Wakefield
The name alone conjures up strong images for many in the autism communities. If you think vaccines cause autism, he is a hero. For many others, he has brought shame to the greater autism community.
In addition, I know many who think that Andrew Wakefield’s time has come and gone and we should just ignore him now. To those, I apologize, but the recent information is just too important to ignore.
Kev would be able to show the annoyance that Dr. Wakefield’s research has caused many of us in the autism community. It would be a better read than this—a post written by someone who finds the entire affair sad. Too much harm has been caused by what even before today was already pretty obviously bad science. It’s just a sad story that has just gotten sadder.
For those who may not know, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was the lead author on the papers which attempted to link autism to the MMR vaccine. The story is so long and tortuous that it is difficult to know what to include and what to leave out. You know what, if you don’t already know the story—count yourself lucky and skip this post! How’s that for an introduction?
Brian Deer took a closer look than most (all?) journalists at Dr. Wakefield’s story. He exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield’s patients were litigants claiming MMR caused autism. He also exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield and some on his team were well paid for their efforts.
It is very likely that Mr. Deer’s investigation is what prompted the General Medical Council (GMC) to investigate Dr. Wakefield’s actions in this research. As part of that investigation, the GMC has collected medical histories of the subjects of Dr. Wakefield’s study. And, Brian Deer has had access to these data, and they don’t match what was presented by Dr. Wakefield’s team.
Before we look at what was said in the papers and what the medical histories actually indicated, let’s look at the introduction from the original Lancet paper:
We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance. We describe the clinical findings, and gastrointestinal features of these children.
Compare that to what’s here’s Brian Deer’s article, MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.
Ouch.
Here’s a more thorough article, again by Mr. Deer:
Hidden records show MMR truth
A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination
As a short sidetrack, Mr. Deer isn’t the only one suggesting that there were problems with the Wakefield studies.
Wakefield claimed (in a separate paper from the original Lancet article) that his team found evidence of persistent measles virus in gut biopsies from the autistic children he saw. In the Omnibus hearing, a member of Wakefield’s team told the story of how the data which clearly disagreed with Wakefield’s conclusions was ignored.
Or, to put it another way, Dr. Chadwick [note correction] told Dr. Wakefield that he (Bustin) had data which directly contradicted the results Wakefield was going to publish. This should have quashed the paper, and, yet, not mention is even made of it by Wakefield et al.
But, back to the Brian Deer report.
Let’s look at a few examples from Mr. Deer’s story. There were 12 children in the original study. Mr. Deer refers to them as child 1 through child 12. Mr. Deer looks at them individually..
Child 11 had a “positive” test for measles RNA by Wakefield’s team. The father had 3—yes 3!—other labs test the same biopsy samples. Result? No sign of measles.
Here’s a bit about child one from Mr. Deer’s story:
In the paper this claim would be adopted, with Wakefield and his team reporting that Child One’s parents said “behavioural symptoms” started “one week” after he received the MMR.
The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.
It’s very tempting to quote example after example, but I’ll just end up copying the entire story. I encourage you to read the story, there are numerous examples of how many of the 12 subjects of Wakefield’s study were not previously normal.
Rather than pick all the examples of discrepancies about development of Wakefield’s subjects, how about the second part of the question: did these kids all show GI problems? Again, there are numerous examples in Mr. Deer’s story. Here’s an excerpt.
The most striking change of opinion came in the case of Child Three, a six-year-old from Huyton, Merseyside. He was reported in the journal to be suffering from regressive autism and bowel disease: specifically “acute and chronic nonspecific colitis”. The boy’s hospital discharge summary, however, said there was nothing untoward in his biopsy.A Royal Free consultant pathologist questioned a draft text of the paper. “I was somewhat concerned with the use of the word ‘colitis’,” Susan Davies, a co-author, told the ongoing GMC inquiry into the ethics of how the children were treated, in September 2007.
“I was concerned that what we had seen in these children was relatively minor.”
Not only are there problems in the reported information and the records, one of the co-authors is indicating that the paper overplayed the data they had.
Sorry, but this all just makes me more sad. Sometimes bad science can be, well a little funny. Sometimes just annoying. This is just really sad.
“A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination”
What more can be said?
(note: I edited this shortly after publishing it. The substance was not changed)
Like
Link to this post?
If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.
<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/02/wakefield/">Wakefield</a>
Comments
395 Responses to “Wakefield”
daedalus2u
February 10th, 2009
03:05:09
It wasn’t Bustin, it was Chadwick who did the PCR tests for measles and found that there were no positive cases in any of the 12 samples.
The PCR test he used was orders of magnitude more sensitive and orders of magnitude more specific than the immunological tests that Wakefield published the paper on.
That is clear fraud to ignore a test that is orders of magnitude more sensitive and more specific and negative while reporting a positive result that is clearly bogus.
Bustin looked at the bogus PCR results that another lab did. The results that Chadwick did were not bogus because he sequenced the result and found they were false positives. A false positive equals a negative result.
Sullivan
February 10th, 2009
03:16:38
daedalus2u:
Thanks, I was definitely mixing up Bustin and Chadwick.
Dr. Bustin is the world’s authority on PCR, and his observations of the methods that the O’Leary lab used made it abundantly clear that something was seriously wrong. Prometheus did a good writeup on that, I try to find a link.
Dr. Chadwick, as I recall, was a post-doc at Royal Free and he did careful tests on the same samples supplied to the O’Leary laboratory and, as you point out, found no positives.
daedalus2u
February 10th, 2009
04:52:45
The fraud goes way back.
In the Hazlehurst trail, Day 4, MacDonald (page 653) explained how when they took gut biopsies they took specimens from lymph nodes in the gut and called them tissue that was inflamed because there were a lot of lymphocytes in it. It was completely an artifact of how the sample was taken.
On page 633 he talks (regarding measles causing Crohn’s) of Wakefield either being too enthusiastic about his immunological data (which Chadwick had never corroborated with PCR from 1994 to 2000) or “there was some degree of scientific fraud behind it also.”
Brian Deer Discusses Andrew Wakefield in the Sunday Times: Many Updates « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
February 10th, 2009
04:56:51
[...] of Left Brain/Right Brain finds this all profoundly time-wasting, irritating and sad: Wakefield. The name alone conjures up strong images for many in the autism communities. If you think vaccines [...]
Another Voice
February 10th, 2009
07:37:05
Has the GMC determined if Dr. Wakefield will remain a menber of the medical profession?
Harold L Doherty
February 10th, 2009
09:28:59
I am familiar with the efforts of the journalist Brian Deer but has a legal, administrative or professional tribunal found that Dr. Wakefield committed fraud?
If so, can anyone provide an online link to the decision?
John Fryer
February 10th, 2009
10:49:31
The story is not long and tortuous but more thorough and researched FULLY.
Dr Wakefield has the stance of not PRO VACCINE but PRO SAFE VACCINE.
IT is clear to anyone that a SINGLE vaccine will be safer than subjecting an infant to several vaccines and to use the argument that old vaccines had hundreds of impurities and posed a bigger risk is just exposing the dangers of past vaccines to everyone.
My granddaughter had the single vaccine safely, most people get the triple vaccine safely.
But TOO MANY suffer after vaccines.And suffer worse from bead vaccines.
And this is where the debate is at.
Do we look honestly at all the adverse reactions or do we sacrifice many to clear up one more of 4 million illnesses we face in life.
Gardasil killed two dozen people during its trials but was passed as SAFE.
It will get rid of HPV but 1 000’s will die in the process.
Simple sex precautions will get rid of it as well even more efficiently.
You can’t make an omelette without breaking EGGS.
