Dr Wakefield in the news

Another accusation in the press!

There was a piece in The Irish Times in January on this - don't know if you saw it. Details are in our "Latest News" section, click here. The following reply was sent to them:

Madam,

I was dismayed to read the report by Muiris Houston “Wakefield accused of fraud over MMR scare” (6th January). For many people, Andrew Wakefield represents the very best in heroism. He has stood up to the repeated attacks, both personal and professional, from the medical and certain media establishments. Your article reported the British Medical Journal's latest editorial, which in turn was prompted by the investigative journalist, Brian Deer. Deer made these accusations some years ago and is well known for his perspective on this issue. This latest BMJ editorial follows last year's hearing by the UK’s General Medical Council in striking-off Dr. Wakefield.

Wakefield continues to deny the GMC’s charges of misconduct and breach of ethics. His book earlier this year, “Callous Disregard” includes specific line-by-line rebuttal of Deer’s so-called investigations. These denials of wrong-doing and his rebuttals of Deer’s accusations do not appear in Houston’s article.

Many respected organisations acknowledge Wakefield as an honourable man. America's NAA (National Autism Association) and the UK's Autism File are 2 examples amongst many. More importantly, many parents of children with autism have strong reasons for tracing the start of their child’s autistic behaviours to the timing of their MMR vaccination. Remember that Wakefield and others are not “anti-vaccination”, but instead, they are “pro safe vaccination”. Contrary to media reports fed by the medical and pharmaceutical establishments, the Lancet paper’s findings and resulting hypothesis have been replicated in other studies. They don’t claim causation to the MMR vaccine, but call for further investigations. 

Given our recent experience in this country of certain people being invited to “commit suicide” on foot of their challenge of the establishment’s view, including regulators with potential conflicts of interest, I would hope readers would be offered a balanced view on this controversial subject. There is a significant “other side” to this argument.

Yours, etc,