Naked Intimidation: The Wakefield Inquisition is Only the Tip of the Autism Censorship Iceberg
“That’s baseless
conspiracy-mongering”, some might counter, contending that any anecdote I might
dig up is simply the normal process of scientific quality control. “Welcome to
the real world”, I respond, because this is something entirely new and
disturbing. The deep and profound censorship occurring around autism science
reaches depths that few casual observers can imagine.
I have proof.
January 29, 2010
By Mark F. Blaxill http://www.ageofautism.com
There are no words to describe the findings of the General Medical Council
(GMC). All I can say is that none of us should be surprised. The stakes had
escalated far too high for the British medical establishment to countenance any
other outcome. In the face of this parody of real justice, the only thing for
the autism community to do now is stand by Andy Wakefield. Like him, we must not
be intimidated; which is why I am proud to call Andy my friend. He is all of our
friends.
We must also not forget two other fine men, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch,
men who have devoted their professional lives to healing the guts of sick
children, and whose public reputations stand in tatters before the world,
assaulted by the public health propaganda machine, victims of a modern day show
trial. The GMC proceeding is a frightening and thoroughly modern form of
tyranny. It makes you shudder to think what Stalin or McCarthy might have
accomplished if their public relations had been more skillful and better
organized.
The extremity of the GMC’s verdict--all three men guilty on all counts—lays
bare any pretense that the British medical establishment cares one whit about
the welfare of its patients. 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.
There are others who can and will speak to the particulars of the case: the
accusations, the evidence, and the integrity of the witnesses for the
prosecution (see
HERE and
HERE ). But it’s important to remember that this trial has never really been
about the three doctors. If it were, it would never have consumed so many
millions of dollars and thousands of hours over more than two years. The real
goal of this proceeding, what I have called The Wakefield Inquisition (see
HERE ) is to send a clear message to anyone--clinician or scientist--who
dares step out of line like Wakefield did. And as parents and citizens, we all
need to understand one thing: that message has been received loud and clear.
Over the last ten years I’ve had the privilege to interact with a wide range of
scientists in several different fields. Many of them are wonderful people and
first-class professionals. And in the course of those interactions I have
observed common patterns. A few, like Jon Poling and Mark and David Geier, who
have worked openly on behalf of our children, have suffered harsh public
recriminations. But for every public example there are countless more private
examples of intimidation, coercion and censorship. It’s like an iceberg; the
vast majority of the scientific censorship occurring in autism takes place below
the waterline, invisible to the broader public.
“That’s baseless conspiracy-mongering”, some might counter, contending that any
anecdote I might dig up is simply the normal process of scientific quality
control. “Welcome to the real world”, I respond, because this is something
entirely new and disturbing. The deep and profound censorship occurring around
autism science reaches depths that few casual observers can imagine.
I have proof.
Over the last ten years I have collected a number of private
examples--some via conversation others via email--of individual scientists who
have felt the cold hand of censorship when dealing with autism. They comprise a
modest sample (my interactions are necessarily episodic) of what I believe to be
a pervasive pattern of suppression. But it’s an extensive sample nevertheless
and in all instances the good-citizen scientist on the other side of the
interaction has been troubled by it. In order to give some visibility to this
mass of bad behavior lying below the waterline, I have decided to share a few of
these examples here (I’ve observed many more than just this selection). In all
cases, I have thoroughly disguised the identities (including name, age, gender,
specialty and affiliation) and materially altered the words in order not to
violate confidences and to protect the careers of the scientists involved.
But every single one of them is real.
Below the surface: scientific institutions behaving badly
Not every inquisition takes place in public. One researcher who has investigated
the environmental causes of autism was brought up before a university panel on
charges of misconduct. This charge was raised for blatantly political reasons by
someone hostile to the environmental model of autism causation. The defense
against the charges consumed months of this researcher’s time and has had career
threatening implications. Here is an excerpt from that researcher’s discussion
of this private proceeding.
Have been sidetracked/consumed with preparing my defense for the research
misconduct proceedings instigated by X, but am looking forward to the
opportunity to clear my name at least in this academic sphere. Unfortunately,
the process has been less than transparent so that it is completely unclear as
to how the charges came about (in acting to exclude X as a complainant, and thus
the origin of these charges, the university failed to appreciate that a new
committee not privy to what was provided might falsely assume that the original
committee saw a problem), why I am being charged now, or even what specifically
I am being charged with...but the noise from one individual has been clanging
very hard looking for support for me to be fired.
Sanctions against non-compliant researchers need not reach the extreme outcome
of a research misconduct action. Instead of overt punishment for past action,
future career opportunities can be the vehicle for intimidation, and researchers
who have published on a controversial autism issues can find themselves newly
unwelcome in the grant review process. Since the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
hold a virtual monopsony (“a sole or predominant buyer” in a particular market)
on scientific research in the United State, NIH grant reviews are one prominent
place where researchers can be effectively intimidated. One scientist, who
authored a sensitive, previous publication, when asked to join in the effort to
draft a review paper, demurred with the following explanation.