Its too easy to say choose between illness and vaccines but why not look at the 4 million vaccine preventable illnesses picked up in hospitals in USA alone from UNHYGIENIC hospitals.
Cholera vaccine not used much today.
TB vaccine not used not used much today.
Many vaccines work but many do not.
Dr Wakefield reminds us that vaccines are as good as those that make them and often this is not good but BAD.
Socrates
February 10th, 2009
11:37:18
“Wakefield is a money grabbing fraudster”
So sue me….
Regan
February 10th, 2009
12:04:02
Is it correct that the conclusion of the GMC proceedings is projected for April 2009, and that full details will be released sometime after that conclusion?
Aspie Bird
February 10th, 2009
12:20:34
Thank you for this post, this makes the whole vaccin discussion for me easier to understand. Sometimes important issues seem to get lost when I translate the English text I read into my Dutch thinking mind.
Very interesting, but indeed very sad.
One should almost link this whole vaccin ‘surveys’ to the tests some NAZI’s did in WW II. How far will people go?
Scaring!
Thanks again for sharing this post,
Take care
Joseph
February 10th, 2009
13:16:21
No, and if you hope really hard, Harold, maybe what Brian Deer found will turn out to be one huge misunderstanding.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 10th, 2009
14:37:41
“I am familiar with the efforts of the journalist Brian Deer but has a legal, administrative or professional tribunal found that Dr. Wakefield committed fraud?”
As I understand it, he is being dealt with by the GMC in the UK. They may find it hard to brush this one under the carpet, so we may well be seeing him struck off the register at the end of the case.
Grow up.
Dedj
February 10th, 2009
15:28:04
I’m not sure why a court would have to find him guilty of fraud before we can take Brian Deer’s accusations seriously, as accusations have to be made first before they can be decided upon in a court.
In other news, scientific work can be overturned by discovering contrary data or discovering that the basis of the initial data was false.
Socrates
February 10th, 2009
15:39:58
Given Brian Deer’s track record and the cost of any libel action to the Sunday Times, it’s hardly likely to have been published without spending a week with the paper’s solicitors.
I use to think he was just a crap scientist.
Now I think he’s a crap human being.
Navi
February 10th, 2009
17:04:44
Very sad. But on GI problems? My son is seeing a GI doctor. My son has chronic diarrhea. As in frequently the school is required to send him home even though he’s not sick. As in he comes home and has 3-4 full liquidy diapers in the evening on a regular basis.
So far all his test results come out negative for anything. So I imagine someone would call his problem minor. I wouldn’t gauge GI problems based on test results, just because of my personal experience.
Otherwise, I have to agree that this is appalling.
daedalus2u
February 10th, 2009
22:33:06
Wakefield has not answered serious allegations of scientific fraud. He has had ample time to do so.
No reputable scientist will take any of Wakefield’s work seriously or use it for the basis of any further work. Wakefield’s work is too unreliable to base anything on.
alyric
February 10th, 2009
23:50:07
Socrates
Wakefield could never have been honourable since we found out he’d been paid around half a million by lawyers about to sue pharmaceutical companies. How do you ethically explain that away? The man has been consistently shown to be dishonourable, which is why it’s a bit of a shock to me when I see folks willing to walk around large stacks of solid data to make some secondary point, like Doherty come to think about it. He seems to like doing that.
Sullivan
February 11th, 2009
20:51:29
Mr Fryer,
you comment is filled with the standard anti-vaccine themes. “Vaccines don’t really work”, “too many too soon” and other unsupported or unsupportable assertions.
You spin off into tangents that have no bearing on the autism community—a clear sign of pushing your anti-vaccine agenda on our communities, rather than being a part of the community with valid concerns.
I truly wish people like you would leave us alone. You have caused enough harm to us.
Harold L Doherty
February 12th, 2009
00:03:50
Joseph and David N Andrews M.Ed DISTINCTION, did not provide a link to a tribunal decision finding that Dr. Wakefield had committed fraud. Their usual childish responses can not obscure that fact.
Rant on kiddies.
Sullivan
February 12th, 2009
00:12:33
Mr. Doherty,
you do yourself no service by acting childish while chastising others for do so.
Has Dr. Wakefield been through any official procedure to determine if he committed fraud?
No.
If the information Mr. Deer has presented are true, is it possible that instead of committing fraud, Dr. Wakefield just made a vast number of mistakes and oversights, all of which support his theory and would potentially benefit him financially given his vaccine patent applications?
Yes.
Are Dr. Wakefield’s claims correct?
Almost certainly no.
Should Dr. Wakefield or his coauthors or the publishers retract the papers they published? If any fraction of the claims made in Mr. Deer’s report are true, yes.
Has Dr. Wakefield harmed the autism community?
Yes.
Are you, Mr. Doherty, sitting on the fence on this issue? Yes. Decide if you want to support MMR as a causative agent in autism or not. Don’t just sit back and ask leading questions in what is, to this reader, a very childish manner.
Joseph
February 12th, 2009
00:51:31
Really, is Doherty actually a lawyer? In his blog he was actually arguing that Deer’s reporting is a violation of due process.
It boggles the mind, doesn’t it? It’s like reasoning is compartamentalized away as soon as vaccines are mentioned.
According to his reasoning, all major wrongdoing discoveries by journalists are to be considered invalid until the accused is convicted. That would include Watergate and so forth.
alyric
February 12th, 2009
03:19:27
Joseph
I don’t think Doherty’s spending much time doing any serious thinking. I guess his attraction for the Hub is a means to keep up some readers for his blog. Most of the time he’s pretty troll like, which is why his ramblings don’t always make sense. You know sometimes it’s best to be tolerant and ignore him. He’s supposed to be an advocate after all even though he’s really weird at it.
Dedj
February 12th, 2009
03:21:22
Not only that, but all criminal cases could not be brought if you could only make the accusation once the person was convicted of the charges.
A situation that could only be seen as reasonable by a very black and white thinker.
Harold L Doherty
February 12th, 2009
09:39:16
Thank you Sullivan. Your remarks about childish commentary are circular. By your circular logic my comment was childish because I pointed out that Joseph’s and David Andrews, M. Ed DISTINCTION’s comments were childish. Nonsense.
I have seen these two posters comments on many occasions and they invariably resort to the same childish personal attacks and digressions from the topic being discussed. Joseph makes the same troll accusation against any one who challenges his fervent neuroodiversity ideological positions.
The issue I discussed was not the issue of whether MMR’s cause or contribute to the onset of autism. The issue was whether Dr. Wakefield fraudulently “fixed” the autism data as journalist Brian Deer has alleged. That is a serious accusation, one which brings with it a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
Given the gravity of the accusation Dr. Wakefield is entitled to due process. If at the end of that process, including any relevant appeals or judicial reviews of the GMC decision he is found to have committed fraud, then so be it. Until then Mr. Deer’s allegations are just his opinions. And yours, or mine, are just opinions with no weight.
As I understand it Brian Deer initiated the complaint against Dr. Wakefield before the GMC. Yet he is an author of an article in the Sunday Times in which he presumes the outcome of that same complaint. That fact was not pointed out in the article in question and has raised serious questions about the journalism standards followed by the Sunday Times.
This site is operated by Kevin Leitch. If he wishes to restrict comments here to those who support the neurodiversity ideology of the Autism Hub he has every right to do so. Since he has allowed me to comment here I assume that he wishes to entertain views from posters from outside the cozy confines of the Autism Hub and I will continue to comment from time to time unless blocked or told that my dissenting opinions are not wanted her at LB/RB.
I hope such dissenting views do not cause you, Joseph and Mr. Andrews, M. Ed. DISTINCTION, too much stress.
