#158 - Brian Deer: A tale of scientific fraud—exposing Andrew Wakefield and the origin of the belief that vaccines cause autism

Apr 19, 2021 Episode Page ↗
Overview

This episode features Brian Deer, an award-winning investigative journalist, discussing his book "The Doctor Who Fooled the World." He and Peter delve into the scientific fraud behind Andrew Wakefield's infamous 1998 Lancet paper, which falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism, highlighting the origins of the anti-vaccine movement.

At a Glance
7 Insights
1h 49m Duration
10 Topics
6 Concepts

Deep Dive Analysis

Introduction to Brian Deer and the Wakefield Controversy

Andrew Wakefield's Early Career and Crohn's Disease Hypothesis

Wakefield's Flawed Scientific Methodology and Dismissal of Evidence

The Backstory of the 1998 Lancet Paper and Legal Involvement

Recruitment and Invasive Procedures on Children in the Study

The Role of John O'Leary's Lab in PCR Testing for Measles Virus

Contamination and Manipulation of PCR Results in O'Leary's Lab

Discrepancies Between Reported and Actual Medical Records

The 'CDC Whistleblower' and the Anti-Vaccination Movement's Resurgence

Reflections on Scientific Fraud and its Broader Implications

Scientific Method

The scientific method involves generating a hypothesis and then actively trying to prove it wrong, rather than simply seeking to confirm it. It requires scientists to doubt their own ideas and be open to refutation, a principle Andrew Wakefield consistently failed to follow.

PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction)

PCR is a molecular method used to amplify specific DNA or RNA sequences. It works by repeatedly heating and cooling a sample with enzymes and primers, causing the target sequence to exponentially duplicate, which allows for detection and quantification of even minute amounts of genetic material.

Immunohistochemistry

This is a microscopic staining technique that uses antibodies to detect specific antigens, such as viruses, in tissue samples. It typically produces a visible color change under a microscope, but it lacks the specificity and sensitivity of molecular methods like PCR for identifying genetic material.

Case Series

A case series is a type of medical study that describes a group of patients with a particular condition or who have undergone a specific procedure. While it is a collection of anecdotes, historically, many significant medical discoveries and disease characterizations, like Crohn's disease or AIDS, were initially based on case series.

Strain-Specific Sequencing

This process involves analyzing the genetic code (nucleotides) of a virus to determine its precise origin. It can differentiate whether a virus is a naturally occurring strain, a laboratory strain, or a vaccine strain, providing a definitive 'fingerprint' of the virus.

Cycle Threshold (Ct) in PCR

The Ct value in PCR refers to the number of amplification cycles required for the fluorescent signal, indicating the presence of target genetic material, to cross a certain threshold. A lower Ct value signifies a higher initial amount of target material, while signals after approximately 35 cycles are often considered indicative of contamination or error in research settings.

?
What is the origin of the belief that vaccines cause autism?

The belief that vaccines cause autism largely stems from the work of Andrew Wakefield and his collaborators, particularly his infamous 1998 Lancet paper, which falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism and inflammatory bowel disease.

?
How did Andrew Wakefield initially link measles virus to Crohn's disease?

Wakefield hypothesized that measles virus caused Crohn's disease after observing that measles virus could be found in the gut during acute infection and noting similarities between Koplik spots in measles and ulcers in Crohn's disease.

?
What was the fundamental flaw in Andrew Wakefield's scientific approach?

Wakefield consistently sought to prove his hypotheses right rather than attempting to falsify them, a core principle of the scientific method. He dismissed contradictory evidence by claiming other methods were not 'sensitive enough' or that others were looking in the wrong place.

?
How were the subjects for Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper recruited?

The 12 children in the study were not part of a routine caseload but were pre-selected from parents who came to the hospital alleging their child's developmental issues were caused by the MMR vaccine, often recruited through a lawyer preparing a lawsuit.

?
What invasive procedures did children in Wakefield's study undergo?

Children in the study underwent ileocolonoscopies, upper endoscopies, lumbar punctures (spinal taps), MRI scans, EEGs, barium meals, and blood tests, often requiring multiple people to hold them down due to distress.

?
What was the role of John O'Leary's lab in the Wakefield controversy?

