' this has caused her a great deal of concern and anxiety. Following this incident we, together with Ham­mersmith Hospitals NHS Trust which runs the pathology service, carried out an investigation. This highlighted a breakdown in comm­unications between staff for non-routine (research) samples.

'To ensure a breakdown in commu­nications does not happen again a new clearer system has been put into place to ensure that a senior pathol­ogy doctor approves requests for non routine (research) samples and that a member of staff will be assigned responsibility for looking after the specimen. We understand that Mrs Edwards still has some concerns and a meeting has been arranged with the lead consultant involved in the care of her son so that she can discuss this matter in more detail.'

Despite being repeatedly asked for clarification of this statement, the hospital has declined to say anything further.

Interestingly, Dr Wakefield says the laboratory through which he was working never asked for the sample to be marked with his name, and that he would have forbidden it to be so marked if he had known. He is care­ful not to criticise the hospital--which treated Josh Edwards com­petently and effectively. There is no suggestion from any quarter that the destruction resulted from any kind of officially sanctioned decision.

But he is shocked that an impor­tant piece of evidence could have been treated in this way. He says: 'It is a golden rule of laboratory prac-

Could it be possible that a supporter of the MMR vaccine has deliberately destroyed important evidence that could have thrown light on the alleged links between MMR and autism? Are partisans of this vaccine prepared to take such action? The idea seems absurd and is certainly appalling.

Yet those who doubt such things could take place in this country will have their beliefs shaken by the news that an important tissue sam­ple has in fact been mysteriouslydestroyed in a leading London hos­pital. The hospital itself is plainly not responsible but cannot offer any explanation for the event beyond a 'communication breakdown'.

The loss of material that is irre­placeable and unique has caused deep frustration among researchers who are angry that a scientific sam­ple should have been lost in this way.

And it has greatly distressed the family of the child from whom the sample was taken; a 12-year-old boy called Josh Edwards, who had suf­fered years of appalling bowel com­plaints and mental deterioration.

Josh's family had hoped his ordeal might be mitigated by the knowledge that they had helped to find out what had caused their misery, and perhaps make it possible for doctors to find a way of preventing and curing it in other children. Now they feel that ten years of suffering has been wasted.

The tissue sample was awaiting collection in a hospital freezer and was marked to show that it was des­tined to be examined by Andrew Wakefield, the controversial doctor who has been subjected to furious criticism from the medical estab­lishment for raising doubts about the MMR vaccine.

But a person or persons unknown removed the sample from its con­tainer and left it on a workbench nearby, then replaced its empty con­tainer in the freezer. By the time the sample was found on the bench it had deteriorated so badly that it was useless for research.

tice that you don't interfere with, remove or otherwise compromise samples belonging to other people. These samples are sacred. It is very alarming that this happened.'

So what did the person involved think he or she was doing? What legitimate purpose could possibly have justified leaving a highly per­ishable section of a child's intestines on a laboratory bench?

It is also unclear who marked the sample's container with Dr Wake-field's name. This is important because, since he aired his doubts about the MMR, Dr Wakefield has incurred the hostility of much of the medical establishment. It has been suggested he sought to make money out of a rival immunisation; that he failed to declare an interest in his published work and that he is a 'junk scientist' - all allegations which he fiercely denies and some of which may be the subject of libel actions. He now works mainly in the United States, partly because of the official feeling against him here.

Why is this sample so important? I spent some hours talking to Mrs Edwards about the many years of suffering Josh - and his family -have endured, and it is a terrible saga of pain, loss, gruelling surgery and demanding, stomach-churning nursing care. Anybody hearing this would hope that any future such cases should be prevented and some better treatment be found than that which Josh has endured.

But there is one thing more. Josh has been given the MMR jab - twice. After the first injection, at the nor-