Have a good day.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 12th, 2009
11:20:59
Doherty,
For a lawyer, you’re looking incredibly stupid. If you tried that sort of trick in court, you could look at being held in contempt.
I’m not claiming that Wakefield is in trial for fraud, although I would say that he should be. I stated that:
“As I understand it, he is being dealt with by the GMC in the UK. They may find it hard to brush this one under the carpet, so we may well be seeing him struck off the register at the end of the case.”
That’s not a childish remark, but your behaviour certainly is childish. I’d expect a lawyer to be able to read. Evidently you – as a lawyer – must be able to read; so I can only conclude that you choose not to read things properly.
You said: “Given the gravity of the accusation Dr. Wakefield is entitled to due process.”
Absolutely. I’m not disagreeing with that. The GMC are dealing with Wakefield just now, as I understand it. They will decide on a number of issues, not only whether he is fit to practise medicine. I believe that his conduct during his research is going to come under scrutiny. He is getting due process. Stop complaining.
Like I said earlier, grow up.
And, as for your behaviour of capitalising my ‘Distinction’ grade, are you really that fucking jealous that I did so obviously better in my studies that you seem to have done? Very childish, Harold. You really are being very childish.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 12th, 2009
12:13:44
Doherty: “I hope such dissenting views do not cause you, Joseph and Mr. Andrews, M. Ed. DISTINCTION, too much stress.”
We’re not the ones who have issues with dissenting views. Can’t say the same about you, though.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 12th, 2009
12:25:16
Dedj: “Not only that, but all criminal cases could not be brought if you could only make the accusation once the person was convicted of the charges.”
Actually, why hasn’t that thought cropped up in the mind of our resident troll-lawyer?!
Would the whole criminal justice system not become unworkable if Doherty’s thing of “you can’t accuse someone if they’re not convicted” were how the CJS actually run?!
For a lawyer to not know that… shameful, no?
Harold L Doherty
February 12th, 2009
12:32:07
I did not say you could not make the accusation.
To David N. Andrews M.Ed. DISTINCTION - But until a conviction is entered it is just that an accusation and nothing more. Accusations are made everyday on this forum and elsewhere.
Until a conviction is entered we will not know if Dr. Wakefield fraudulently fixed data as you seem to want desperately to believe.
Just out of curiosity, what will you do if Dr. Wakefield is NOT convicted?
Joseph
February 12th, 2009
12:47:16
No, Harold. It’s been shown that you’re clearly a concern troll, and you know that.
Dedj
February 12th, 2009
12:48:02
“Actually, why hasn’t that thought cropped up in the mind of our resident troll-lawyer?!”
Because he wants to dismiss Brian Deers ‘opinion’ on this basis, without, of course, it affecting say, Dr Healy’s ‘opinion’, which has never been proven in court either.
Brian Deer can and has published accusations of fraud, we cannot dismiss these accusations of grounds of ‘lack of due process’ because a: there is no process that Brian Deer has responsibility to adhere to, and b: accusations must be made before whatever process involved can act upon them.
It’s ridiculous to expect ‘due process’ to have already acted upon these accusations given how long it took to take Wakefield to task on things he has publically admitted to.
He also slyly equates Brian Deers recent publication with ‘reporting on the outcome of a complaint’ , yet the outcome of the compliant is seperate from these accusations of false data.
Wakefields fitness to practice hearing is based on his (lack of) research ethics and the accusations of medical negligence – different to the accusation of false data.
Brian Deer ‘should have’ taken these accusations to the GMC, but there is nothing to say he ‘has to’. It sucks, but Kirby et al. get away with it frequently, and even get supported with it.
We can’t say that Wakefield is guilty of fraud, only that we think he is.
“We’re not the ones who have issues with dissenting views. Can’t say the same about you, though”
I’m not sure there’s evidence of Harold deleting posts, because there doesn’t appear to be evidence that his blog is popular enough to get them in the first place.
Again, I have to point out that very few people outside of the ND or anti-ND movement appear to have heard of Harold, yet I have been refered to the work of David Andrews in two different contexts by three different organisations, representing services across GB, NI and Eire, as well as beyond.
Dedj
February 12th, 2009
12:52:23
“I did not say you could not make the accusation.”
No , but you heavily implied a dismissal of Brian Deer on the basis of a lack of a court judgement.
Like it or not, some accusations carry more weight than others. It’s why some get to court and others don’t.
In the clinical world, accusations can reach several levels. Only the more serious ones get to fitnes to practice hearings.
Harold L Doherty
February 12th, 2009
13:07:13
Dedj I implied nothing about the outcome of the accusations against Dr. Wakefield. I have no vested interest in that outcome and I have never argued that MMR’s cause vaccines, although I would want to look at that argument again if more evidence is presented.
What I have said, expressly, about this process is that the accusations brought against Dr. Wakefield by Brian Deer are serious and due process requires that the accusations be determined by a responsible tribunal not by trial in the media.
I also find it disconcerting that Brian Deer laid the initial complaint against Dr. Wakefield before the GMC and NOW he is waging a media campaign which assumes the outcome of the very tribunal to which he complained.
Joseph – well, you just can’t help being Joseph. I expect nothing more than personal attacks and name calling from you.
Have a good day people.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 12th, 2009
13:17:34
“To David N. Andrews M.Ed. DISTINCTION ”
Again, you see… this man is jealous of my achievement. Did he not achieve honours in his bachelor degree? That why he has to play up on the fact that I got a Distinction in my postgraduate work?
Maybe he didn’t get the honours class he wanted, eh?
Such a small-minded man if that’s who he is!
“Until a conviction is entered we will not know if Dr. Wakefield fraudulently fixed data as you seem to want desperately to believe.”
Except that a number of things are coming to light, such as the real hospital records of the children in the Wakefield study. It’s kinda edging that way, don’t you think, Doherty?
“Just out of curiosity, what will you do if Dr. Wakefield is NOT convicted?”
Well… we’ll do exactly what you are incapable of doing: probably accept the decision of people who have heard more of the facts than we have. What will you do if a criminal trial for fraud were to conclude that he did in fact commit fraud? Argue that the jury were wrong?
What class of honours did you get, Doherty? Or did you not do them?
Dedj
February 12th, 2009
13:20:13
“I implied nothing about the outcome of the accusations against Dr. Wakefield.”
Never said you did.
“...and due process requires that the accusations be determined by a responsible tribunal…”
Again, there is no process that Brain Deer has a responsibility to adhere to. He ‘should’ take the accusation to the GMC is not the same as ‘has to’.
“I also find it disconcerting that Brian Deer laid the initial complaint against Dr. Wakefield….”
Well , he has evidence from the GMC - available through his website I believe – that indicates he is not the original complianant. I would not be surprised if the GMC does not wish to publicise the identity of the original complainant, which is not unusual in FTP proceedings.
“....before the GMC and NOW he is waging a media campaign which assumes the outcome of the very tribunal to which he complained”
He’s not ‘assuming’ anything’. At no point has Brain Deer said ‘Dr wakefield has been convicted of scientific fraud’. In any case, I would expect the original complainant to carry on publicising their complaints. It sucks that he can make his concerns very public, but he is under no professional or legal obligation not to. If he were, we’d have to strike the opinions of Kirby, Olmstead, Healy et al. and the original parents off.
Dedj
February 12th, 2009
13:28:33
We could still argue that his data is false anyway.
No conviction is needed to say ‘his reporting does not match the records he was reporting on’
The literature is full of to-and-fro between authours and thier critics, arguing over whether convienience sampling or reliance of interviews did/did not skew the data.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 12th, 2009
13:44:02
“No conviction is needed to say ‘his reporting does not match the records he was reporting on’”
True, actually.
