Naked Intimidation: The Wakefield Inquisition is Only the Tip of the Autism Censorship Iceberg

  “That’s baseless conspiracy-mongering”, some might counter, contending that any anecdote I might dig up is simply the normal process of scientific quality control. “Welcome to the real world”, I respond, because this is something entirely new and disturbing. The deep and profound censorship occurring around autism science reaches depths that few casual observers can imagine.

I have proof.

By Mark F. Blaxill

There are no words to describe the findings of the General Medical Council (GMC). All I can say is that none of us should be surprised. The stakes had escalated far too high for the British medical establishment to countenance any other outcome. In the face of this parody of real justice, the only thing for the autism community to do now is stand by Andy Wakefield. Like him, we must not be intimidated; which is why I am proud to call Andy my friend. He is all of our friend.

We must also not forget two other fine men, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, men who have devoted their professional lives to healing the guts of sick children, and whose public reputations stand in tatters before the world, assaulted by the public health propaganda machine, victims of a modern day show trial. The GMC proceeding is a frightening and thoroughly modern form of tyranny. It makes you shudder to think what Stalin or McCarthy might have accomplished if their public relations had been more skillful and better organized.

The extremity of the GMC’s verdict--all three men guilty on all counts—lays bare any pretense that the British medical establishment cares one whit about the welfare of its patients. Let’s put in perspective the actions at issue here. No children were harmed and no parent or guardian has complained about the care these three men provided. In fact, the procedures involved were routine, the resulting treatments standard and the careful attention to gastrointestinal illness in autistic children has recently been endorsed by a consensus statement published in the journal Pediatrics (no friend of the autism community). Considered in this light, the GMC hearing process stands exposed for what it is. It was not about medical standards. It was not about evidence. It was not even civilized.  It was, rather, a naked exercise in intimidation, a fateful moment of moral decision in which the medical industrial complex exposed its ruthless, repressive essence. They are a frightening bunch and their conduct here raises issues well beyond autism.

There are others who can and will speak to the particulars of the case: the accusations, the evidence, and the integrity of the witnesses for the prosecution (see HERE and  HERE ). But it’s important to remember that this trial has never really been about the three doctors. If it were, it would never have consumed so many millions of dollars and thousands of hours over more than two years. The real goal of this proceeding, what I have called The Wakefield Inquisition (see HERE ) is to send a clear message to anyone--clinician or scientist--who dares step out of line like Wakefield did. And as parents and citizens, we all need to understand one thing: that message has been received loud and clear.

Over the last ten years I’ve had the privilege to interact with a wide range of scientists in several different fields. Many of them are wonderful people and first-class professionals. And in the course of those interactions I have observed common patterns. A few, like Jon Poling and Mark and David Geier, who have worked openly on behalf of our children, have suffered harsh public recriminations. But for every public example there are countless more private examples of intimidation, coercion and censorship. It’s like an iceberg; the vast majority of the scientific censorship occurring in autism takes place below the waterline, invisible to the broader public.

“That’s baseless conspiracy-mongering”, some might counter, contending that any anecdote I might dig up is simply the normal process of scientific quality control. “Welcome to the real world”, I respond, because this is something entirely new and disturbing. The deep and profound censorship occurring around autism science reaches depths that few casual observers can imagine.

I have proof.  Over the last ten years I have collected a number of private examples--some via conversation others via email--of individual scientists who have felt the cold hand of censorship when dealing with autism. They comprise a modest sample (my interactions are necessarily episodic) of what I believe to be a pervasive pattern of suppression. But it’s an extensive sample nevertheless and in all instances the good-citizen scientist on the other side of the interaction has been troubled by it. In order to give some visibility to this mass of bad behavior lying below the waterline, I have decided to share a few of these examples here (I’ve observed many more than just this selection). In all cases, I have thoroughly disguised the identities (including name, age, gender, specialty and affiliation) and materially altered the words in order not to violate confidences and to protect the careers of the scientists involved.

But every single one of them is real.

