MMR, Andrew Wakefield and the Independent

On middle class exceptionalism and why despite his intervention in the Independent, Andrew Wakefield is still wrong.

The Independent has been criticised for ushering Andrew Wakefield - the discredited surgeon who linked MMR to autism and bowel disease - into its coverage of the recent measles outbreak in Wales. Wakefield was struck off the medical record in 2002. His claims have been proved false in countless studies. Yet the former medical researcher says he retains his position, arguing “the Government’s concern appeared to be to protect the MMR programme over and above the protection of children”.

So why, despite Time heralding Wakefield’s Lancet report as among its “Great Science Frauds”, has the Independent given front page coverage to the former doctor?

A spokesperson for the Department of Health was forced to doggedly reiterate the facts: “Dr Andrew Wakefield’s claims are completely incorrect,” he said. “Measles is a highly infectious and harmful disease. If your child has not had two doses of MMR, whatever their age, we urge you to contact your GP surgery and make an appointment.” Ben Goldacre was a little more candid:

Richard Ashcroft, Professor of Bioethics at Queen Mary University of London, pointed to the erroneous use of the denomination "Dr":

Public Health Wales has estimated the number of unvaccinated at over 40,000. Drop-in clinics have been established across south Wales, offering free MMR immunisations - which begs the question: why would the Indie put Wakefield on the front page at such a critical time? A spokesman from Public Health England, speaking on BBC Breakfast this morning, laid the blame on "middle class" parents having believed they knew better than the state, exempting their children from nationally available MMR jabs. Around 95 per cent of the population is generally required to be vaccinated in order for immunisation to be 100 per cent effective.

Katherine Clarke, a researcher at University College London, told me: "It was misinformation in the press that led to the decline in uptake in vaccinations." The Lancet report was only a case series, the second in a number stages - later ones include clinical trials which test the propositions made in case studies and series - which may later lead to health recommendations. "So many people still do not realise there is just no evidence whatsoever to support Wakefield's claims."

A nurse draws an MMR vaccination. Photograph: Getty Images.

Philip Maughan is Assistant Editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What do Labour's lost voters make of the Labour leadership candidates?

What does Newsnight's focus group make of the Labour leadership candidates?

Tonight on Newsnight, an IpsosMori focus group of former Labour voters talks about the four Labour leadership candidates. What did they make of the four candidates?

On Andy Burnham:

“He’s the old guard, with Yvette Cooper”

“It’s the same message they were trying to portray right up to the election”​

“I thought that he acknowledged the fact that they didn’t say sorry during the time of the election, and how can you expect people to vote for you when you’re not actually acknowledging that you were part of the problem”​

“Strongish leader, and at least he’s acknowledging and saying let’s move on from here as opposed to wishy washy”

“I was surprised how long he’d been in politics if he was talking about Tony Blair years – he doesn’t look old enough”

On Jeremy Corbyn:

"“He’s the older guy with the grey hair who’s got all the policies straight out of the sixties and is a bit of a hippy as well is what he comes across as” 

“I agree with most of what he said, I must admit, but I don’t think as a country we can afford his principles”

“He was just going to be the opposite of Conservatives, but there might be policies on the Conservative side that, y’know, might be good policies”

“I’ve heard in the paper he’s the favourite to win the Labour leadership. Well, if that was him, then I won’t be voting for Labour, put it that way”

“I think he’s a very good politician but he’s unelectable as a Prime Minister”

On Yvette Cooper

“She sounds quite positive doesn’t she – for families and their everyday issues”

“Bedroom tax, working tax credits, mainly mum things as well”

“We had Margaret Thatcher obviously years ago, and then I’ve always thought about it being a man, I wanted a man, thinking they were stronger…  she was very strong and decisive as well”

“She was very clear – more so than the other guy [Burnham]”

“I think she’s trying to play down her economics background to sort of distance herself from her husband… I think she’s dumbing herself down”

On Liz Kendall

“None of it came from the heart”

“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”

“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”

“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”

“With Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham there’s a lot of rhetoric but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of direction behind what they’re saying. There seems to be a lot of words but no action.”

And, finally, a piece of advice for all four candidates, should they win the leadership election:

“Get down on your hands and knees and start praying”

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.