Autism-Vaccine Scare arose from filthy money (BMJ)

[Guest guest]

Report Alleges Money Motivated Doctor Behind Autism-Vaccine Scare

Disgraced physician had various schemes to profit from study's aftermath,

according to investigation

By Gardner, HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Jan. 11 (HealthDay News) -- The disgraced doctor who published a study

more than 10 years ago claiming that a common childhood vaccine -- the

measles-mumps-rubella inoculation -- causes autism may have been motivated more

by money than conviction, investigators say.

According to the second in a three-part investigative series in the medical

journal BMJ, Dr. Wakefield was retained by a lawyer seeking to extract

money from vaccine manufacturers as his research was just beginning. He also

allegedly applied for a patent for an alternative vaccine, set up a business to

profit from that vaccine as well as diagnostic kits and other products, and

worked with the Royal Free Medical School in London on these business ventures.

" It's horrible that institutions may have been involved and that this [may have

been] a planned action, " said A. Young, vice chair for research in the

department of psychiatry and behavioral science at Texas A & M Health Science

Center College of Medicine and core leader for neuroimaging and genetics at the

Center of Excellence for Research on Returning War Veterans in Temple. " It looks

like it was aimed pretty much at making money. "

The first part of the investigation, published last week in the journal, accused

Wakefield of forming his hypothesis before he even began to collect data, then

doctoring that data to suit his theory and even stating that children in the

trial had the regressive form of autism when, in fact, most did not.

That allegedly fraudulent research was published in the prestigious medical

journal The Lancet in 1998. The findings generated a huge response, particularly

among concerned parents, many of whom then refused to vaccinate their children.

In February 2010, The Lancet issued a formal retraction of Wakefield's research,

which is " unusual, " according to Dr. Offit, chief of infectious diseases

and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of

Philadelphia.

" A lot of bad science gets published that's never retracted, " Offit said. He

also noted that, " as a general rule, a study should have more subjects than

authors; this [1998] paper had 12 participants and 13 authors. "

Last May, Britain's General Medical Council barred Wakefield from practicing in

the United Kingdom.

" The MMR [measles-mumps-rubella vaccine] scare was based not on bad science but

on a deliberate fraud, " Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ, said in a

prepared statement. " Such clear evidence of falsification of data should now

close the door on this damaging vaccine scare. "

However, that may be easier said than done, since public perception on the issue

appears to have been permanently altered.

" It's now become fixed in the mind of people that there's the potential for a

relationship between vaccines and autism, despite the fact that there are no

real signs to support it, " said Dr. Max Wiznitzer, a child neurologist with

Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, University Hospital's Case Medical Center

in Cleveland. " This paper and [Wakefield's] work has contributed to the

development of a distrust of vaccines. As a consequence, [we've had] unnecessary

illnesses and infections and unnecessary deaths. "

Research monies have also been diverted " to disprove the unproven, " Wiznitzer

added. " [Those monies] could have been used elsewhere. "

The new BMJ report, researched and written by U.K. investigative journalist

Deer, alleges that the lawyer who originally retained Wakefield was

himself hired by an anti-vaccine organization called JABS.

It also says that the research ultimately published in The Lancet was funded by

the UK Legal Aid Board, although this wasn't disclosed until years later.

Soon after the study's publication in The Lancet, Wakefield consulted with

employees of Royal Free Medical School about forming a company to develop

products based on his research. That company was incorporated and also received

funding from the U.K. Legal Aid Board to initiate trials in children, the BMJ

article alleges.

Royal Free Hospital and University College London (UCL), which is also

implicated in the BMJ investigation, merged in 1998.

A statement issued by University College London in response to the first BMJ

article said the institution " takes any allegation of research misconduct very

seriously, and we will certainly investigate those raised in the BMJ. At this

point, however, we have not been given the opportunity to view all of the

articles to be published in the BMJ relating to this issue. We are therefore

currently able to give only a general institutional response to the issues so

far raised. "

The statement went on to note that at the time the Lancet research was

conducted, Royal Free Hospital was not part of UCL.

" We fully acknowledge the need to look closely at the research of someone

alleged [in the BMJ article] to have carried out research misconduct, " read the

statement. " We are determined to learn from the mistakes made in relation to

this case. "

With regard to this second article, UCL said: " We have only just seen this so

all we can say at this point is we're looking carefully at the allegations

raised. "

As for Wakefield, his Web site shows him as currently living in Austin, Texas,

promoting a book published last year, Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines,

The Truth Behind the Tragedy, and going on speaking engagements.

Speaking last week to CNN, Wakefield called investigative journalist Deer " a hit

man -- he has been brought in to take me down, because they [pharmaceutical

industry] are very, very concerned about the adverse reactions to the vaccines

that are occurring in children. "

For his part, Deer -- who says he was paid for his work by the BMJ -- scoffed at

Wakefield's claim, telling CNN that the accusations of fraud come from not from

him, but from " the editors of the BMJ, a very prestigious medical journal. "

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/648755.html