Report Linking Vaccine To Autism Was Fraudulent, Says British Medical Journal

LONDON -- The first study to link a childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored information about the children involved, according to a new report on the widely discredited research.

The conclusions of the 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully recovered.

A new examination found, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered facts about patients in their study.

The analysis, by British journalist Brian Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the MMR shot, five had previously documented developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from medical records and the children's parents.

Wakefield's recent book claims there is a connection between vaccines and autism that has been ignored by the medical establishment. He now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a vocal following including celebrity supporters like Jenny McCarthy.

On Wednesday night, CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewed Wakefield, who acknowledged he had not read the latest analysis. Still, Wakefield defended his work against what he dismissed as "false allegations," suggested that Deer didn't actually conduct interviews with the parents, and characterized Deer as a "hitman" funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Cooper pointed out that Deer had signed a document asserting that he had no financial interest.

WATCH:

Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday Times of London and Britain's Channel 4 television network. It was published online Thursday in the medical journal, BMJ.

In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and colleagues called Wakefield's study "an elaborate fraud." They said Wakefield's work in other journals should be examined to see if it should be retracted.

Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain. Many other published studies have shown no connection between the MMR vaccination and autism.

But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper was published and there are sporadic outbreaks in Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed endemic in England and Wales.

___

Online:

http://www.bmj.com

Comments

[milanst]

09:08 PM on 01/13/2011

There have been alot of ad hominems directed at Deers but they all ignore the facts. They also ignore that Wakefield lost his license after a panel from his licensing body found him guilty of ethical violations regarding the paper and what he did to the patients in the paper [http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf]. Of special note, considering the "big pharma" conspiracy nature of anti-vaccers is that one of the reasons he lost his license was because he was performing the "study" as a participant in a lawsuit against the company that produced the vaccine.

[bkrider9]

10:24 PM on 01/12/2011

Sheldon is unwilling to answer Dr. Wodarg's challenges because he claims Wodarg is a "bit player".

Then where are the real heavyweights? Writing here on Huffington Post instead of advising governments and forming policies?

[hxwhite]

09:49 PM on 01/11/2011

Who cares what Wakefield wrote. A meta-analy sis of all the peer review literature shows the majority (74%) proves there is a link [1]. Not to mention upon re-analysi s of one of the vaccine apologists papers a forced retraction [2]. I find it interestin g that the media isn't covering that. They are digging up a researcher from way back (12 yrs) whose science has been duplicated [3].

This is what I find most interestin g. This old news is being dredged up *again* why? Maybe because vaccinatio n sales are low [4]? Maybe because Cochrane reviewers are stating that the safety of vaccines are unsatisfac tory [5]? Maybe because Brian Deer's remarks of having on hand the Wakefield 12's medical records (unlawful) and the evidence erased [6]?

All this in light of the CDC's statement of synergisti c affects of vaccinatio n is untested [7]. And of course the continued reports of the 10000s regressing right after vaccinatio n.

Continued

[hxwhite]

09:48 PM on 01/11/2011

I heard a report this week. A statement made on primetime about how you should vaccinate to be a good citizen. To keep up the herd I presume. This type of utilitaria nism is frightenin g for me. If there isn't adequate safety studies, if there isn't any long-term safety studies then how in the world can a parent make a choice based on informed consent.

Autism is caused by an environmen tal trigger [8]. Methyl Mercury is a chemical currently known to cause injury to the developing brain [9]. Ethyl Mercury has never been studied regarding it's impactment on the developing brain. But in primate studies ethyl mercury uptakes at larger levels and creates greater damage [10]. Ethyl mercury is still being injected into pregnant women and children [11]. Although ethyl mercury is not the only neuro-toxi n being injected into pregnant women and children, aluminum is also a likely culprit in neuro-toxi city [12]. Now that being said there is a biological interactio n with live viruses and autism. Prenatal rubella infection is a known environmen tal trigger to cause autism [13].

Continued

[milanst]

07:45 PM on 01/13/2011

Really? Funny, the research that I've read demonstrates the exact opposite. Take, for instance, this study - Environ Health Perspect. 2005 August; 113(8): 1015–1021. - which found that ethyl mercury is eliminated twice as quickly and that the mercury fractions are much less harmful as they are being metabolized.

As for your other claims, pregnant women are at a high risk of death from influenza (we had one die from influenza last year at my hospital) and it is recommended that they get the vaccination.

All viruses carry the risk of morbidity and mortality. That is why we have vaccines in the first place. Measles, for instance, can cause a swelling of the brain that can lead to permanent brain damage or death. It can also lead to visual loss due to scarring and diffuse scarring on the skin.

