[back]
The Indictment
Like the rest of this affair, the indictment is a complex document. Below, are the main charges as they are drawn up against Dr Andrew Wakefield. Both Professor Walker- Smith and Professor Simon Murch have similar, but a lesser number, of charges. The charges as they are laid out below are bereft of both the background detail, and obviously, the defence rebuttal.
In relation to the Legal Aid Board, Dr Wakefield is charged that:
He was dishonest, misleading and in breach of his duty in managing finances and in breach of his duty in accounting for funds.
In relation to research and Ethics Committee Approval, and in relation to eleven children whose cases were reported in the Lancet paper, Dr Wakefield is charged that:
He carried out research on children which did not meet the inclusion criteria laid down by the ethics committee, and who did not meet the time criteria of the study given approval.
He ‘ordered’ investigations to be carried out without the paediatric qualifications to do so. That such investigations and research were contrary to the clinical interests of the children involved. That he caused such investigations to be carried out without some children being assessed first by a neurological or psychiatric expert. That he caused some investigations to be carried out which were not clinically indicated.
In relation to the Lancet Paper (28 February 1998), Dr Wakefield is charged that:
In reporting a link between MMR and a regressive autistic state, as he did in the Lancet, he was dishonest, irresponsible and misleading.
This charge amounts to spreading ‘alarm and despondency’ Clearly the science lobby, the pharmaceutical companies and various government departments consider it ethically correct to ‘draw a line under’ any research whose results reflect badly on their product or their political approach.
In reporting cases of children who for various reasons fell beyond the inclusive criteria of the ethics committee, he acted, dishonestly, irresponsibly and contrary to ensuring the provision of accurate information.
In relation to the Lancet paper, Dr Wakefield is charged that he failed to declare disclosable interests with respect to funding which he received from legal aid.
In relation to Transfer Factor, Dr Wakefield is charged that in relation to one child who was prescribed Transfer Factor, he acted against the clinical interests of this child and abused his position of trust as a medical practitioner.
At the time of his son’s birthday party, he took blood from
children, paid them £5 for so doing and later recounted the incident at a
presentation in March 1999.
In doing these things, he did not have ethics committee approval, carried out
the procedure in an inappropriate social setting, offered children inducements,
showed a callous disregard for the suffering and pain of the children involved,
abused his position of trust and brought the medical profession into disrepute.