editor, reviewer
547
edits
Changes
→Conflict of interest
In February 2004, journalist Brian Deer exposed information that Wakefield had recieved £ 55.000 in third-party funds prior to publishing the ''Lancet'' report, with the money paid by lawyers looking for a connection between autism and MMR vaccination.<ref>[http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-deer-1.htm B ''Deer: Revealed: MMR Research Scandal'']. The Sunday Times, London, February 22, 2004</ref> According to the ''Sunday Times'', several of the parents quoted were involved in law suits against manufacturers of MMR vaccines. Although Wakefield stated that these third-party funds had been public from the beginning, the fact that this was known neither to the ''Lancet'' nor to his co-authors raised much criticism. On February 20, 2004, the ''Lancet'' rated Wakefield's study ''flawed'' due to a ''fatal conflict of interest'' and concluded it should have never been published. Several of Wakefield's co-authors also criticized the lack of information about these third-party funds in explicit ways.<ref>[http://www.staffnurse.com/nursing-news-articles/mmr-autism-link-study-476.html]</ref> The General Medical Council, responsible for issuing medical licences and surveillance of medical ethics in Great Britain, began investigations.<ref>[http://briandeer.com/wakefield/gmc-alleges.htm]</ref>
In February 2004, journalist Brian Deer exposed information that Wakefield had recieved £ 55.000 in third-party funds prior to publishing the ''Lancet'' report, with the money paid by lawyers looking for a connection between autism and MMR vaccination.<ref>[http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-deer-1.htm B ''Deer: Revealed: MMR Research Scandal'']. The Sunday Times, London, February 22, 2004</ref> According to the ''Sunday Times'', several of the parents quoted were involved in law suits against manufacturers of MMR vaccines. Although Wakefield stated that these third-party funds had been public from the beginning, the fact that this was known neither to the ''Lancet'' nor to his co-authors raised much criticism. On February 20, 2004, the ''Lancet'' rated Wakefield's study ''flawed'' due to a ''fatal conflict of interest'' and concluded it should have never been published. Several of Wakefield's co-authors also criticized the lack of information about these third-party funds in explicit ways.<ref>[http://www.staffnurse.com/nursing-news-articles/mmr-autism-link-study-476.html]</ref> The General Medical Council, responsible for issuing medical licences and surveillance of medical ethics in Great Britain, began investigations.<ref>[http://briandeer.com/wakefield/gmc-alleges.htm]</ref>
Furthermore, nine months before the incriminated report caused world-wide anxiety and uncertainty regarding the MMR vaccines, a series of patents protecting several potentially very profitable products happened to be submitted by Wakefield and the Royal Free Hospital Medical School in London. Obviously, such products would enjoy a much larger chance on the market if and when the MMR vaccines experienced a damage in reputation. The patents regarded an allegedly safe measles vaccine and medication for the treatment of bowel diseases and autism which were based on the assumption these conditions were caused by MMR vaccination.<ref>http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm</ref>
Furthermore, nine months before the incriminated report caused world-wide anxiety and uncertainty regarding the MMR vaccines, a series of patents protecting several potentially very profitable products happened to be submitted by Wakefield and the Royal Free Hospital Medical School in London. Obviously, such products would enjoy a much larger chance on the market if and when the MMR vaccines experienced a damage in reputation. The patents e.g. covered an allegedly safe measles vaccine and medication for the treatment of bowel diseases and autism which were all based on the assumption these conditions were caused by MMR vaccination.<ref>http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm</ref>
===''Lancet'' report retracted===
===''Lancet'' report retracted===