ANTI-TRIPLE JAB MEDICAL EXPERT WITNESS UNDER INVESTIGATION OVER ADVICE GIVEN TO SOLICITORS
The General Medical Council has heard evidence on a range of misconduct charges against an expert who, it is said, was involved in advising solicitors acting for people alleged to have suffered harm by the administration of the measles-mumps-rubella combined vaccine, or MMR triple jab for short.
SEW News understands that the work, at the centre of the allegations, underpinned the opinions expressed to solicitors and to Courts in cases involving claimed consequences of the administration of the triple jab.
The enquiry covers allegations of serious professional misconduct against three doctors, Dr Andrew Wakefield, Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch, in relation to the conduct of a research study involving young children from 1996-98. Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, were at the relevant times reportedly employed by the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine with Honorary Clinical contracts at the same hospital.
It is alleged that the three practitioners were named as Responsible Consultants on an application made to the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust (“the ethics committee”) in 1996 to undertake a research study involving children who suffered from gastrointestinal symptoms and a rare behavioural condition called disintegrative disorder. The title of the study was “A new paediatric syndrome: enteritis and disintegrative disorder following measles/rubella vaccination”.
The Panel is enquiring into allegations that the three practitioners undertook research during the period 1996-98 without proper ethical approval, failed to conduct the research in accordance with the application submitted to the ethics committee, and failed to treat the children admitted into the study in accordance with the terms of the approval given by the ethics committee. For example, it will be alleged that some of the children did not qualify for the study on the basis of their behavioural symptoms.
It is further alleged that the three practitioners permitted a programme of investigations to be carried out on a number of children as part of the research study, some of which were not clinically indicated when the Ethics Committee had been assured that they were all clinically indicated. These investigations included colonoscopies and lumbar punctures. It is alleged that the performance of these investigations was contrary to the clinical interests of the children.
The research undertaken by the three practitioners was subsequently written up in a paper published in the Lancet in February 1998 entitled “Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children” (“the Lancet paper”). It is alleged that the three practitioners inaccurately stated in the Lancet paper that the investigations reported in it were approved by the ethics committee.
The Panel will also inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith acted dishonestly and irresponsibly in failing to disclose in the Lancet paper the method by which they recruited patients for inclusion in the research which resulted in a misleading description of the patient population in the Lancet paper. It is further alleged that Dr Wakefield gave a dishonest description of the patient population to the Medical Research Council.
It is further alleged that Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith administered a purportedly therapeutic substance to a child for experimental reasons prior to obtaining information about the safety of the substance. It is alleged that such actions were irresponsible and contrary to the clinical interests of the child.
The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield was involved in advising solicitors acting for persons alleged to have suffered harm by the administration of the MMR vaccine. It is alleged that Dr Wakefield’s conduct in relation to research funds obtained from the Legal Aid Board (“LAB”) was dishonest and misleading. It will be alleged that Dr Wakefield ought to have disclosed his funding from the LAB to the Ethics Committee but did not.
The Panel will inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield ordered investigations on some children as part of the research carried out at the Royal Free Hospital from 1996-98 without the requisite paediatric qualifications to do so and in contravention of his Honorary Consultant appointment.
The GMC enquiry will also cover allegations that Dr Wakefield failed to disclose his involvement in the MMR litigation, his receipt of funding from the LAB and his involvement in a Patent relating to a new vaccine to the Editor of the Lancet which was contrary to his duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper.
Further allegations involve suggestions that that Dr Wakefield acted unethically and abused his position of trust as a medical practitioner by taking blood from children at a birthday party to use for research purposes without ethics committee approval, in an inappropriate social setting, and whilst offering financial inducement.
The GMC says that it does not regard its remit as extending to arbitrating between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research.
The tribunal has concluded evidence on Dr Wakefield, is currently hearing evidence in relation to Professor Walker-Smith, with a further session expected to open in January on the case of Professor Simon Murch.
The panel is not expected to announce its decisions in relation to the three doctors until next year.
ENDS