[Marsha McClelland]

11:42 PM on 01/10/2011

Funny how no other reporter's done an investigat­ion except Brian Deer, don't you think? Those paying attention noticed. Media's parroting his same rhetoric & spin.

They want people to believe the parents turned against Wakefield & that's not true. I know one of them personally­.

The spin is Brian told the parents what he wanted to. That was part of the frame up & considerin­g they had no reason in that moment to think he was lying, of course they had those reactions. Pay close attention to the articles Brian has written & how he chooses his words to bait & see for yourselves­.

You really need ask yourselves, where are any other investigations in a matter as huge & controversial as this?

While you're at it, ask yourself why they won't allow debate in public forum & block us from equal time in media. Why not let us have it out & put minds to rest if there's really nothing to hide? Logic dictates they'ld welcome fair debate if truth was on their side.

The excuse used to be they didn't want to alarm people & have them stop vaccinating­g but that won't hold water since millions are reported as having stopped vaccinating­g. And because of Wakefield? WRONG! We the parents & citizens of the world along with many doctors & scientists have been trying to tell the world the truth but until now, we've been ignored & stifled.

[milanst]

09:15 PM on 01/13/2011

Name a single board certified infectious disease doctor that is against vaccines.

The saddest part of the vaccine-autism debacle is that children are now dieing from diseases that had been eliminated in the US. The other sad outcome of the debacle is that so much money has been directed away from research that could actually help autistic persons because a fraud wanted to make some money in a lawsuit.

[Imhotep40]

10:37 PM on 01/10/2011

Who's investigating the impartiality of Deer's study? Why is this one man's singular research refuting a study performed by several doctors being taken at face value by the Medical community in Wales/England?

Wakefield never suggested that British parents not immunize, what his study found was that the MMR (combination immunization) was the problem, because a swine virus had contaminated the vaccine. Dr. Wakefield actually suggested that parents opt for the individual vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella because they weren't contaminated. It was the UK that pulled the importation license for the combination vaccine that contributed the spike in measles in Wales and England, along with Wakefield's paper.

[Imhotep40]

04:37 PM on 01/10/2011

What are Deer's credentials? I understand that he obtained medical information of a patient involved in the study, under false pretenses. This information is over a year old, and Dr. Wakefield actually refutes his argument in a published book.

Dr. Wakefield never, ever stated in any of his documented reports that parents should stop vaccinating their children; he actually said that the combined vaccine was the problem, and that parents should opt for the individual vaccines instead.

Anderson Cooper 360 was the mouthpiece for the Big Pharma and a contributor to the smear campaign against Dr. Wakefield, not objective or credible.

Thank God that this PR campaign isn't working because upwards of 60% of the population still believe that vaccines are a contributing factor to Autism, and I'm one of them.

[JayZee]

12:05 PM on 01/10/2011

Where's DieSon?
lolz...Did you and Sheldon take the money and run like Dr. Thorsen?

a repost from yer BFF Mr. Crosby:
"Paul Thorsen was no small potato. He was the second highest coauthor from the university where the NEJM study was carried out, which is the primary study used to exonerate the MMR vaccine, and second highest coauthor from the university department that principall­y carried out the Pediatrics study which is most widely cited to exonerate thimerosal­. Each study served as the main foundation­s for the 2005 Cochrane Review and 2004 IOM Report respective­ly. This really shows what a sham the "scientifi­c consensus" is on autism causation. Of course, there is no scientific consensus on this issue regardless since exoneratio­n of thimerosal and MMR would require agreement from the consumers, which it utterly lacks."

Central Figure in CDC Vaccine Cover-Up Absconds With $2M
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html

[Paul Robertson]

03:55 PM on 01/10/2011

Clearly the Thorsen saga is embarrassing and I can understand people asking whether dishonesty in one area translates into dishonesty in another area. But there is a huge difference between the Thorsen case and the Wakefield case.
In Wakefield's case, we have proven academic fraud which thoroughly discredits *the* paper that most people associate with Wakefield and the strongest support for the alleged MMR/autism link.
In the Thorsen case, we have reduced credibility of one of the authors of one of the papers that suggest the absence of a link.
The lovely thing about science is that it is testable and reproducible. Thorsen's papers can be easily put through the same checks that Brian Deer put Wakefield's paper through. And there are other studies, by other authors that show the same result.
As for the ridiculous idea that consumer agreement is required for scientific consensus - what poppycock! Are we putting science to the popular vote now?

[Sheldon101]

04:13 PM on 01/10/2011

JayZee, let us close our eyes and pretend really hard that Paul Thorsen embezzled 2 million. It had nothing to do with MMR.

