Controversial Autism Research Is Deemed "An Elaborate Fraud"

After twelve years of controversy and heated debate, the General Medical Council (U.K.) has retracted an article which linked autism and colitis to the common MMR vaccine. The study, originally published by Andrew Wakefield in 1998, sparked wide-spread panic, and not only in the United Kingdom. Many attribute the last decade’s historic lows in immunization rates to the fear perpetuated by Wakefield’s findings.

Because of its controversial implications, the study (found here) was subject to scrutiny upon its publication. As Fiona Godlie of the British Medical Journal summarized in a recent article condemning Wakefield: “critics quickly pointed out that the paper [Wakefield's] was a small case series with no controls, linked three common conditions, and relied on parental recall and beliefs." Evidence suggests that he also purposely misrepresented children’s medical records (here). The facts seem to speak for themselves, none louder than the fact that Wakefield and his co-authors only chose twelve subjects on which to focus their research. Even to a layman, this is clearly an insufficient population to use as the basis of such a bold claim.

There is no shortage of people who openly dismiss Wakefield and his research. Of his twelve co-authors, ten disassociated themselves with the study offically in 2004. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics weighed in, stating “numerous studies have refuted Andrew Wakefield’s theory that MMR vaccine is linked to bowel disorders and autism. Every aspect of Dr. Wakefield’s theory has been disproven.”

The outcry against Wakefield’s methods re-energized allegations of fraud in 2004 when British journalist Brian Deer began an independent investigation of Wakefield’s research. Deer revisited the standing allegations and also publicized Wakefield’s patents, revealing that the surgeon and medical researcher (by the way, Wakefield's medical background is mainly gastroenterology) planned and filed a patent for a safer measles vaccine during the months before he made his study public. This move may not appear dubious under different circumstances—but considering Wakefield’s research methodology falls short of “rigorous,” the financial incentives seem to be stronger motivation than the research: according to Deer, the patented vaccine is exactly what Wakefield proposed as a safer alternative to the traditional MMR vaccine his research deemed unsafe.

In spite of the evidence against him—which has been verified by numerous medical bodies and experts—Wakefield continues to wage a rather loud and public crusade against his purported persecutors. He has recently published a book (Callous Disregard - Autism and Vaccines: The Truth Behind a Tragedy) and continues to appear on many programs in an attempt to vindicate himself.

People who make their living selling and manufacturing traditional vaccines aren’t the only ones with reason to raise concerns about Wakefield’s study; unfortunately, the real victims of such a scandal could be those with autism. If Wakefield’s research is falsified, insufficient, or misrepresentative, that isn’t—as Wakefield seems to suggest—irrefutable proof that there exists no link between the MMR vaccine and autism; it simply means that one researcher failed to execute research properly. However, Wakefield’s approach to his ‘adversaries,’ i.e. the vilification of (just one example) Brian Deer, the BMC, and those who are trying to ensure that a controversial study is sound, does not feel like a satisfactory replacement for solid research.

Perpetuating under-researched links between common afflictions and victimizing yourself when censured by the medical community only delegitimizes possible real links between the MMR vaccine and autism. It belittles the integrity of everyone involved. More importantly, it detracts focus from where it should be: discovering the underlying causes of autism. Wakefield’s handling of the matter certainly does not seem to take into account the importance of discovering the truth. In this particular case, those that deserve this respect, perhaps even more so than the medical community, are people with autism and their families.

Wakefield’s defense.