John O'Leary's lab was contracted to perform PCR testing on tissue samples from the children in Wakefield's study, and he reported finding measles virus in nearly all samples, despite Wakefield's own lab failing to do so.

?
What evidence suggested contamination or manipulation in O'Leary's lab's PCR results?

Analysis showed that formalin-fixed tissue samples (which degrade nucleic acids) required the same number of PCR cycles as fresh-frozen samples, indicating the virus was introduced *after* fixation, suggesting contamination. Additionally, evidence of manual human intervention to adjust machine outputs was found.

?
Were the medical records of the children in Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper accurately reported?

No, not a single one of the 12 children's cases was accurately reported. Wakefield changed onset times of symptoms, altered diagnoses (e.g., reporting autism where none existed), and misrepresented normal pathology findings as inflammatory bowel disease.

?
What are the characteristics of the anti-vaccination movement, according to the New England Journal of Medicine?

The movement is characterized by complete mistrust of government and manufacturers, conspiratorial thinking, denialism, low cognitive complexity, reasoning flaws, and substituting emotional anecdotes for data, sometimes involving deliberate mistruths and intimidation.

1. Prioritize Falsification in Science

When developing a hypothesis, actively try to prove it wrong rather than just seeking to prove it right, as true scientific courage lies in efforts to refute your own ideas.

2. Evaluate Evidence Critically

Do not rely on anecdotes or the word ‘consistent’ to establish scientific truth; instead, seek a ‘mountain of evidence’ from a body of literature and experiments to ascertain what is probabilistically suggested.

3. Deepen Scientific Understanding

To truly grasp the scientific method, including generating hypotheses, designing experiments, and critically looking for ways to be fooled, seek practical laboratory experience and mentorship rather than just memorizing facts.

4. Read Important Material Twice

When encountering incredibly rich and detailed information, such as a complex book, read it multiple times to fully assimilate all the details and avoid missing crucial parts.

5. Understand PCR Test Nuances

When interpreting PCR test results, especially for COVID, note the number of cycles required for a positive result, as a higher cycle count (e.g., above 35) may indicate contamination or an insignificant amount of material, and always repeat a positive test if the patient is asymptomatic.

6. Investigate Belief Origins

Challenge yourself to understand the ‘genesis or ideology’ of your own and others’ points of view, rather than simply holding an opinion without deep thought.

7. Be Vigilant Against Scientific Fraud

Recognize that scientific fraud, including deliberate manipulation of data, can occur even in prestigious institutions, and maintain a critical perspective on research, especially when claims are made without transparent, verifiable data.

Unfortunately, I believe too many people enjoy the convenience of opinion without the inconvenience of thought.

Peter Attia

In science, courage isn't about proving yourself right. It's in your efforts to prove yourself wrong, your efforts at a very early stage to try and refute your own hypothesis.

Brian Deer

It's consistent with me talking to you. It's an even sillier word than associated with, which means nothing, right?

Peter Attia

I once was giving a talk... And I said that he'd found measles virus using immunohistochemistry. Other people used the polymerase chain reaction. And Wakefield's answer to that was that the PCR wasn't sensitive enough, at which point, to my initial surprise, my audience laughed.

Brian Deer

If he could do what he did and I'll show you what he did, who else is doing what in the hospitals and laboratories that we may one day look to for our lives.

Brian Deer
12
Number of children in Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper A case series of 11 boys and 1 girl.
14 days
Maximum reported time between MMR shot and symptom onset in Lancet paper Alleged range for 8 out of 12 children, later found to be false.
60 miles
Distance of nearest family from London hospital in Wakefield's study None of the children lived in London.
280 miles
Distance of furthest family from London hospital in Wakefield's study One child was from the Bay Area of California, another from the island of Jersey.
100 million US dollars
Approximate cost of the UK lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers (between parties) In today's money, the lawsuit consumed this amount before it collapsed.
217 days
Duration of the medical board hearing that investigated Wakefield's findings Longer than the O.J. Simpson trial, leading to Wakefield losing his license and the Lancet retracting the paper.
10 million pounds
Approximate cost of the medical board hearing The cost to conduct the hearing that re-investigated Brian Deer's findings.