Very true.
Joseph
February 12th, 2009
14:03:43
Interesting. So whether Wakefield committed fraud is in doubt. We shouldn’t make much of Deer’s report because there’s been no conviction.
But we do know one thing for sure. Brian Deer laid the initial complaint against Wakefield. And this is disconcerting.
Wakefield’s likely scientific fraud – not disconcerting. Not at all.
OK Harold. Be consistent. Present evidence that Brian Deer laid the initial complaint against Wakefield.
Brian Deer
February 12th, 2009
20:38:20
I did not lay the initial complaint against Wakefield. This allegation is a fabrication, albeit rather a small one in the MMR issue.
The GMC asked me for my journalistic evidence arising from published stories. It was my public duty to supply my findings to this statutory regulator.
The GMC’s investigation followed a call by Dr Wakefield, stating that he would “insist” on such an inquiry.
The facts are at my site:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
Sullivan
February 12th, 2009
22:25:26
Mr. Deer,
thank you very much for taking the time to comment here.
I will check your site, but it is unfortunately not loading right now for me.
The idea that you called the complaint is an obvious smokescreen. Dr. Wakefield and his supporters are studiously avoiding the real questions raised by your stories. At best, they suggest that you shouldn’t have the details you relate, but they don’t have answers for how those details severely damage the story put forth by Dr. Wakefield.
Isabella Thomas
February 13th, 2009
12:26:50
Now published on ChildHealthSafety blog:-
Sunday Times Journalist Instigated GMC Case Against Dr Andrew Wakefield
ChildHealthSafety can now reveal exclusively worldwide further evidence proving conclusively The Sunday Times freelance journalist Brian Deer is not only the main complainant but the instigator of and actively planned from the outset to bring about the marathon UK General Medical Council proceedings against eminent gastroenterologists Drs Andrew Wakefield, Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith relating to research into autism, bowel disease and the safety of the MMR vaccine. Brain Deer is also responsible for the now shown to be false “”MMR Data Fixing” allegations against Dr Andrew Wakefield [“Sunday Times Journalist Made Up Wakefield MMR Data Fixing Allegation “]
Shattering the denials of The Sunday Times freelance journalist Brian Deer and those of the GMC to his not being the main complainant and instigator of the GMC proceedings is the formal published English High Court judgement of Justice Eady: Wakefield v Channel Four Television Corp & Ors [2006] EWHC 3289 (QB) (21 December 2006)
The Judgement was given in open Court proceedings in which The Sunday Times freelancer concerned, a Mr Brian Deer was a party and is named as a defendant. The judgement states simply, with clarity and the specific dates on which journalist Brian Deer instigated and then pursued his complaints with the GMC against Dr Wakefield:-
2. The background to the litigation is the long standing controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine. The Claimant is a gastroenterologist. The first Defendant (’Channel 4?) is a broadcasting corporation, which broadcast on 18 November 2004 a programme which forms the subject-matter of these proceedings, and which was produced by the second Defendant and presented by the third Defendant (’Mr Deer’). …….
3. Well before the programme was broadcast Mr Deer had made a complaint to the GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004 …. it seems likely that a hearing will take place commencing in July 2007 and lasting for many weeks. “
Brian Deer
February 13th, 2009
13:32:45
Ms Thomas, of course, is one of the individuals who KNOWS FOR A CERTAIN FACT that data on children was changed and misreported in the Lancet.
However, on the point she raises: David Eady was wrong. I have never denied sending materials – at their request – to the GMC. Many people have done this. However, I am not the complainant in the case, which was brought on the GMC’s own initiative.
It was also brought at Dr Wakefield’s explicit request, as reported in many places, but not least:
“It has been proposed that my role in this matter be investigated by the General Medical Council. I not only welcome this, I insist on it” – Andrew Wakefield, February 2004.
http://briandeer.com/mmr/wakefield-sly.htm
This statement of Wakefield’s also illustrates that my latest report, revealing mismatches of which Ms Thomas is aware but says nothing, is quite different to the very serious conflict of interest issues I exposed five years ago.
century
February 13th, 2009
14:35:42
Brian Deer said
“David Eady was wrong”
So, who are we to believe:
A. High Court Judge
or
B. Freelance journo with a grudge
Brian Deer
February 13th, 2009
15:01:16
Century,
I’m afraid you will have to believe a formal letter of the GMC’s, explicitly stating my role, hich I will post when I return to the UK next week.
I shall post a link at this site. So, if you need a reality check on the cranks and malicious liars behind this thing, stay tuned. You might learn something…
century
February 13th, 2009
15:09:05
Brian
Why didn’t you [and I presume you didn’t because you have had ample time to show the evidnece that you did] correct Judge Eady when he made this “mistake”?
Joseph
February 13th, 2009
15:16:18
The historical record about how the GMC hearings started out is clearly with Brian.
Of course, Brian Deer was instrumental in exposing what Wakefield did, and I understand a lot of the evidence the GMC has looked at is Brian’s work product. It’s not clear that the GMC investigation would’ve happened at all if not for Brian’s efforts, which led to The Lancet publishing about Wakefield’s undisclosed conflict of interest, which in turn led to John Reid calling for an investigation.
But that’s not the same thing. It’s difficult to imagine the logic behind the suggestions that Brian Deer should no longer investigate Wakefield, that he has a conflict of interest that needed to be declared, or was hiding his involvement in the Wakefield matter.
Brian Deer
February 13th, 2009
17:42:00
Thanks Joseph,
You have it about right there. I’m proud of my work investigating Wakefield. Unlike Kirby, I am not a campaigner, have never advocated any pharmaceutical product, and have never made statements on whether or not any vaccine may or may not cause any medical condition. If there are any editorial changes in any of my published work to that effect, I don’t know of them. I’m a reporter, and have simply sought out the facts on Wakefield’s research.
That said, I’m also very proud that, like the GMC, the US government sought my help in mounting its case in Cedillo, copiously borrowing pages of evidence from my website and displaying some in court. I was surprised by this. I assumed that they would have sophisticated contacts with other governments and with industry, and could pretty much get what they wanted. However, on a number of occasions I would come home, find an email from the department of justice asking me for a document, and see that the next day it was being run in court. Bit of a seat of the pants job by the DoJ (brought about by the plaintiffs changing their case at the last minute). Indeed, I recall supplying a key document on the O’Leary lab business, which the DoJ didn’t seem to know about just weeks before the hearing. Hence the late surfacing of Bustin and Chadwick. It was me wot done that, and I’m glad.
I don’t say these things to boast, only perhaps to wonder why – if there are all kinds of grand conspiracies behind the defence of vaccine safety – governments and regulators are so untogether that a mere journalist can get ahead of them in the game.
I think, for example, the British department of health should simply seize the medical records of the Lancet children, analyse them and pass the matter to the director of public prosecutions. All this GMC stuff, allowing doctors to investigate themselves, is a huge waste of dosh, although I say so myself. I gave them my materials, as was my public duty, but IMO the GMC’s lawyers should have said “this is not for us”, and brought in the DoH and the police.
apgaylard
February 13th, 2009
17:57:14
Brian Deer is to be applauded for the good he has already done for the public by his previous expose of Wakefield.
Wakefield should be considered innocent until proven guilty on this latest charge – of course. However, allegations brought by a serious investigative journalist like Deer – who already has an impressive track record on this topic – should be taken very seriously.
Let’s hope that they are swiftly investigated by the relevant authorities.