So what's your take on the GMC decision and the article in the BMJ? Don't they show that Wakefield was unethical, dishonest and a fraud? Unlike the effect, if any, of Dr. Thorsen on the study, the situation with Wakefield is straight forward. So instead of attacking those you disagree with., why not actually discuss the topic at hand?

Your write "Of course, there is no scientific consensus on this issue regardless since exoneratio­­n of thimerosal and MMR would require agreement from the consumers, which it utterly lacks." I don't understand it. Scientific consensus is the consensus of scientist. The views of 'consumers' whether accurate or not are irrelevant.

[Marsha McClelland]

11:07 PM on 01/09/2011

22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.

23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.

24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16

25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465

26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991

27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.

28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303 See More

[bkrider9]

08:19 AM on 01/10/2011

Unfortunately these articles are inconclusive. Hence the ongoing debate.

[Sheldon101]

12:41 PM on 01/11/2011

Apparently, this list of studies was copied from Mercola's website.

Wakefield apparently rests his replication on 5 studies. I'm quoting from another comment by Dyson..

" the 5 studies Wakefield claims vindicate him do nothing of the sort.

http://lef­tbrainrigh­tbrain.co.­uk/2011/01­/the-natio­nal-autism­-associati­on-tries-a­nd-fails-t­o-defend-a­ndrew-wake­fields-fra­ud/

And see here:
http://jus­tthevax.bl­ogspot.com­/2010/02/i­ndependent­-wakefield­-way-reall­y.html

In fact the closest study to replicate the methodolog­y of the Wakefield study was one by Mady Hornig. It failed to corroborat­e his findings too.
http://www­.ncbi.nlm.­nih.gov/pu­bmed/18769­550

Wakefield and his acolytes don't like to mention that one."

[Marsha McClelland]

11:07 PM on 01/09/2011

Continued;

1 The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63

2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372

3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517

4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005

5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103

6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3

7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85

8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10

9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11

10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98

11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161

12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6

13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13

14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.

15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35

16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.

17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62

18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.

19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.

20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.

21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.

[Sheldon101]

11:03 PM on 01/10/2011

Marsha, what about child 11? The comparison is between what Wakefield reported and what the child's admission and discharge summary states. Wakefield said the first symptoms were a week after vaccination --- the hospital records show that they started a month before the vaccination. The medical condition that started a week after vaccination wasn't behavioral, it was a chest infection.

The father is very upset that Wakefield changed the information. He states that Wakefield told him that his kid was the 13th studied. So he was really surprised to find that his child was included in the 12.

[Marsha McClelland]

11:03 PM on 01/09/2011

"In the years after his initial controversial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to Crohn’s disease and autism, he published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced disorder.

All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, which he explains in great detail in this interview.

This is very interesting indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.

It’s been replicated in Canada, in the US., in Venezuela, in Italy… [but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.

I’m afraid that is false.

For those of you who have swallowed this type of reporting hook line and sinker, here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings"

To be continued;

[onionboy]

11:52 AM on 01/10/2011

So, explain away Japan's MMR study? It's many times the sample size of all these studies put together. It's definitive.

[milanst]

05:36 PM on 01/10/2011

Have you read any of the articles that you posted? I took a look at one of them and it nothing to do with vaccines. It was looking at food hypersensitivity in autism patients.

[Sheldon101]

05:01 PM on 01/09/2011

Child 11
----------

The article starts with Child 11, whose fathers says he wasn't supposed to be in the study of 12 children as Wakefield told him that his son was the 13th seen.

The Lancet paper says that the symptoms first showed one week after MMR vaccination., The discharge summary from the Royal Free shows the first symptoms happening two months earlier. That was A MONTH before the MMR vaccination.

And "What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection."

"But, when the details were dissected before the GMC panel, multiple discrepancies emerged. A syndrome necessarily requires at least some consistency, but, as the records were laid out, Wakefield’s crumbled.

First to crack was “regressive autism,” the bedrock of his allegations. “Bear in mind that we are dealing with regressive autism in these children, not of classical autism where the child is not right from the beginning,” he later explained, for example, to a United States congressional committee.

But only one—child 2—clearly had regressive autism. Three of nine so described clearly did not. None of these three even had autism diagnoses, either at admission or on discharge from the Royal Free."

[Marsha McClelland]

08:42 PM on 01/10/2011

All that is spin & has come from Brian Deer only. Key word there, "spin"

No other reporters have done an investigation. Brian's bull has been parroted & ran with in media. If you pay attention close you will see the parents did not turn against Dr. Wakefield. Brian fed them deception & their comments were all because of the shock. Considering it was a frame up & they had no reason at the moment to doubt Brian was lying, of course they had those reactions.

