Dr. Andrew Wakefield made headlines when his research linked MMR vaccines with autism and bowel disease. But he also made powerful enemies in the drug and medical industries.
That's why he was struck off the medical register in Britain and no longer allowed to practice there.
The move came after three years of "investigation" by the General Medical Council (GMC). The outspoken opponent of vaccines was found guilty of serious professional misconduct because of what the GMC called his "unethical" research.
The medical industry used the news to urge parents to give their children the triple vaccine which supposedly protects against measles, mumps and rubella.
One of the charges against Dr. Wakefield is that he had received a £50,000 grant to carry out research on behalf of parents who suspected that MMR could lead to autism, which was published in The Lancet in 1998.
Such abhorrent practices are common in medical research, which is primarily funded by drug companies that not only pay for the studies but then suppress any unfavorable results. As far as I could determine, not a single researcher who was "bought and paid for" by the drug industry has ever been barred from practice because of it.
Take the case of Richard Page, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Page's research paper on the drug Multaq was published in The New England Journal of Medicine and as a result it was praised as a "miracle drug." Yet, it turns out that drug maker Sanofi-Aventis had PAID for the research, collected data, and performed the analysis with no external audit. Page put his name on the paper but never even saw the raw data. He just trusted the company to be honest, and ignored the fact that major financial experts, including Morgan Stanley, estimated the drug could reach nearly $3 billion in revenues.
Not only that, Page and four co-authors were Sanofi-Aventis paid consultants and/or speakers, and two co-authors worked directly for Sanofi-Aventis, and owned stock in the company (read my more detailed report at www.terryarondberg.com).
Absolutely NO disciplinary actions were taken against Page or any of his drug company cronies. Why is this case so different from Wakefield's?
I think it's fair to say that the damage Wakefield has had on the bottom line for drug makers that reap enormous revenues from vaccines had far more to do with the GMC's decision than their disapproval of his research methodology.
Just a couple of months ago, the big drug maker Novartis AG saw its first-quarter profit climb 49%, boosted by sales of pandemic flu vaccines (which accounted for $1.1 billion in sales worldwide). A report released in March called the Global Vaccine Market Forecast to 2012 http://www.companiesandmarkets.com/Summary-Market-Report/global-vaccine-market-forecast-to-2012-55909.asp?prk=513b825014d99e61681ed9000c893b8f
noted: "Vaccine has emerged as one of the most profitable business segments in the healthcare industry. The segment registered revenues of around US $27 billion in 2009… the vaccine industry is anticipated to enjoy a double digit growth in future."
A week or so before the GMC announced its decision, The Lancet officially retracted Wakefield's research, claiming it had failed to do due diligence at the time. Supposedly Wakefield's article was, as the GMC put it, "irresponsible," "misleading," and "dishonest," yet that fact had been missed completely because it hadn't been properly reviewed? Such a claim rings false since The Lancet has used the same stringent peer review process for decades and, in 1998, even began imposing stricter standards for letters to the editor.
"The panel is profoundly concerned that Dr. Wakefield repeatedly breached fundamental principles of research medicine," Dr. Surendra Kumar, a GMC investigating panel member told the hearing in central London. "It concluded that his actions in this area alone were sufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct."
Wakefield countered the announcement of his "disbarment" by saying: "Efforts to discredit and silence me through the GMC process have provided a screen to shield the Government from exposure on the MMR vaccine scandal."
No one is "innocent" in this sordid mess, but if I had to choose, I'd come down on the side of Wakefield in this one.
Recent Comments