Sharon
February 13th, 2009
18:10:31
Brian Deer wrote, “Indeed, I recall supplying a key document on the O’Leary lab business, which the DoJ didn’t seem to know about just weeks before the hearing. Hence the late surfacing of Bustin and Chadwick. It was me wot done that, and I’m glad.”
As am I Brian. Well done for all your hard work on this issue. While so much of the UK media lost it’s head, you just did the work to get to the truth. Your latest Wakefield stories plus the vaccine trial decision, make a massive hole in an already failed notion.
Kev
February 13th, 2009
19:34:58
Comments such as that from Century clearly show how little they understand key concepts in reporting or litigation. This extends itself to JABS, John Stone et al.
Brian, some parents of autistic kids will never forget the work and effort you put in this case and we’ll always be grateful to you for doing it. Without your work, victories for science such as that which happened yesterday might’ve kept autism science in the anti-vax medieval state some would’ve preferred it to remain in.
Brian Deer though the looking glass
February 13th, 2009
20:09:44
Alf Percival – shhhh now. Go away, grow up.
Yellowriver
February 13th, 2009
20:44:59
Kev says
Brian, some parents of autistic kids will never forget the work and effort you put in this case and we’ll always be grateful to you for doing it.
Sorry to say Kev but you and some other autistic parents who see Brian Deer as your saviour are sadly conned and mis-guided by this person who is only out for himself. He has no compassion for children who have been damaged by the MMR. I am not an anti-vaxxer, sadly further from the truth.
And yes time will tell, whose telling the truth here.
Brian Deer though the looking glass
February 13th, 2009
20:48:17
Rule of veto – now there’s a surprise
That’s Brian’s problem – we will not shhhh
We will not go quietly into the night
We will one day have our day in court
We will one day see him convicted as the accessory he is
Dedj
February 13th, 2009
20:57:46
“And yes time will tell, whose telling the truth here.”
It already has.
Remember, the last time someone challnged Brian over ‘the truth’ they made such a bad hash of it they actually ended up being heavily, heavily slated by the judge on several points, including points of basic legal etiquette and logic.
Watching people cling on to the ‘Brian Deer is a nasty, nasty man’ canard is painfully sad to watch.
Yellowriver
February 13th, 2009
21:01:27
“And yes time will tell, whose telling the truth here
I repeat this, just in case you didn’t get it the first time.
Kev
February 13th, 2009
21:11:32
Thats your prerogative Yellowriver. In the meantime, whilst you carry on crying about a total non-event, the rest of us will try to get autism science back on track.
So far, your science has been exposed as wrong, your ‘hero’ is exposed as something of a fraud and you just lost a legal challenge that didn’t even have to be that scientific.
You can wait from now until kingdom come my friend. The science will never support you.
Dedj
February 13th, 2009
21:11:45
Stating something twice does not make it true, nor does repetition adress the rebuttals to what you post.
Holding out for ‘Teh trUtH
’ when every scrap of reliable evidence indicates the opposite, doesn’t make you sage or wise, just mentally contispated.
Brian Deer could be the nastiest, most obnoxious man this side of the Boston Kitten Strangler, out only for his own glory and a shower of blowjobs. This wouldn’t make what he says about Wakefield untrue – you have to catch someone in a lie before you can call them a liar – you don’t call them a liar then use that to say they are talking lies.
Kev
February 13th, 2009
21:13:07
Alf – the MMR stupidity had its day in court. Weren’t you watching what happened?
Sullivan
February 13th, 2009
21:13:18
Ah, let’s question Mr. Deer’s motives and avoid the real elephant in the room: bad science with real life public health consequences.
How much money and time has been wasted on chasing the MMR question in research? What would the world look like today for people with autism if that money had been applied to something more fruitful?
Time has already told that Dr. Wakefield’s version of the ‘truth’ was inaccurate.
Joseph
February 13th, 2009
21:26:11
Time will tell? It’s already clear who is reliable in their claims and who is not.
For example:
David Kirby claims Brian Deer initiated the GMC hearings – proven false.
Wakefield launches libel suit against Brian Deer – needs to back down after documents are produced.
Need more examples?
I’ve been watching these debates for many years and I can say this. No honest person can look at this debate and say there’s moral equivalence in the positions.
JosephS
February 13th, 2009
22:26:33
“the rest of us will try to get autism science back on track.”
What autism science? You’ve had 65 years and no ones any the wiser. We keep getting told what it is not. Many mothers are pointing you in a direction but because they have no valid scienific argument in your eyes its considered rubbish. Any doctor willing to persue an answer will be supported. Any genuine takers?
One Queer Fish
February 13th, 2009
22:35:25
http://www.ageofautism.com/200......html#more
Dear Mr. Handley
I found your article quite troubling , that by the simple fact , that it seems to affirm collusion between Mr.Brian Deer and the Dept of DOJ.
But it is Deer statement , that made my blood run cold ;
“That said, I’m also very proud that, like the GMC, the US government sought my help in mounting its case in Cedillo, copiously borrowing pages of evidence from my website and displaying some in court”
There is a glee in his word , that I found very disturbing ,
Somoene shouls ask him , what this poor handicap girl did to him , to justify his perverse satifaction of being involve in destroying her chance of getting some financial compensation for a vaccine adverse reaction events .
I have great difficulty with this type of
behavior ,
Pierre Morin
Montreal Quebec canada
Kev
February 13th, 2009
22:51:57
JosephS – you seem to mistake accuracy with speed. No one said its going to be fast. And you know what? If you were expecting to put in money and an easy answer to pop out thats just too fucking bad.
A search of PubMed reveals 13394 papers on autism dating back to 1947. This shit is difficult. That doesn’t mean that valid, helpful treatments/interventions/whatever aren’t necessary or not worth pursuing.
The scientific worth of ‘many mothers’ is about the same worth as a chocolate teapot by the way.
JosephS
February 13th, 2009
23:23:24
No mistake, it’s a fact and no one’s rushing you here. I just think energies could be better spent. “That’s just too fucking bad” & “This shit is difficult” are they scientific terms?
Again, “The scientific worth of ‘many mothers’ is about the same worth as a chocolate teapot by the way.”
So, blatantly not going to be considered then?
Maybe those 13394 papers have been looking in the wrong places (allegedly)
Yellowriver
February 13th, 2009
23:34:37
“This shit is difficult”
Can you please explain what “shit” you are refering to.
Its not by any chance, the state of our children’s bowel problems?
Isabella Thomas
February 13th, 2009
23:41:48
Brian,
‘Ms Thomas, of course, is one of the individuals who KNOWS FOR A CERTAIN FACT that data on children was changed and misreported in the Lancet’
What do you mean by the above comment?
JosephS
February 13th, 2009
23:43:42
No mistake, it’s a fact and no one’s rushing you here. I just think energies could be better spent. “That’s just too fucking bad” & “This shit is difficult” are they scientific terms?
Again, “The scientific worth of ‘many mothers’ is about the same worth as a chocolate teapot by the way.”
So, blatantly not going to be considered then?
Maybe, the 13394 papers have been looking in the wrong places (allegedly)
Isabella Thomas
February 13th, 2009
23:53:42
Brian Deer,
‘I think, for example, the British department of health should simply seize the medical records of the Lancet children, analyse them and pass the matter to the director of public prosecutions’.
Is that what you did, Brian Deer? seize the children’s medical notes and quote in the Sunday Times taking it out of context?
Is that what you are doing using sick children as pawns to attack Dr. Wakefield?
Never mess with parents in the USA and the UK with sick children who saw the pain and suffering after vaccines. Bad idea I think.
Sullivan
February 14th, 2009
00:19:53
OMG,
someone is accusing Deer of using children as pawns? Please—Wakefield appears to have fabricated key pieces of his research. If that isn’t using sick kids as pawns, nothing is.