I have had two rejections of NIH grants in the last two weeks. This is most
remarkable, in that the grants were not deemed good enough to even be scored.
In my X years on the faculty, I have never had an unscored grant. Moreover, in
one grant it is clear that there is a personal vendetta ongoing. This is not
totally surprising but nonetheless disturbing. I am not ready to throw my
career away, and I don't look at how Andy Wakefield has handled such problems as
a good model for me. It is vital that the science of this problem get out, and
this is where I want to focus my attention. Therefore, I have decided that I do
not want my name on [this new review publication], for I don't need more
persecution right now, and as good as the paper is (and I think it is
extraordinary), it is not going to be a definitive scientific publication. I am
enclosing a section I wrote-some of this is already included-feel free to use
any of it.
If an intrepid researcher goes so far as to submit a paper for publication,
that’s where the more overt forms of censorship can enter in, all in the guise
of “peer review.” Admittedly, rejection at the point of peer review is a common
part of science, but the autism problem is especially radioactive and is a place
where have seen the unmistakable cold hand of censorship take many forms: some
unwelcome research can be headed off at the pass, with journal editors making
clear that papers on certain autism topics are unwelcome and won’t even be sent
out for review; or unwelcome papers can be sent to anonymous reviewers the
editor knows to be hostile to the topic of environmental influences; in other
cases, papers are rejected even in relatively progressive journals’ peer review
process for reasons that have little to do with scientific merit. Given the
nature of peer review, there is little effective recourse if one or two selected
reviewers make critical comments that are simply wrong or biased. Here’s how one
researcher described a recent rejection.
My paper was rejected today from the [Journal]. While some of the reviewers’
comments could have been addressed in a revision, most of them revealed the
reviewers obvious bias and purposeful efforts to suppress this paper. Having
gone over the comments, most of them are simply gibberish.
Another form of intimidation can come more directly from colleagues, in the
social network of “mainstream autism researchers.” If a respected researcher
takes the risk of making honest public comments about the possible role of
environmental factors in autism, they can find themselves receiving “career
advice” from their “friends” to keep their mouths shut. Here’s an example of one
such communication.
I am concerned that you may be perceived as a strong supporter of the
environmental influence on the developmental of autism …. I am afraid this
attribution to you will tarnish your reputation and your credibility in the
mainstream autism research community...This is the second time that what you had
to say came back to me and astonished me (what you said was perceived as
supporting the influence of toxins as causes of autism), even though I consider
it likely that what you actually said was probably distorted. I hope you will
accept this missive as the result of my concern for you as investigator and
clinician… as your friend I truly feel impelled to give you the perspective of
an outsider who fears that such statements are going to harm you.
Even when a paper from a brave and principled researcher succeeds in
ushering useful research through the hurdles of peer review, the uniquely
treacherous terrain in autism can (and almost always does) affect the drafting
process, editing choices and the interpretation placed on evidence that might be
viewed in multiple ways. In numerous cases I have observed (without any inside
connection) that published evidence has been interpreted so as to downplay
environmental factors. In a number of cases where I have been able to hear the
inside story from researchers on what took place in the editing process, it’s
clear how widespread biases and peer pressure can censor the interpretation of
more open-minded members of a research team. Here’s one example from a
researcher who was asked about how evidence that clearly could have been
interpreted to implicate environmental factors was downplayed.
On the other hand, some of the 'downplay' of environmental factors probably
reflected differences in emphasis between the lead author and myself, and even
more, the pressures of the reviewers (which influenced the lead author), who
thought the paper showed that environment played a negligible role. Like my
[topic X] paper of last year, this paper went through innumerable reviews.
The collapse of civil discourse in a closed society
As we organize ourselves as an autism community to call attention to the
injustice done by the GMC decision, we must make clear that Andy Wakefield is
not alone. He, Simon Murch and John Walker-Smith are simply the most prominent
and visible victims of an increasingly ruthless and doctrinaire campaign by the
medical industrial complex to suppress a long overdue revolution in autism
science. Autism can no longer be explained through the orthodox lens (as a rare,
brain-centered, inherited psychiatric disorder), but those who would attempt to
offer alternative explanations (how rising rates might reflect environmental
influences that provoke whole body developmental injury in vulnerable children)
are facing a rising tide of intimidation and censorship. The GMC verdict, that
honest scientists like Andy Wakefield have “failed in their duty”, makes a
mockery of the value of civil debate in an open society.
The medical industrial complex is closing ranks. It’s time for responsible
citizens--health consumers and principled scientists alike--to raise their
voices in opposition.
Mark Blaxill is Editor-At-Large for Age of
Autism.