Wakefield was dishonest and irresponsible over MMR research, says GMC
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c593 (Published 29 January 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c593All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I did not even consider Mark Struthers' "motives" but merely responded to what he has said;so there's no misunderstanding.Further, I am rather surprised that Struthers is suggesting that I should have considered/understood his "motives". In fact,among other things, Struthers very clearly asked, "Where is the motive for such misconduct...." in his original response, and I responded to the issue of motive with relevant references.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am a parent and a part of the Cryshame Group who fully supports Dr
Wakefield and Professors Murch and Walker- Smith. These 3 wise men did
nothing wrong, they investigated the Lancet 12 and hundreds of other
children after that. My son being one of them.
The GMC have behaved like puppets for the pharmaceutical companies
and the medical cartel. It's all about money and reputation and keeping
ones job no matter what the outcome is to the stupid decisions they have
made for mankind. I will never give up making people aware of MMR vaccine
damage, this is my right as a citizen and the sooner people wake up to the
fact that yes thousands of children have been brain/gut damaged the
better, and I have no doubt about that.
Vaccine damage is recognised all over the world so what is the UK coming
to or what are they hiding. We know what they are hiding, but we never got
a voice at the GMC.
Luckily for us parents we have a very strong support group and
parents that attended the hearing by God let the panel know their strong
feelings on the matter. Tons of support from America and it was great to
hear Jim Moody from NAA in America have his say. Another man who know what
he is talking about and is not afraid to have his say.
No children were failed by the doctors and no parents.
Competing interests:
Mum of autistic son
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is possible that Jay Illangaratne may have misunderstood my
motives. Of Professor John Walker-Smith I was merely pondering on the why
‘would’ he do it, rather than the why ‘did’ he do it, albeit beyond the
reasonable doubt of the GMC. Of course, the concept of motive in the
person who denies they ‘did’ it is an interesting one to ponder. In the
case of Sally Clark, I recall that the prosecutory authorities appeared
much more interested in conviction and punishment than in considering a
motive. [1]
[1] Roy Meadow. Personal paper: A case of murder and the BMJ. BMJ,
Jan 2002; 324: 41-43;doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7328.41
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7328/41
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I share Dr Struthers' bewilderment. Profs Walker-Smith and Murch
stand condemned for behaviour that is, on numerous counts, 'irresponsible'
'misleading', dishonest' and 'contrary to the child's clinical interests'.
Anyone who has had the privilege of watching these doctors treat their
child knows that this is nonsense. But I am only a parent. Like the
parents of The Lancet 12, none of whom have complained about the tests
their children underwent, being thankful to have found a team of doctors
to take seriously their children's manifest enterological troubles, I have
had no voice in this affair. The judgement as handed down by the GMC panel
ignores the brilliant, painstaking and moving defence heard over the last
two and a half years. The 'judgement' is so extreme in the cases of Profs
Walker-Smith and Murch that even a convinced Wakefield detractor must be
given pause.
Competing interests:
Parent of former patients of Dr Murch and Prof Walker-Smith
Competing interests: No competing interests
Brian Deer is satisfied.
Mr Deer, journalist for the Sunday Times and complainant in the case
of the Royal Free Three, is content: the job is done. [1] Richard Smith,
former editor of the BMJ, was quoted in Deer’s Sunday article,
“His career as a researcher is effectively over.” “Any journal to
which a researcher shown to be dishonest submitted a paper would reject
it.”
What Richard Smith didn’t say of course, is that Andrew Wakefield
will forever be unable to appear as an expert witness to provide
scientific support to children damaged by vaccines. And no other medical
scientist will ever dare to tread where Andrew Wakefield has bravely trod.
[1] ‘Callous, unethical and dishonest’: Dr Andrew Wakefield. Brian
Deer, The Sunday Times January 31, 2010.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7009882.ece
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Mark Struthers is right to be bewildered. Four and half years ago Ben
Goldacre wrote in a prize-winning article in the Guardian[1] (and Evan
Harris who is connected to this affair was on the panel of judges[2]):
"...people periodically come up to me and say, isn't it funny how
that Wakefield MMR paper turned out to be Bad Science after all? And I
say: no. The paper always was and still remains a perfectly good small
case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more
than that, by media that are incapable of interpreting and reporting
scientific data."