If you think Mr. Deer took the information “out of context”, can you find some context in which the facts that Mr. Deer presented would shine well on Dr. Wakefield? I can’t even imagine of any.
Brian Deer
February 14th, 2009
00:31:18
In some ways I regret that I didn’t write reports on the GMC hearing as the evidence was laid down. Much of it was fascinating, and of course not reported by the crank who was enlisted for this purpose by the anti-vaxxers. All he managed was to mislead.
There was the case of one mother, for instance, whose story is now in the public domain and entirely reportable, who had two children. Her GP gave evidence that he believed she obsessively sought unnecessary treatment for the children, to their detriment. He said he felt she was harming their interests. She fell out with her local hospital, and with a previous GP, who were not convinced by her. The Royal Free was so concerned by her behaviour that Simon Murch went on a special 60-mile trip to see her local doctors to discuss her case. The RFH were at their wits’ end with this mother.
Neither of her children had diagnoses of autism, and both had histories of fits before their MMR. Curiously, both appeared in a national newspaper, photographed looking straight into the camera. Even more curiously, both appeared, anonymised, in the Lancet paper as cases of regressive autism, with the first behavioural symptoms days after MMR.
According to the evidence, the mother declared that the children’s behaviour was greatly improveed on bowel anti-inflammatories. This triggered Wakefield’s bizarre notion that autism might be an inflammatory bowel disease. I kid thee not. Later, she changed her mind.
Much later, this mother kept turning up at court hearings to oppose the release of information that would have informed the public debate about MMR, because she knew that this information – including O’Leary’s expert report, and Bustin’s expert report – would tell a story she didn’t want to hear. “La la la, can’t hear you!”
There is a reckoning coming, I think. Skulking behind medical confidentiality, legal privilege and hapless kids won’t do it forever. There is a public interest here, and that, I think, will eventually prevail.
No consequential aspect of anything I have written on the MMR/Wakefield topic in the last five years has been shown to be in error in any way. Had it been, I would have corrected the record which is summarised at my website:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
I haven’t yet updated with last weekend’s material, but will get to that in due course.
[note: link corrected by Sullivan]
Brian Deer
February 14th, 2009
00:34:30
Link error, corrected:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm
Dedj
February 14th, 2009
01:54:55
A: This is about Wakefield, not the parents (except those that involve themselves as in the case above). Research anonmymity exists precisely for the protection of the subjects from the debate over the data.
If it is true that the parents are honestly convinced of the connection and really have undergone ‘pain and suffering’, this still has no reflection on the data. Same as for the majority of research papers out there.
B: Even if the parents were involved in this (beyond being parents of the subjects), and Brian Deer was ‘attacking the parents’, there is no law that disallows his comments, or invalidates them.
Joseph
February 14th, 2009
04:07:53
This is concern trolling of the same type Harold Doherty likes to do, i.e. take someone’s words and assign a clearly ridiculous motive to them.
Besides, to accept the above argument one would have to assume that autistic children deserve compensation merely for being autistic, regardless of causation.
I’m all for it. Propose that all disabled persons should get $1 million merely for being disabled. In fact, to me this seems more likely to succeed and more honorable than concocting nonsense causation hypotheses and conspiracy theories.
Isabella Thomas
February 14th, 2009
08:58:44
Deja,
You said Research anonmymity exists precisely for the protection of the subjects from the debate over the data.
So why did Brian Deer have the names of the Lancet children, their dates of birth and the dates they went into hospital on his web-site for months?
Kev
February 14th, 2009
11:41:24
Asshats: the next one of you who does what Joseph correctly labels as ‘concern trolling’ is going to get banned. My website isn’t a democracy. ‘k?
Ms Thomas: I’ll tell you whats sick. Sick is perforating the bowel of a child in numerous places in an effort to dig up material for a court case.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you stuck in your ruts or just plain old stupid?
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
12:35:37
So is Mr Deer along with the Federal Courts an Autism denialist .If my memory serves me correctly the Anna Polling Vaccine Autism link admitted in the US courts..strange?
I mean the vaccine neurodevelopmental damage is well documented despite the blanking of evidence by Mr Deer..Dr Wakefield has just said this
He said the Thoughtful House sees more than 2,000 children a year “and is thriving.” The ruling “won’t influence our research program,” he said, holding steadfast to his theories.
I think its all a last ditch panic to get as many of these Vccine cases finalised before Obama and the Kennedys kick in and sort out the Pharma Cartel for good..borrowed time everyone on here its a past era.
nina lteif
February 14th, 2009
12:46:11
well i know who I believe , and as for medical science its about time health care professionals in general started to help our children with autism especially these so called Dr’s, at least wakefield cares whats Brian Deers story? Oh and did you also did you know autism is treatable ….....
we know we are doing it.
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
13:08:07
Mr Deer
Thank you for the correction concerning the assertion that you initiated the complaint before the GMC concerning Dr. Wakefield.
I am still concerned though that your material would be used directly by a tribunal and that you would be publishing opinion pieces using the same material as the tribunal continues its proceedings.
Yellowriver
February 14th, 2009
14:12:33
Asshats: the next one of you who does what Joseph correctly labels as ‘concern trolling’ is going to get banned. My website isn’t a democracy. ‘k?
That says it all Kev.
Just about your level. did you look that one up or did you make it up yourself. I have no time for silly language, I have more important things to do with my life than go on your blog.
So goodbye from me.
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
14:15:12
Yellowriver
You have to excuse Kev. He is used to posters who agree with him, praise him and prop him up. He is not used to posters who disagree with his ideological perspective.
Brian Deer
February 14th, 2009
14:33:29
Harold,
U say:
“I am still concerned though that your material would be used directly by a tribunal and that you would be publishing opinion pieces using the same material as the tribunal continues its proceedings.”
(a) They didn’t use my material. Under the 1983 medical act, they acquired all their own material, key portions of which I had previously and separately acquired. They also acquired material from dozens of other sources, including parents, one of whom gave evidence for the GMC.
(b)I am a reporter. I have written no recent opinion pieces. I have exposed the fact that data in the Lancet study was repeatedly changed and misreported, creating the appearance of a possible link between MMR and autism.
(c)The materials I have supplied to the GMC do not include materials on the children. The GMC acquired this material for itself, using its extensive powers under the medical act to seize documents.
(d)Malicious liars and cranks fabricated the suggestion that I was reporting my own allegations. There are a number of such individuals who appear to gain some kind of emotional satisfaction in spreading confusion among vulnerable people. The amount of frank lying in this whole affair is bottomless.
century
February 14th, 2009
14:45:31
Brian said
“Malicious liars and cranks”
Priceless irony ;-)
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
14:56:56
If Mr Deer is so right why is the Autism community against him so much Mr Deer writes on the defensive, sees Autistic subjects to be mocked as compensation seekers,etc when in fact all they are trying to do is obtain funding that would help treat the kids they once had but have now lost to autism surely as a parent he must recognise this that if the goverments world wide treated these children as Dr Wakefield does probably zero of these cases would be in court trying to force goverments to treat the sick children..but then again Mr Deers services would not be needed by the GMC and the US courts
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
15:04:07
I would love to see someone present some of Mr Deer’s actual evidence provided to back up his latest accusations
Joseph
February 14th, 2009
15:25:40
Are you sure you’d love to see that? You’re extremely naive if you think that evidence won’t ever make it to the public domain. Any objective observer would simply consider UK libel laws and Brian Deer’s track record vs. Wakefield.
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
16:21:45
Mr. Deer
I again thank you for your response. I realize that this topic has generated considerable hostility, some of which has been been aimed at you, and some unfair criticisms.
