Private Eye Caught Out By Dr Andrew Wakefield’s MMR Special
DR Andrew Wakefield is brought to task for his MMR research linking the jab to autism. The General Medical Council says he acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly”. What then of the news organs who cheeer on Dr Wakefield as the lone voice of truth being silenced by the establishment?
This is Dr Wakefield the Telegraph’s “handsome, glossy-haired charismatic hero”.
Read: Dr Andrew Wakefield And MMR: The Making Of A Media Scare Story
Private Eye magazine (Anorak’s features editor writes a terrific column there every fortnight), dedicated a special edition to MMR in 2002: “The story so far: a comprehensive review of the MMR vaccination/autism controversy”.
David Elliman and Helen Bedford wrote at the time:
* Perhaps not surprisingly the style is of a journalistic expose rather than a well argued scientific treatise, with Andrew Wakefield held up as a crusader for truth, opposing the mighty drug companies and Department of Health. Private Eye seems to have used the kind of lay, anecdotal information that you might read in What Doctors Don’t Tell You and the Informed Parent rather than what you would find in the BMJ or Lancet. Understandably, much space is given to the harrowing accounts of parents who believe that the triple vaccine caused their child’s autism. However, the overwhelming evidence suggesting no link between the vaccine and autism and bowel problems is either not mentioned or dismissed out of hand, while the suggestion of a link is given uncritical prominence.
Roy Greenslade looks at the apology:
Not one but three letters in Private Eye this week take the fortnightly magazine to task over its coverage of Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine…
One correspondent on the letters page, Dr Will Errington, referred to the magazine’s “less than glorious history of publicising Dr Wakefield’s work”.
Another, Anthony Dunn refers to the magazine’s “largely uncritical and unquestioning adherence to the Andrew Wakefield school of junk science and bunkham passing itself off as serious medical research”.
He then referred to “the Eye’s erroneous, conspiracy laden drivel about MMR” causing parents not to immunise their children and asks the magazine “how do you live with yourselves?”
So. The Eye apologises?
On page 29 there is an apology. Online there is a two line summary:
MMR AND THE WAKEFIELD VERDICT: The GMC throws the book at Andrew Wakefield, and readers give the Eye a kicking.
Greenslade again:
In its print article (not available online) the Eye briefly summarised the GMC findings but focused to a curious degree on the reaction of the parents to the verdicts.
“Several parents of the children who featured in the team’s original research papers, which was at the centre of the GMC case, stormed out of the hearing in angry protest at the findings – particularly the suggestion that their children’s tests were not clinically necessary. Others were in tears.”
The Eye goes on to point out that the parents of the children had never complained about Wakefield and that they were not called to give evidence. Why is this such a prominent part of the story?
Says the magazine:
“None of this debate about conduct, however, changes the fact that no subsequent research has supported Wakefield’s thesis of a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
“Nor does it change the fact that despite previous attempts to justify the Eye’s coverage at the time, some readers are still deeply critical of the magazine’s reporting of the MMR debate between 2001 and 2007, when we wrote about the concerns of Wakefield, the families and their lawyers and endorsed calls for more research.”
Is that an apology?
Posted: 8th, February 2010 | In: Reviews Comments (2) | TrackBack | Permalink
