Dr. Andrew Wakefield is the Canadian doctor who in 1998 published a paper, along with other researchers, analysing some perplexing conditions in 8 British children who had apparently come down with inflammatory bowel and other symptoms, and had apparently regressed into autism, shortly after receiving the combined measles-mumps-rubella shot.
The British National Health Service (NHS) panicked on seeing the report, and Wakefield, like other unruly doctors, was hounded out of Britain. He now works in the US.
On 4th February 2009, Dr. Wakefield (with other US researchers) published a response to a misleadingly white-washing paper on the safety of vaccinations, written by Dr. Ari Brown (link). That week-end, 8th February, Rupert Murdoch's London Sunday Times (sister to Fox News) published a piece by Brian Deer rehashing the same tired old charges against Dr Wakefield, including the charge that Dr Wakefield relied on parents' accounts their children's disease progress rather than GP records (Sunday Times Sinks to New Low with Yet More Junk Journalism).
Brian Deer wrote to Dr. Wakefield inviting him to respond to the gist of the article he was about to publish, but gave Dr. Wakefield less than 48 hours to answer. Dr. Wakefield's answer has now been published.
In his response, Dr Wakefield makes it clear that the allegations made by Brian Deer have either been disproved in the past, and to the extent that new allegations are made, they don't relate to Dr Wakefield. However, I will let you read his response and let you make up your own mind.
It is astounding what irrational venom Dr Wakefield arouses (including in these pages, e.g. here and here). The attacks seem to focus on two areas:
• That by scaring parents with untrue statements, Dr Wakefield has induced parents to irrationally refuse the combined MMR jab, so jeopardising the population's herd immunity and causing a lethal increase in measles; and
• That Dr Wakefield as caused pointless research to be made into a link between vaccines and autism, when in fact no link exists.
The point of departure has to be a pronounced and so far unexplained rise in autism, including (as a separate phenomenon) "sudden-onset" autism, where children seem to be developing normally until they suddenly and without apparent explanation regress, lose abilities they had acquired and manifest symptoms of severe autism.
No single cause for the rise in autism has been identified.
• Changes in definition and diagnosis may explain some of the increase, but the increase has continued since the definition was revised.
• Genetics appears to play a part in autism, but can't explain the sudden increase in autism.
• Vaccines and a mercury-based compound in vaccines (Thimerosal, since discontinued for childhood vaccines) have been blamed, but no link has been established and autism has increased despite the discontinuation of Thimerosal.
(None of this is universally accepted, and apparently reputable scientist disagree on everything from the validity of the studies to the interpretation of the data.)
At least for the UK, it is true that following Dr Wakefield's original article, uptake of the combined MMR jab went down and parents began to request the separate measles jab, until then available on the NHS. The reaction of the NHS was to withdraw the separate measles jab and force parents in the choice of MMR or no vaccination.
With the UK government's attitude that it knew better and it knew what was good for everyone, its ruthless crushing of dissent and its dismal record in public health challenges (BSE, foot-and-mouth, the tragic story of between 30 and 100 babies dead from doctors wanting to practice pediatric open-heart surgery in the Bristol Royal Infirmary), the NHS through its intransigent attitude only succeeded in scoring an own-goal.
While no doubt parents are confused by the inconclusive data and the baseless reassurances of the NHS, it is cruel to blame parents for their concerns and to deprive them of uncontroversially safe alternatives. Calling the people you're supposed to serve ignorant, emotional, panicky, scared, hysterical, susceptible to conspiracy theories and self-centered (for being more concerned about the well-being of their children rather than the comfort of the NHS) is no way to build trust.
No serious medical researcher doubts the general safety and beneficial impact of vaccination in general (Wakefields doesn't, either), and there is no doubt that herd immunity is desirable.
The issue with vaccinations is not the safety of the individual vaccine, but the tendency of drug companies and doctors to combine multiple vaccines in one jab, and to give vaccinations at ever earlier ages. Drug companies have not been required (by the FDA or other organisations) to analyse the effect of combined vaccines or to analyse the impact of the massive stresses vaccines impose on the developing immune systems of ever younger babies.
Research has established a link between asthma and the DTP shot if the shot was given as a very young age. There is a strong suspicion that multiple vaccine shots can combine with a genetic predisposition (study and HuffPo article), and actually resulted in autism in at least one specific case (the unfortunate case of Hannah Poling). Clearly, more research is needed into the effect of multiple vaccines and the age at which shots are given. In this context, I find research focussed on disproving a vaccine-autism link (see HuffPost: RFK Jr. and David Kirby: Autism, Vaccines and the CDC - on the Wrong Side of History) unreassuring: a negative can't be proven (especially when juxtaposed with case studies that strongly suggest a link in rare individual cases), and I'd much rather see the effort spent on two separate questions - multiple vaccines & age of shots on one hand, and autism on the other hand, especially since autism is not a single disease but really a spectrum of symptoms (see also this piece in a UK competitor to Murdoch's ST, the Daily Telegraph: There is more to the pain of autism than the MMR debate). Maybe they'll come together at some point, but it's amazing what you won't see when you're not looking for it.
On the herd immunity issue, we are faced with the usual moral dilemma: If a few have to suffer for the benefit of the whole, is that acceptable? While the issue has to be weighed in terms of the number, severity and permanence of the suffering of the few, the trade-off is clearly in favour of vaccination and herd immunity in the case of severe diseases like polio or small-pox. For a normal child-hood disease like measles, where complications are rare though they can occur, the balance of the trade-off shifts, and the case for herd immunity has to be made more persuasively.
Basis for the decision though has to be:
• A knowledge of the trade-off involved; and
• An awareness of all involved of the risks.
In the case of MMR, both these elements are lacking. While I don't profess to be able to judge the validity of Dr. Wakefield's research, his conclusions may have been replicated in a recent, larger New York study (the study remains incomplete, unpublished and as to any causal nexus between MMR vaccine, bowel inflammation and autism, inconclusive - link). The risks therefore remain unknown. On the other side of the trade-off, the issue is an artificial one created by the NHS: Separate measles vaccines, for which risks are known to be very low, are available, and parents would be willing to use them; only, the NHS refuses to allow them.
I do not believe it is acceptable for the medical establishment to seek to achieve herd immunity by misrepresenting the risks of their chosen methods to the public, and refusing to look for ways of achieving herd immunity while minimising the public's exposure to risks, real or suspected. And so long as the medical establishment remains in wilful ignorance of the effects of the early-age cumulation of vaccinations, and prefers to focus on trashing the reputation of uncomfortable researchers, it is misrepresenting the risks of vaccines.