Perhaps I misunderstood your previous comment to me in which you stated:
“The GMC asked me for my journalistic evidence arising from published stories. It was my public duty to supply my findings to this statutory regulator.”
I understood your comment to mean that the GMC actually used your information: “journalistic evidence arising from published stories”?
On the opinion comment, I understand that you are a journalist but journalists often publish articles which include both facts and opinions based in whole or in part on the facts found. In the recent Sunday Times Article you stated:
“THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.”
That lead statement from your article appears to me to be a statement of opinion. When I read your article it states that there are differences between the subject children’s medical records and the description of relevant items from those records as published in the “Wakefield” Lancet paper. Assuming that your investigation facts support those conclusions, the conclusions themselves do not appear to demonstrate that Dr. Wakefield actually “changed and misreported results in his research” or if so, that he did so intentionally as implied by your opening statement.
In any event I thank you for your professionalism and courtesy in responding to my previous comment.
alyric
February 14th, 2009
16:48:30
Mr Deer
While I’m glad you have been able to clarify your position, be aware that Mr Doherty is our resident concern troll. You can see as much from the blanket of ad hominem attacks on just about every poster here that Harold has made. Yet he wants to be taken seriously. I wouldn’t bother.
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
16:52:30
alyric
Thank you for the ad hominem attack.
I am sure that if Mr. Deer wishes to respond to my questions he is capable of doing so on his own.
Brian Deer
February 14th, 2009
16:59:02
The biggest irony here is that the cranks and malicious liars have caught themselves out, such that anybody of moderate intelligence can deduce where the truth lies.
If I am as central to the GMC’s case as the cranks and liars say, why would I publish a front page and two inside pages story which wasn’t true? Indeed, if it wasn’t substantially true it would be a very serious libel indeed, and bound to be found out. It would amount to professional suicide.
If what I published is misleading (and it isn’t) the GMC panel (two lay members and three doctors) would see that I had published a baseless story. They, after all, have the children’s medical records (at least for 11 of them). Given the number of times they have reviewed this material, the data probably stalks their dreams.
Why would I put my name to something that would defeat myself? Obviously I wouldn’t.
Although there is no risk of prejudice to the hearing (GMC panels are deemed by the court of appeal to be beyond prejudice, providing they are properly advised), there could be no possible explanation as to why I would publish gross falsehoods that are open to such intense scrutiny by the panel of a statutory inquiry.
The content of my story – including huge chunks of data on the children, and the mismatches with the Lancet – is also open to scrutiny by no less than five Queen’s Counsel and their teams, most of whom have read the children’s records over and over.
The allegations, moreover, were put to Wakefield’s solicitors, who have sat through the GMC case (and also handled his ill-fated libel adventure), and they did not respond in terms suggesting that they didn’t recognize the facts I put to them. They most certainly would have done so were it the case that what I said was in any substantial way untrue. They would have issued the sternest libel warning and declared squarely that what I said was unrecognizable to them.
All we got was a no comment, a wrong suggestion of prejudice, and, a day later, a typically sly Wakefield note – clearly without legal advice – seeking to reassure those to whom he looks for his lavish lifestyle.
His note reminded me of his past statements claiming that he wasn’t paid by lawyers for his research and that he never planned his own measles vaccine. The truth on both of these issues is proven, in the public domain, beyond question. You may also care to note that almost all of the trustees of his Visceral registered charity in the UK have resigned in the wake of my previous revelations, as has his UK publicist. I think they were genuinely shocked.
Eventually, all the relevant data will be published in great detail. I’m not sure that some of the posters here will be too happy about that. But it’s just a matter of time, as I think Wakefield knows.
Anybody uncertain as to where the truth lies should perhaps think this one through again.
Yellowriver
February 14th, 2009
16:59:03
Thanks Harold
This is who you are dealing with.
There’s always the awards video on youtube. And the loser is….......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX2Rq1jM0mU
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
17:14:02
Mr. Deer
Notwithstanding personal attack against me by some of this forum’s regulars, I appreciate your comments here.
I do not accuse you of misleading any more than I accuse Dr. Wakefield of fraud. I do say that based on what I read in your Sunday Times article you have expressed an opinion concerning Dr. Wakefields actions.
You may well have facts to substantiate your opinions but I did not see those facts reflected in your article.
I am sure you are very busy and I again thank you for taking the time to respond with candor and courtesy as you have done.
JosephS
February 14th, 2009
17:35:58
Mr Deer – Constantly tarring people as anti-vaxxers is a fallacy, blown up by well, let’s just say the media in general. The massive majority, of persons campaigning this MMR issue believed in the vaccination programme and have taken vaccinations during their lives and presented their children to receive them. Certain harrowing events following vaccinations can and do happen in life which, make you instinctively think twice when it affects you personally and you tend to warn others of the adverse reactions. Adverse reactions of which, are known. This warning action is apparently considered irresponsible by many. Scaremongering as you and your peers call it. You state “the crank”, excuse me for this and the following statements, but the term suits you better than it does him and he wasn’t enlisted by anti-vaxxers. As for your belittling of this mother of two children. You’ve painted a very tardy picture here accusing this woman as one who has kicked off the whole affair even though there were around 800 parents in waiting for litigation proceedings before Wakefield and more behind those. You state that the two children…. “Curiously, both appeared in a national newspaper, photographed looking straight into the camera” Surely you are not suggesting that this is conclusive proof of not having autism?
“the mother declared that the children’s behaviour was greatly improved on bowel anti-inflammatories. This triggered Wakefield’s bizarre notion that autism might be an inflammatory bowel disease. I kid thee not.” For God’s sake give thyself a rest. So are you now suggesting that this mother of two is responsible for Dr Wakefield’s involvement in the first place?
“No consequential aspect of anything I have written on the MMR/Wakefield topic in the last five years has been shown to be in error in any way.” Priceless. Next you’ll be crying out, I singly put an end to the MMR anti-vaccine lobby all around the world. It was you wot done that and its sad.
I’m away to get a tetanus
John Stone
February 14th, 2009
18:19:08
Mr Deer
I quote Mr Justice Eady’s judgement which is legally binding on you, in which he was simply laying out the facts of the case uncontested by you:
“3. Well before the programme was broadcast Mr Deer had made a complaint to the GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004 …. it seems likely that a hearing will take place commencing in July 2007 and lasting for many weeks. ”
If these letters were not complaints perhaps you would be good enough to post them on your website forthwith to clarify matters.
John Stone
Dedj
February 14th, 2009
19:00:32
A: Firstly, Brian Deer isn’t bound by the research ethics of the original paper. If he has published confidential data of sufficient quality to identify the subjects (which there appears to be no evidence for) the breach of confidentiality lies with the supplier of the data.
Publishing confidential data is not the same as breach of confidentiality, if it was, vignettes and case studies (an important tool to learning in the health professions) would not be possible. Nor would tribunals for that matter.
B: Lack of joint attention is a classical sign of autism. Looking at a camera requires joint attention, or an ability to abstractly identify and respond to the camera, or direction. Responding appropriately and spontaniously may be more difficult for people with autism, although it’s not neccisarily a convincing factor.
C: If there are people involved in MMR skepticism who are not anti-vaccine, then they very rarely show their faces round here. Or in any of the major curebie organisations. Such people are rare, although many more people claim to be one than actually are.
D: As I’ve said before, Harold undoubtadly thinks he’s upstanding in a debate and willing to immerse himself in the to-and-fro. To counter this, a number of people alledge that he fails to provide quotes or references (even when the article is on the same webpage) , routinely niggles his opponents, uses his reputation (very little is comparison to the majority of his targets) as leverage, and fails to internalise rebuttals.