Below the surface: scientific institutions behaving badly

Not every inquisition takes place in public. One researcher who has investigated the environmental causes of autism was brought up before a university panel on charges of misconduct. This charge was raised for blatantly political reasons by someone hostile to the environmental model of autism causation. The defense against the charges consumed months of this researcher’s time and has had career threatening implications. Here is an excerpt from that researcher’s discussion of this private proceeding.

Have been sidetracked/consumed with preparing my defense for the research misconduct proceedings instigated by X, but am looking forward to the opportunity to clear my name at least in this academic sphere. Unfortunately, the process has been less than transparent so that it is completely unclear as to how the charges came about (in acting to exclude X as a complainant, and thus the origin of these charges, the university failed to appreciate that a new committee not privy to what was provided might falsely assume that the original committee saw a problem), why I am being charged now, or even what specifically I am being charged with...but the noise from one individual has been clanging very hard looking for support for me to be fired.

Sanctions against non-compliant researchers need not reach the extreme outcome of a research misconduct action. Instead of overt punishment for past action, future career opportunities can be the vehicle for intimidation, and researchers who have published on a controversial autism issues can find themselves newly unwelcome in the grant review process. Since the National Institutes of Health (NIH) hold a virtual monopsony (“a sole or predominant buyer” in a particular market) on scientific research in the United State, NIH grant reviews are one prominent place where researchers can be effectively intimidated. One scientist, who authored a sensitive, previous publication, when asked to join in the effort to draft a review paper, demurred with the following explanation.

I have had two rejections of NIH grants in the last two weeks.  This is most remarkable, in that the grants were not deemed good enough to even be scored.  In my X years on the faculty, I have never had an unscored grant.  Moreover, in one grant it is clear that there is a personal vendetta ongoing.  This is not totally surprising but nonetheless disturbing.  I am not ready to throw my career away, and I don't look at how Andy Wakefield has handled such problems as a good model for me.  It is vital that the science of this problem get out, and this is where I want to focus my attention.  Therefore, I have decided that I do not want my name on [this new review publication], for I don't need more persecution right now, and as good as the paper is (and I think it is extraordinary), it is not going to be a definitive scientific publication.  I am enclosing a section I wrote-some of this is already included-feel free to use any of it. 

If an intrepid researcher goes so far as to submit a paper for publication, that’s where the more overt forms of censorship can enter in, all in the guise of “peer review.” Admittedly, rejection at the point of peer review is a common part of science, but the autism problem is especially radioactive and is a place where I have seen the unmistakable cold hand of censorship take many forms: some unwelcome research can be headed off at the pass, with journal editors making clear that papers on certain autism topics are unwelcome and won’t even be sent out for review; or unwelcome papers can be sent to anonymous reviewers the editor knows to be hostile to the topic of environmental influences;  in other cases, papers are rejected even in relatively progressive journals’  peer review process for reasons that have little to do with scientific merit. Given the nature of peer review, there is little effective recourse if one or two selected reviewers make critical comments that are simply wrong or biased. Here’s how one researcher described a recent rejection.

My paper was rejected today from the [Journal]. While some of the reviewers’ comments could have been addressed in a revision, most of them revealed the reviewers obvious bias and purposeful efforts to suppress this paper. Having gone over the comments, most of them are simply gibberish.

Another form of intimidation can come more directly from colleagues, in the social network of “mainstream autism researchers.” If a respected researcher takes the risk of making honest public comments about the possible role of environmental factors in autism, they can find themselves receiving “career advice” from their “friends” to keep their mouths shut. Here’s an example of one such communication.

I am concerned that you may be perceived as a strong supporter of the environmental influence on the developmental of autism ….  I am afraid this attribution to you will tarnish your reputation and your credibility in the mainstream autism research community...This is the second time that what you had to say came back to me and astonished me (what you said was perceived as supporting the influence of toxins as causes of autism), even though I consider it likely that what you actually said was probably distorted. I hope you will accept this missive as the result of my concern for you as investigator and clinician… as your friend I truly feel impelled to give you the perspective of an outsider who fears that such statements are going to harm you. 

