495 The Wakefield “Study” [29 October 2018]

Almost everyone has heard of Andrew Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist who wrote a fraudulent study in 1998 linking vaccines and autism. Wakefield was accused of falsifying data and having undisclosed financial conflicts of interest. In 2010 the Lancet retracted his paper and he lost his license to practice.

The conventional position is that vaccines have been thoroughly tested with no link ever found with any health problem including autism. The retraction of Wakefield’s study is considered further proof that any vaccine-autism link has been totally debunked.

But is all of that true?

First, the 1998 Lancet paper was not a “study”, it was a “case study”. A case study is merely a reporting of one or a group of patients with unusual symptoms. It does not make any claims or even propose a hypothesis. You can read the entire retracted paper here. The paper’s conclusion read “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases [8 of 12], onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps and rubella immunization. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”

As to the fraud charges, David Lewis, a research microbiologist with the National Whistleblowers Center in Washington, reviewed Wakefield’s files regarding the Lancet paper and concluded that Wakefield had not intentionally misinterpreted the data, and that the BMJ’s fraud theory was “more tabloid news than science”. Wakefield has written a book (2010) called “Callous Disregard” in which he tells his side of the story.

In any case, the Wakefield paper is hardly the only evidence for vaccine safety concerns. A recent book by Neil Miller “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies – 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers” summarizes research that you won’t find on the CDC website. Many show increasing risk of adverse reactions with vaccinations at an earlier age and with multiple vaccinations (both of which were a concern of Wakefield’s). We’ll look at some of these next week.

Whether you think Wakefield is a discredited fraud or a demonized hero, you can’t fault him for asking for more research into such an important health issue.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner. Find this article on my website for links to sources and further reading.