H.

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ

342:doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452

3. Buie P, DB, Fuchs GJ, et al. Evaluation, diagnosis, and

treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a

consensus statement. Pediatrics 2010;125;S1-S18.

Dr Fiona Godlee FRCP

Editor in chief, BMJ

BMJ Group

BMA House

Tavistock Square

London WC1H 9JR

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6002/+44 (0)1223 872084

Fax: +44 (0)207 383 6418

BMJ Group: http://group.bmj.com

Personal Assistant, Burrell

jburrell@...

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6102

_______________________________________________________________________

The BMJ Group is one of the world's most trusted providers of medical

information for doctors, researchers, health care workers and patients

group.bmj.com. This email and any attachments are confidential. If you

have received this email in error, please delete it and kindly notify us.

If the email contains personal views then the BMJ Group accepts no

responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this

email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ Group accepts no

liability for any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by

the BMJ Group may be monitored for size, traffic, distribution and

content. BMJ Publishing Group Limited trading as BMJ Group. A private

limited company, registered in England and Wales under registration

number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, Tavistock Square, London

WC1H 9JR, UK.

_______________________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

From: FGodlee@...

kblanco1

Subject: Re: Response from Fiona Godlee re: MMR

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:45:27 +0000

Dear Blanco

Thank you for your enquiry.

In answer to the questions you raise, the BMJ stands by its 5 January

article and editorial on MMR and Wakefield.[1][2]

The article, which was subjected to

peer review and editorial checking, was based on enquiries carried out

over some seven years, involving, among other things, interviews with

parents of children enrolled in Wakefield's research. Four such

parents are quoted in the article. As made clear in the article, the core

data on which the findings were based were evidenced, except in the case

of one child, by the transcript of a General Medical Council fitness to

practise hearing which sat between July 2007 and May 2010.

Your email suggests that

Wakefield did not have access to GP records and therefore could not be

responsible for discrepancies between those records and what was

published in the Lancet in February 1998. The case we presented

against Wakefield that the 1998 Lancet paper was intended to

mislead is not critically reliant on GP records. It is primarily

based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by

clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free

from GPs and consultants.

We draw attention to the finding of the fitness to practise panel, on

which we are entitled to rely, that " the project reported in the

Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated

new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all.

Because you [Wakefield] drafted and wrote the final version of the paper,

and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the

patient population, the panel is satisfied that your conduct was

irresponsible and dishonest. "

Contrary to other suggestions received in your email, we made no

allegation of dishonesty against Wakefield's co-authors, or indeed

against anybody else. As the GMC panel heard, it was Wakefield who

wrote the Lancet paper, using data which he anonymised, with little

oversight by other authors. We confirm that under the uniform

requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals all authors

should be in a position to speak to data, but the evidence is that in

this case they were not.

We are aware of recent claims made by Wakefield that " new

documents have come to light " purportedly confirming his claims in

the Lancet. The material he cites was presented to the GMC panel

two and a half years ago. Wakefield was last year erased from the

medical register and he has chosen not to appeal that decision. As

indicated, the very many charges proven against him include dishonesty in

his research.

We are unaware of any peer reviewed paper replicating Wakefield's

research or confirming his claims to have identified a new syndrome of

regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease associated with MMR

vaccination. With respect to gastrointestinal issues, we draw attention

to an authoritative consensus statement published last year by

experienced specialists in this field [3] and particularly to statement

4: " The existence of a gastrointestinal disturbance specific to

persons with ASDs (eg “autistic enterocolitis”) has not been

established. "

Thank you for your interest in the BMJ.

Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief,

BMJ

References

1. Deer B. How the case against the

MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ 2011; 342:c5347 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5347

2. Godlee F, J, Marcovitch H.

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ

342:doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452

3. Buie P, DB, Fuchs GJ, et al. Evaluation, diagnosis, and

treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a

consensus statement. Pediatrics 2010;125;S1-S18.

Dr Fiona Godlee FRCP

Editor in chief, BMJ

BMJ Group

BMA House

Tavistock Square

London WC1H 9JR

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6002/+44 (0)1223 872084

Fax: +44 (0)207 383 6418

BMJ Group: http://group.bmj.com

Personal Assistant, Burrell

jburrell@...

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6102

_______________________________________________________________________

The BMJ Group is one of the world's most trusted providers of medical

information for doctors, researchers, health care workers and patients

group.bmj.com. This email and any attachments are confidential. If you

have received this email in error, please delete it and kindly notify us.

If the email contains personal views then the BMJ Group accepts no

responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this

email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ Group accepts no

liability for any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by

the BMJ Group may be monitored for size, traffic, distribution and

content. BMJ Publishing Group Limited trading as BMJ Group. A private

limited company, registered in England and Wales under registration

number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, Tavistock Square, London

WC1H 9JR, UK.

_______________________________________________________________________