Even when a paper from a brave and principled researcher succeeds in ushering useful research through the hurdles of peer review, the uniquely treacherous terrain in autism can (and almost always does) affect the drafting process, editing choices and the interpretation placed on evidence that might be viewed in multiple ways. In numerous cases I have observed (without any inside connection) that published evidence has been interpreted so as to downplay environmental factors. In a number of cases where I have been able to hear the inside story from researchers on what took place in the editing process, it’s clear how widespread biases and peer pressure can censor the interpretation of more open-minded members of a research team. Here’s one example from a researcher who was asked about how evidence that clearly could have been interpreted to implicate environmental factors was downplayed.

On the other hand, some of the 'downplay' of environmental factors probably reflected differences in emphasis between the lead author and myself, and even more, the pressures of the reviewers (which influenced the lead author), who thought the paper showed that environment played a negligible role. Like my [topic X] paper of last year, this paper went through innumerable reviews. 

The collapse of civil discourse in a closed society

As we organize ourselves as an autism community to call attention to the injustice done by the GMC decision, we must make clear that Andy Wakefield is not alone. He, Simon Murch and John Walker-Smith are simply the most prominent and visible victims of an increasingly ruthless and doctrinaire campaign by the medical industrial complex to suppress a long overdue revolution in autism science. Autism can no longer be explained through the orthodox lens (as a rare, brain-centered, inherited psychiatric disorder), but those who would attempt to offer alternative explanations (how rising rates might reflect environmental influences that provoke whole body developmental injury in vulnerable children) are facing a rising tide of intimidation and censorship. The GMC verdict, that honest scientists like Andy Wakefield have “failed in their duty”, makes a mockery of the value of civil debate in an open society.

The medical industrial complex is closing ranks. It’s time for responsible citizens--health consumers and principled scientists alike--to raise their voices in opposition.

Mark Blaxill is Editor-At-Large for Age of Autism.

Comments

[Nora]

"As we organize ourselves as an autism community to call attention to the injustice done by the GMC decision, we must make clear that Andy Wakefield is not alone."
This is your quote Mr. Blaxill and it is the key. Age of Autism needs to campaign and organize the world autism community to come under one flag. We need to form a joint committee that speaks as one. I believe a conference should be held and some agreement should be made to perfect all responses from the autism community and have the response come from one powerful unified organization. Splinter groups are nothing more than that, pieces of a whole. The unified whole on the other hand is a front and a much more powerful force to reckon with.

[Jenny]

Vaccine Causes Disease
A vaccine designed to protect infants against rotavirus, the leading cause of childhood diarrhea, can actually cause the disease in infants born with severe combined immunodeficiency, said experts at Baylor College of Medicine in a study that appears in the current edition of The New England Journal of Medicine.

The vaccine provides substantial benefit against rotaviral infection. Worldwide, it has prevented potentially deadly infections in millions of children. However, infants who are born lacking a protective immune system because of their genetic disorder can actually acquire the viral infection from the vaccine, the researchers said. The vaccine, given in three doses between 6 and 32 weeks of age, is live, but it has been weakened so that it does not present a threat of infection to children with normal immunity.

In this report, experts examined three cases in which infants developed rotavirus disease after receiving the live attenuated rotavirus vaccine. "All three infants (in the study) were vaccinated before they were diagnosed with severe combined immunodeficiency," said Dr. Paula Hertel, assistant professor of pediatrics-gastroenterology at BCM and Texas Children's Hospital, co-author of the study. "If the children could have been caught in a screening test done within days of birth, they may not have received the vaccine."

Expanded testing
While current routine newborn screening does test for many diseases, severe combined immune deficiency is not one of them.

Usually, experts recommend that children with severe combined immune deficiency not receive live vaccines. However, this vaccine must be given before most children are diagnosed with the immune disorder. The American College of Medical Genetics recently recommended that severe combined immunodeficiency be included as a part of the newborn screen.

"The disease in these infants was confined to the gastrointestinal tract, but in other cases there is potential that it could disseminate to other organs besides the intestines," said Dr. Stuart Abramson, associate professor of pediatrics in the section of allergy and immunology at BCM and Texas Children's Hospital and senior author of the study.