So it is beyond comprehension how the GMC panel ruled that instead of
being "a perfectly good small series study", based on a group of children
seen in order of referral and treated according to clinical need, it was a
bungled version of the protocol of the Legal Aid Board commissioned study
(172-96), thus forming basis for unwarranted allegations of misconduct[3].
This has been going on for six years now, but while I believe the
treatment of each of the three doctors is iniquitous, the treatment of
John Walker-Smith is an outrage of the first order.
As to Ben Goldacre, it is a shame that he did not re-affirm his view
about this matter in his Guardian article on Thursday evening[4]. This was
also previously a matter of dispute between him and journalist Brian Deer
originator of the allegations against the three doctors[5], but now
apparently forgotten by him.
There are questions here for the entire medical community, who have
allowed this to happen.
[1] Ben Goldacre, 'Don't dumb me down', Guardian 8 September 2005,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/08/badscience.research
[2] ABSW Syngenta Science writers Awards 2005, News Release (19 July
2006),
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:http://www.sciencewritersawards.co.uk...
-press.pdf
[3] Findings of Fact - Summary. General Medical Council, 28 January
2010.
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/GMC%2C%20Findings%2...
[4] Ben Goldacre, 'Expert view: The media are equally guilty over the
MMR vaccine scare', Guardian 28 January 2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/mmr-vaccine-ben-goldacre
[5] Owen Amos, 'Brian Deer: the big interview' Press Gazette March
2009, http://briandeer.com/solved/gazette-large.htm
Competing interests:
Autistic son
Competing interests: No competing interests
Professor Walker-Smith treated my children for bowel problems. They
were referred by their doctor because of their symptoms.
At no time were my boys ever used for research purposes.
I fear because of the GMC decision any Autistic child with bowel problems
may not be treated in the future.
Competing interests:
Sons part of the Lancet study
Competing interests: No competing interests
It appears, Dr Struthers is questioning the motive of misconduct in relation to Professor John Walker-Smith. As can be seen on GMC's statement[1],the standard of proof applied was criminal('beyond reasonable doubt') as opposed to civil standard. Hence,"motive cannot be a defence"[2].However, it is said," If motive has any relevance, this may be addressed in the sentencing part of the trial, when the court considers what punishment, if any, is appropriate"[2]. In Prof Walker-Smith's case,the 'sentencing' has not taken place as yet; it is said,"his case will proceed to the next stage, under Rule 28. Evidence will be adduced
and submissions made in respect of whether he is guilty of serious professional
misconduct and if so, what, if any, sanction should be imposed on his
registration"[1].So in order to properly address the issue of motive, we may have to wait untill the GMC has adduced evidence and formal submissions are made at the next stage.
References
[1]http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/GMC%2C%20Findings%2...
[2]Mens rea(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea)
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I’m bewildered: none of this peculiar business appears – on the
surface – to make any sense.
If one focuses for the moment on Professor John Walker-Smith, one of
the Royal Free Three, on trial at the GMC: why would he do it? Where is
the motive for such misconduct, both serious and professional? [1] Why
would Professor Walker-Smith, one of the most highly regarded paediatric
gastroenterologists in Europe, a man who had dedicated his life to the
care of children [2] start experimenting on them at this late stage in his
career?
I simply don’t get it.
[1] Findings of Fact - Summary. General Medical Council, 28 January
2010.
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/GMC%2C%20Findings%2...
[2] Medical Protection Society. Press statement, 28 January 2010.
Professor John Walker-Smith.
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Press%20statement%20-
%20John%20Walker-Smith%2028.1.10.pdf
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Goldacre's About-Face
I remember reading on Brian Deer's website about his dispute with
Goldacre
over Wakefield et al., Deer wanting to trash it while Goldacre, for once
bringing
out the doctor in him, recognized it as a good case study misrepresented
in the
media, as it was.
Since then, as John pointed out, Goldacre changed his tune:
"even if it had been immaculately well conducted – and it certainly
wasn't"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/mmr-vaccine-ben-goldacre
It appears Ben Goldacre has conveniently flip-flopped on the issue.
Worst of all,
this will most likely go unnoticed among his fans. The way they rallied
around
him when he posted an episode of Jeni Barnett's radio show without her
permission after she spoke critically of the MMR on LBC radio seems to
prove my
point. He has an uncritical and devoted following in the UK.
Competing interests:
Diagnosed with Asperger
Syndrome
Competing interests: No competing interests