Lies, autism, and fear of the MMR vaccine
Feb 11, 2010 3:00 PM
Harsh words that come a little late in the day given the staggering public health consequences the study helped foment. MMR vaccination rates have dropped heavily in the UK since the study was published. Subsequently, measles outbreaks have soared causing illness and occasionally deaths. In 2008 the disease that had been under control was once again declared endemic in the UK. And the anti-vaccine movement has spread to the U.S., causing measles rates to rise here as well.
The council repudiated the researchers, but it didn’t validate or reject the study’s conclusions—most of the study's researchers did retract the finding of a possible link between autism and the MMR vaccine several years ago. Several other subsequent studies have also failed to find a link.
The council instead focused on ethics abuses and the scientific methods of the study. It found that Wakefield and his collaborators were “dishonest,” and “irresponsible,” and had possibly committed “serious professional misconduct.” The council will meet again in April to settle that question and to determine what disciplinary action, if any, it will take.
In their judgment—which is a bit like reading the diaries of a mad scientist—Wakefield misrepresented his study both to the ethics panel that approved it, and to the journal editors that published it. He never told either group that he was investigating a possible link between autism and the MMR. He misrepresented the patient population of the study by handpicking patients, some of whom were involved in a legal case claiming that the MMR was responsible for their children’s autism. And Wakefield was actually an advisor to attorneys representing parents who thought that their children were harmed by the MMR vaccine—all according to the official findings of the General Medical Council.
But that’s not all. The council also found that Wakefield received funding from a legal aid group associated with the case. He never told his ethics reviewers or the Lancet of this clear conflict of interest, according to their findings. He also never disclosed that he held a patent on a measles vaccine, which he also tested on one of the children used in the study. Incidentally, according to the council, the father of that child was planning to go into business with Wakefield to develop the drug.
And to top it all off, the report asserts that some of the children he studied didn’t actually have the symptoms he was purporting to research. The council found that Wakefield and his colleagues subjected children to unnecessary medical procedures, including colonoscopies, and lumbar punctures (or spinal taps), that showed a “callous disregard for the distress and pain that you knew or ought to have known the children involved might suffer.”
Wakefield has asserted that the charges were “unfounded and unjust.”
The Lancet editor has said that he never would have published the paper if he’d been aware of these conflicts. That’s why conflict of interest statements are so important. But reporting conflicts is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s not enough for researchers to simply report them—such conflicts need to be eliminated as much as possible for there to be confidence in the quality of their medical research.
The anti-vaccine movement will likely continue, despite a lack of evidence, largely because many people don’t trust the motives of drug companies that make vaccines. Parents who suspect their children developed autism because of an MMR shot are sincere. But we should expect more from scientists. Dishonest research is as much an affront to those parents and their children as it is to those who will suffer from diseases needlessly because they were never vaccinated.
It’s a sad irony that the conflicts of interest that anti-vaccine activists fear of drug companies were actually found in the landmark study that helped to launch the anti-vaccine movement. But journal editors, medical researchers, and drug companies should all take note of this incident and ensure that medical research is developed and reported in a transparent manner, without conflicts of interest, and based on only the best science.
—Kevin McCarthy, associate editor
But that’s not all. The council also found that Wakefield received funding from a legal aid group associated with the case. He never told his ethics reviewers or the Lancet of this clear conflict of interest, according to their findings. He also never disclosed that he held a patent on a measles vaccine, which he also tested on one of the children used in the study. Incidentally, according to the council, the father of that child was planning to go into business with Wakefield to develop the drug.
And to top it all off, the report asserts that some of the children he studied didn’t actually have the symptoms he was purporting to research. The council found that Wakefield and his colleagues subjected children to unnecessary medical procedures, including colonoscopies, and lumbar punctures (or spinal taps), that showed a “callous disregard for the distress and pain that you knew or ought to have known the children involved might suffer.”
Wakefield has asserted that the charges were “unfounded and unjust.”
The Lancet editor has said that he never would have published the paper if he’d been aware of these conflicts. That’s why conflict of interest statements are so important. But reporting conflicts is only the tip of the iceberg. It’s not enough for researchers to simply report them—such conflicts need to be eliminated as much as possible for there to be confidence in the quality of their medical research.
The anti-vaccine movement will likely continue, despite a lack of evidence, largely because many people don’t trust the motives of drug companies that make vaccines. Parents who suspect their children developed autism because of an MMR shot are sincere. But we should expect more from scientists. Dishonest research is as much an affront to those parents and their children as it is to those who will suffer from diseases needlessly because they were never vaccinated.
It’s a sad irony that the conflicts of interest that anti-vaccine activists fear of drug companies were actually found in the landmark study that helped to launch the anti-vaccine movement. But journal editors, medical researchers, and drug companies should all take note of this incident and ensure that medical research is developed and reported in a transparent manner, without conflicts of interest, and based on only the best science.
—Kevin McCarthy, associate editor
Previous
Post a comment
Comments: