I return to this point
because the false claim keeps on being made, although in fact it
was never actually made by Brian Deer or Richard Horton in the
first place. In his original Sunday Times story Deer wrote:
"The investigation has found that when he (Wakefield) warned
parents to avoid MMR, and published research claiming a link
with autism, he did not disclose he was being funded through
solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine
manufacturers..."
and:
"The Sunday Times has now established that four, probably five,
of these children were covered by the legal aid study. And
Wakefield himself had been awarded up to £55,000 to assist their
case by finding scientific evidence of the link..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10009-1012410_1,00.html
I am sure most people at the time read this to say that Andrew
Wakefield was paid this money to undertake the investigation.
This is what the BBC were still saying two days ago:
"Dr Wakefield was being paid to see if there was any evidence to
support possible legal action by a group of parents who claimed
their children were damaged by the vaccine. Some children were
involved in both studies."
and the Daily Telegraph two weeks ago:
"It was discovered in 2004 that at the time that he was
preparing the Lancet paper, Dr Wakefield, 50, was being paid to
look for evidence that could be used by parents who believed
their children had been damaged by the MMR vaccine in order that
they could take legal action."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/13/nmmr13.xml
These statements, however, go significantly further than Deer,
who does not actually state that money was being paid to
Wakefield personally. In fact, Wakefield, in response to the
Sunday Times allegations, stated in the Lancet (5 March 2004):
"The grant of £55,000 was paid not to me but the Royal Free
Hospital Special Trustees for my research group to conduct
studies on behalf of the legal aid board. These funds were
properly administered through the Royal Free Hospital Special
Trustees".
http://www.i-c-m.org.uk/Journal/2004/mar/005.htm
Now, this actually ought to have set this matter straight more
than two years ago. This statement was never contradicted by
Deer, the editor of the Lancet Richard Horton, or the Royal Free
Special Trustees. Indeed, Wakefield could scarcely have made
such a claim if it was deniable by the Royal Free Special
Trustees.
After I remonstrated with BBC on Tuesday they actually changed
the NewsOnLine story to read:
"It (the Lancet) said Dr Wakefield was being paid to see if
there was any evidence to support possible legal action by a
group of parents who claimed their children were damaged by the
vaccine. Some children were involved in both studies.
"Dr Wakefield denies receiving any direct payment, and said
funds were given instead to the hospital at which he worked,
London's Royal Free."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5118166.stm
In fact, Richard Horton's statement (Lancet 5 March 2004) did
not state that Wakefield "was being paid" but that "he received
£55,000 from the legal aid board to conduct this pilot project".
So, in fact, the changed BBC report is still wrong. The Lancet
did not claim that Wakefield was paid the money, and it is wrong
either to suggest that he was paid money, or that there is any
documentary ambiguity about the matter. When I pointed this out
to the BBC the story was removed to the archive but it was not
further corrected.
The BBC really need to answer this, because it looks as if they
have been duped and are afraid to admit it. |