No immune system protection
Children with severe combined immunodeficiency lack protection provided by key components of the immune system – the T- and B-cells. As a result, these children have no protection against many infections that can become life-threatening. Fortunately, the disorder is rare, affecting between 1 in 50,000 to 100,000 live births.

Scientists analyzed the viral genetic material in stool specimens from the three children. This enabled them to determine that the rotavirus was of vaccine origin. This study led to a change in the vaccine exclusions listed on the vaccine manufacturer's label to include a history of severe combined immunodeficiency.

The children did not successfully fight the infection until they underwent bone marrow transplantation or enzyme replacement therapy that gave them a functioning immune system, said Abramson.

(This is part of news showing on www.lifehealthchoices.com)

[nhokkanen]

Some years back the immunization chief at the Minnesota Department of Health took part in a public debate with one of the autism community's prominent researchers, a highly credentialed doctor. However Minnesota Public Radio refused to give equal air time to interview that doctor, who verbally ran circles around MDH's top gun. I still have the videotape.

Even the MPR receptionist had to have been armed with a memo from MDH, because when I called he parroted information he would never have known otherwise. And because I knew the previous occupant of his rotating task chair, the censorship he employed was quite blatant.

[a]

You know what is driving me really really crazy is that I forward articles about this travesty to people I know (including close family members) and I get no response whatsoever. With rare exceptions, the only people who are aware of these terrible problems are those whose children have been obivously and seriously affected. Even most autism parents I know are oblivious.

[AutismComic]

Nothing funny about what the GMC did. Nothing. Gotta link arms everybody and keep on marching. Thanks Mark.

[cmo]

Big Pharma, the media, and the governments are all one organization, not three organizations as they should be.

Their primary goal is to see that power and money moves in their circles only. They will continue to poison children in the US, UK, and around the world, wherever they can locate a pile of money.

God bless Dr. Wakefield for his efforts against all of them.

.....Bill Gates once said no one would even need more than 8 megs of RAM, perhaps someone could try to correct him on a few vaccine issues.

[Ted Van Oosbree]

On the emerging police state in Great Britain see:http://www.vdare.com/gabb/100127_police_state.htm by Sean Gabb. The Wakefield et al case fits this pattern.

[Alison Davis]

Thank you, Mark, for publishing various researchers' comments. I am in deep mourning about the strong politics in autism research, which exposes itself as yet another arena in which the welfare of children is completely disregarded.

Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues are heroes to parents of children who are or have been in chronic pain. They are positive role models for every other researcher of integrity.

The story isn't over. I think we will see that these courageous men, who are walking through fire, will go down in history as the fearless leaders in science that they truly are. However, I pray it won't take so long that more children will have to suffer by going untreated.

[Stacie]

I think power eventually makes you feel invincible. And though at times I feel Pharma is like this huge superpower that is unstopable - the truth is, Pharma is just a bunch of people. And those people who stand on a house of cards, who are so greedy, and power hungry ARE NOT in fact invincible. I feel the Wakefield trial shows just how desperate these greedy clowns are. If you go through that much to lie - you are getting scared. Greedy people get too big of egos and start to make mistakes.

Dr. Wakefield, if you are reading this, THANK YOU. It takes a true MAN to put yourself on the line like you have. We need more like you. God Bless you.

[Jim Thompson]

While there are no words to describe the GMC “findings,” there are words that help to describe the actions of Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch.

And those words came from historian Howard Zinn. Howard passed away on January 27, 2010 and this is from the Bill Moyers Journal last night.

“[Howard] appeared on the JOURNAL to tell us about a television special, THE PEOPLE SPEAK, based on his people's history. Here is a little of what we talked about:

MOYERS: What do you think these characters from the past that we will see on the screen, what do they have to say to us today?

HOWARD ZINN: Well, I think what they have to say to us today is think for yourself. Don't believe what the people up there tell you. Live your own life. Think your own ideas. And don't depend on saviors.

Traditional history creates passivity because it gives you the people at the top and it makes you think that all you have to do is go to the polls every four years and elect somebody who's going to do the trick for you and no. We want people to understand that that's not going to happen. People have to do it themselves. And so that's what we hope these readings will inspire.”

See http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/transcript4.html