Andrew Wakefield is the British gastroenterologist who was part of a team that wrote an article in 1998 that is often portrayed as stating that the MMR vaccine causes autism. It's the article that started the whole debate. However, the article does not make that assertion. In fact, it says explicitly that it does not have enough evidence to make that claim. See quote below. What the article tries to do is investigate claims of such a linkage by doctors and parents of a small group of children with behavioral problems.
What actually got Wakefield into trouble was that at the time of the article's publication, he was being paid by lawyers to be an expert witness in a lawsuit over vaccine injury and several of the plaintiff's were subjects in his article. This could be a conflict of interest. Additionally, it is alleged that he ran tests without ethical approval, "invasive tests, such as spinal taps, that were carried out on children and which were found to be against their best clinical interests." However, a judge ruled that charges against co-author John Walker Smith were without merit and that the General Medical Council's review process contained “fundamental errors… distortion of evidence, inadequate analysis, inadequate and superficial reasoning and explanation, inappropriate rejection of evidence, ‘flawed’ and ‘wrong’ reasoning, and ‘numerous and significant universal inadequacies’….” The judge ruled also that the case series study was clinically motivated; the diagnostic tests were appropriate; and the children received proper clinical care. He rules as well that the Lancet study had implicit ethics approval under Professor Walker-Smith’s broad research authority (162-95) which extended to everyone involved in the project.
Like any good topic of debate, there are arguments on both sides, arguments that can sweep you away if you are not careful.
Here's an article defending Wakefield and condemning myths surrounding him and his research.
Here's one on the High Court ruling in favor of Wakefield's co-author. The ruling mentions Wakefield many times.
Here are some condemning him:
Here's one claiming the ruling to the General Medical Council (GMC) delisting Wakefield was an attempt to silence open discussion on vaccines.
There's too much going on here for me to summarize without putting lots of time into it. Just read the articles and decide for yourself. I find most of these articles informative but one-sided. All the authors let their emotions and condescension get the best of them so none are entirely reliable. But all are useful. One learns over the years to have awe for the people that can stay cool as they dispassionately present the complexities of an issue. There aren't many people around like that anymore. Ravina and Rav Ashi were masters of this as the Gemara is chock full of differing opinions, all put out there for us to read.
Some excerpts:
First article - (Jeremy Hammond):
So here is what the study actually said with respect to the hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism (all emphasis added):
In eight children, the onset of behavioural problems had been linked, either by the parents or by the child’s physician, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. Five had had an early adverse reaction to immunisation (rash, fever, delirium; and, in three cases, convulsions).
We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.
If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. A genetic predisposition to autisic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizybotic twins.
So there you have it: what virtually every lazy-### mainstream journalist tells us the Lancet study said versus what it actually said.
And as you can see, the Independent‘s claim that the study “claimed to have found a link between autism” and the MMR vaccine is absolutely false. On the contrary, the study explicitly stated that it had not established an association and suggested that further studies were needed to determine whether there was a link.
2nd article: (Steven Novella):
In 1998 Andrew Wakefield and 11 other co-authors published a study with the unremarkable title: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Such a title would hardly grab a science journalist’s attention, but the small study sparked widespread hysteria about a possible connection between the mumps-measles-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
4th article: (Mark F. Blaxill)
Let’s put in perspective the actions at issue here. No children were harmed and no parent or guardian has complained about the care these three men provided. In fact, the procedures involved were routine, the resulting treatments standard and the careful attention to gastrointestinal illness in autistic children has recently been endorsed by a consensus statement published in the journal Pediatrics (no friend of the autism community). Considered in this light, the GMC hearing process stands exposed for what it is. It was not about medical standards. It was not about evidence. It was not even civilized. It was, rather, a naked exercise in intimidation, a fateful moment of moral decision in which the medical industrial complex exposed its ruthless, repressive essence. They are a frightening bunch and their conduct here raises issues well beyond autism.