Fortunately for us, the story won't end there.

[milanst]

07:53 PM on 01/13/2011

"Fortunatel­y for us, the story won't end there."

Neither will the deaths and illness that result from you anti-vaccers.

[ddanimal]

12:04 PM on 01/09/2011

I'd like to see a similar review of the studies that supposedly exonerate vaccines as a cause of autism.

The CDCs own Verstraeten at the secret Simpsonwood conference presented evidence showing that vaccines (thimerosal specifically) causes autism and developmental disorders. This was later denied by the CDC. Verstraeten later went to work for a vaccine manufacturer and published a paper contradicting his earlier results.

A similar story of fraud surrounds the Danish studies that supposedly exonerate thimerosal.

Wakefields studies may be fraudulent. But I think the studies used by vaccine apologists are probably just as bad, if not worse.

[Sheldon101]

03:33 PM on 01/09/2011

Congratulations, you are the first vaccine opponent to have come at least part way to admitting what is obvious, that Wakefield was a fraudster and that the 1998 study was a fraud.

Having come so far, go the rest of the distance. Say "Wakefield was a fraudster and that the 1998 study was a fraud."

[ddanimal]

10:56 PM on 01/09/2011

I dont know that for a fact. I also dont really care, since I have never found Wakefields paper to be particularly persuasive or important.

I would instead prefer for the medical establishment to direct some scrutiny toward Verstraeten and the results he presented at Simpsonwood versus the altered results he published in Pediatrics. This inconsistency is far more important, because its used to support the establishment belief that mercury and vaccines do not contribute to autism.

I would also like to see the CDC fund some placebo controlled studies of the entire vaccine schedule. If the CDC was truly interested in finding the truth in this matter, this is what they would be doing. Instead, they are more interested in finding new ways to make themselves money. I guess that isnt too surprising.

[Dyson]

04:14 PM on 01/09/2011

Wakefield's study is demonstrably fraudulent.

The other studies (which exonerate vaccines as a cause of autism) are not fraudulent just because you don't like what they demonstrate.

Now who should we believe - the British Medical Association/BMJ, or you (an anonymous antivaccine internet poster)?

Tough call, that one.

[ddanimal]

10:48 PM on 01/09/2011

Oh BS. Go read about Verstraeten and his analysis presented at Simpsonwood, and then the fraudulent, altered results he published in Pediatrics based on the SAME DATA. He changed the analysis to get the results he wanted, and then went to work for the vaccine industry.

And now the Verstraeten paper is the primary reference used to assure people that thimerosal doesnt cause autism.

I was never particularly impressed with Wakefields paper, since it was just a case series, anyway. I always thought it received more attention than it deserved.

The problem with you vaccine apologists is that you refuse to recognize the politics and corruption tainting the studies used to assure people of vaccine safety. Verstraeten and the Simpsowood conference scandal is a perfect example.

The bottom line is that there has NEVER been a placebo-controlled study of the vaccine schedule (vax versus no-vax), not even in animals. The standard of evidence used in every other field of medicine simply does not exist when it comes to vaccines.

[bkrider9]

10:37 PM on 01/08/2011

Can any pro-vaccines people on this thread respond to the challenges laid down by Dr. Wodarg? And by respond I mean one by one, point by point. . I'm sincerely interested in how you would answer him.

Thanks.

[Sheldon101]

12:23 AM on 01/09/2011

Here's a challenge to you. Go read the article. I know you will reject it, but come back here and be creative when you do so.

[bkrider9]

08:01 AM on 01/09/2011

So I take it you are

a) unable 
b) unwilling

to answer Dr. Wodarg's challenges?

[Sonic hedgehog]

05:33 PM on 01/09/2011

what are the challenges?

[bkrider9]

01:53 AM on 01/10/2011

I provide the necessary links in previous posts just below.

[Sheldon101]

06:26 PM on 01/08/2011

Conflict of Interest and Funding
------------------------------
The BMJ knew it would be challenged over Brian Deer's article. It ends:

"Footnotes
Funding: Brian Deer’s investigation was funded by the Sunday Times of London and the Channel 4 television network. Reports by Deer in the BMJ were commissioned and paid for by the journal. No other funding was received, apart from legal costs paid to Deer by the Medical Protection Society on behalf of Andrew Wakefield.
Competing interests: The author has completed the unified competing interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from him) and declares no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; BD’s investigation led to the GMC proceedings referred to in this report, including the charges. He made many submissions of information but was not a party or witness in the case, nor involved in its conduct.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed."

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full