- Hälsa
Andrew Wakefield stämmer BMJ för deras påstående, att hans forskning som visar på tydliga samband mellan MMR vacciner och autism, för att ha varit falsk och bedrägligt utförd.
Semmelweiss, doktorn som lärde andra doktorer att de skulle tvätta händerna efter obduktioner, fick på grund av sitt nymodiga tilltag, sitt rykte förstört av de döda laxar som alltid flyter med strömmen…Ack ack ack, så fel de döda laxarna har gång på gång.
Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ for claiming MMR study was fraudulent
In 2010 the GMC found Andrew Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct over charges relating to his research. Photograph: Anthony Devlin/PA
Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who was struck off the medical register after triggering a health scare linking autism to the MMR vaccine, is suing the editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal for defamation.
In a complaint filed to a district court in Texas, lawyers acting for Wakefield claim that articles, editorials and other statements that appeared in the BMJ were “false and make defamatory allegations” about the doctor.
The lawsuit names Fiona Godlee, the BMJ’s editor-in-chief, and the British investigative journalist Brian Deer, who has covered the controversy over the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, which led to a drop in MMR vaccination rates to dangerous levels.
Documents filed with the court say the action arises in part from the publication in January 2011 of an article by Deer in the BMJ titled “Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed” and an accompanying editorial by Godlee.
It is alleged that the articles accuse Wakefield “of fraud and of fraudulently and intentionally manipulating and falsifying data and diagnoses”. The case has been filed in Austin, Texas, where Wakefield now lives, because the allegations concern his work there.
In a statement, the BMJ and Deer said they awaited formal service of the papers, but stood by the articles and had instructed lawyers to defend the claim vigorously.
Wakefield has taken legal action against Deer before. He sued the journalist, along with Channel 4 and 20/20 productions, over a documentary on MMR in 2004, but later dropped the action and agreed to pay legal costs.
Wakefield’s case before the General Medical Council lasted 217 days, making it the longest in the regulator’s history. The GMC panel found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct in May 2010 on several charges relating to research involving 12 autistic children published in the Lancet medical journal in February 1998.
The regulator said Wakefield abused his position, subjected children to invasive procedures that were not justified or ethically approved, and brought the profession into disrepute. The study, which linked the MMR vaccination to autism and bowel problems, was retracted by the Lancet in light of the GMC judgement.
Fears over a possible link between the MMR jab and autism led to a substantial drop in take-up of the vaccine. In 2004, only 80% of children received the triple jab, far short of the 95% required to achieve the “herd immunity” that prevents disease taking hold in a community.
In a statement, the BMJ said: “The BMJ is on notice that Andrew Wakefield has issued defamation proceedings, not in London as might be ordinarily expected as concerns a predominately English publication, but in Texas, USA, where he now lives.
“Following the findings of the British General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practice Panel and Mr Wakefield’s history of pursuing unfounded litigation, any action brought against the BMJ and Mr Deer in London would have been immediately vulnerable to being struck out as an abuse of process.”
The statement continued: “Despite the findings of the GMC’s Fitness to Practice Panel and his co-authors having publicly retracted the causation interpretation put forward by the Lancet Paper, it would appear from the Claim filed at court that Mr Wakefield still stands by the accuracy of the Lancet paper and his conclusion therein, thereby compounding his previously found misconduct.
“While we await formal service, unsurprisingly the BMJ and Mr Deer stand by the material published in the BMJ and their other statements and confirm that they have instructed lawyers to defend the claim vigorously.”