This does include people who have only debated with him once and had no idea who he was, right up to internationally known researchers and academic, as well as a national director for a internationally known autism charity. The general opinion is that he is a ‘concern troll’
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
19:06:40
Dedj
Why all the personal attacks?
They add nothing to the discussion.
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
19:14:46
“Mr Deer The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth Please!”
Mr Deer says
However, on the point she raises: David Eady was wrong. I have never denied sending materials – at their request – to the GMC. Many people have done this. However, I am not the complainant in the case, which was brought on the GMC’s own initiative. However, on the point she raises: David Eady was wrong. I have never denied sending materials – at their request – to the GMC. Many people have done this. However, I am not the complainant in the case, which was brought on the GMC’s own initiative.
Dedj
February 14th, 2009
19:18:27
E: a ‘complaint’ refers to an official complaint made through the FTP directorate. Moaning letters don’t count.
Even if Brian Deer had made a complaint about Wakefield, it does not neccisarily mean he is ‘the complainant’ in the current case.
Even if he is, the current hearing is unrelated to the current allegations.
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
19:22:15
Dedj
Your point below Mr Deer had I remeber at one time had the first names ,surnames and Legal Aid certificates on his site for over two years “Lancet children”
You see the truth is out there but it jusnt isnt being admitted to by Mr Deer.
Funnily enough these chickens always come home to roost
A: Firstly, Brian Deer isn’t bound by the research ethics of the original paper. If he has published confidential data of sufficient quality to identify the subjects (which there appears to be no evidence for) the breach of confidentiality lies with the supplier of the data.
Dedj
February 14th, 2009
19:29:25
“They add nothing to the discussion.”
Yet you’ve used several already. And you’ve used several unsubstantiated ones against Dr Chew and Michelle Dawson as well as the aforementioned director. This include cases were the article attracting the ad hominem was located on the same webpage but remained unquoted by yourself.
Anyway, your comments can be basically paraphrased thus: “I don’t believe Brian Deer”
Brian Deer has clearly laid out what data Wakefield was supposed to have changed. He has laid out what this means for Wakefields arguement. He has clearly laid out a logical chain by which the exact things you claim ‘don’t follow’ do , in fact, directly follow from his allegations.
It is not ‘not adding’ to a discussion to indicate that a participant to a discusssion is detracting (or can only detract) from the discussion, or to inform and advise the most important participant (Brian Deer) that further correspondance with that person will only be a further distraction.
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
19:41:23
Oh! yes, as the Churchill dog says but wheres the evidence?
Brian Deer has clearly laid out what data Wakefield was supposed to have changed. He has laid out what this means for Wakefields arguement. He has clearly laid out a logical chain by which the exact things you claim ‘don’t follow’ do , in fact, directly follow from his allegations.
Clay
February 14th, 2009
19:43:13
Harold said:
“Why all the personal attacks?”
Probably because we’re tired of your sorry ass. Hit the road, Jack, and doncha come back no more.
Dedj
February 14th, 2009
19:44:02
“Dedj
Your point below Mr Deer had I remeber at one time had the first names ,surnames and Legal Aid certificates on his site for over two years “Lancet children””
If he has ever had such data on his website, and such data can be shown to be enough for a reasonable member of the public to individually identify the children, then Mr Deer and whoever supplied the data should have been reported to the relevant authourities.
So, where is this report?
Any Waybackesque copy of the webpage? The 2005 archive indicates first name only.
Any document saved to a hard-drive?
The record of Mr Deer being sued?
These are pretty serious allegations against Brian Deer, yet they seem unsupported by anything (and contradicted by the evidence publically available, including a webpage they may have been on). If we have to accept them as true because ‘I remember’ then that just adds support to Deer, not detracts from it.
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
19:51:46
No I dont have a copy of any of Mr Deers sites Im just reflecting on this as one point raised by yourself concerning libel law where you state the law and Mr Deer has clearly infringed it but fails to admit it to you if you know him sell which you seem to do going by your postings ,maybe he forgot i dont know .
Brian Deer
February 14th, 2009
20:02:44
The only children ever named on my website were (some of) those whose parents had repeatedly flaunted them in the media, giving all manner of clinical information and photographs, as part of the campaign against MMR. Those parents had already waived any claim to confidentiality by exploiting children in this manner.
Parents who had respected their children’s privacy have always been respected by me.
The mother who I referred to above in this thread, who had two children in the Lancet series, both of whom were not normal before their MMRs and neither of whom had regressive autism, came to court during Wakefield’s gagging efforts against me, and complained to the judge. It was another of her efforts to conceal facts which have assumed great public importance. The judge said I was entirely entitled to publish the information, and ruled in my favour.
I never published dates of birth, as falsely alleged above. I published legal aid numbers, showing that these children had been issued with legal aid certificates in 1996: up to two years before the Lancet paper. This was the reason: to bring out the truth.
The cranks and malicious liars need to beware. Medical confidentiality is not absolute. There is a balancing that needs to be performed. Confidentiality needs to be balanced against the public interest. If the overriding public interest requires that confidentiality be broken, it will be broken.
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
20:10:25
Clay
Do you feel taller now?
Kev
February 14th, 2009
20:12:03
OQF: no ones asking you for a back up of Brian’s site – just this report you ascribed to Brian. Where is it? Did it ever actually exist? Apart from in your head?
Harold: I realise that you’re not used to being on blogs that are read by more than 3 people but try and drop the concern trolling. If you seriously can’t tell the difference between handing someone a list of facts and editorialising in a paper than I suggest you get back to the real world sonny.
Yellowriver: I thought you’d made a Grand Haughty Exit? Allow me to help you with that.
So your retort is that its Priceless? Is that it? How about some evidence of why its priceless?
I’d suggest that along with your tetanus, you get some anti-stupid pills too.
And welcome to John ‘I have never read your blog Kev’ Stone. I look forward to your point, assuming you ever find one.
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
20:17:51
Kev
The “sonny” talk if intended to sound tough is counterproductive.
And if you don’t want me to post here just say so and I won’t. I will respect your need for conformity. There is no need to make up silly “concern trolling” allegations.
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
20:21:16
Dedj
I don’t engage in hero, or heroine, worship as you apparently do. I have disagreed with Kristina Chew and Michelle Dawson and will undoubtedly continue to do so, whether here on real discussion forums.
Hard as it may be to believe parents of autistic children who do not subscribe to neurodiversity ideology have a legitimate right to speak on behalf of our autistic children. Even if it offends you for us to do so.
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
20:24:57
Mr Deer is right I think no dates of births were put up just the legal aid certificate numbers.
Then why take them down if it was legal in the first place?
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
20:25:13
Mr Deer
If you are uncomfortable in answering this question I understand but did even though, as you have clarified, you were not the complainant before the GMC, did you provide the information to the GMC from your investigation before a complaint was initiated or afterward?
And if it was afterward did you do so on your intiative or at the initiative of the GMC or parties involved in the proceeding?
Again, if these questions are too sensitive to answer at this time I understand.
Thank you.
Kev
February 14th, 2009
20:26:39
Harold,
No, not tough, merely to illustrate how childish and ridiculous you are. As a person I mean.
I have no need for conformity sonny. Just a need not to be bothered by idiots. How many times by the way has anyone from ‘my side’ ever had a comment approved on your blog? Once? Never? Your so hypocritical its hilarious. Sonny.
What offends us about you is your tiresome never ending concern trolling. I understand you don’t know what that is but believe me, you are one. You have your own blog to attack women on sonny. Go off and do that if thats what turns you on.
Kev
February 14th, 2009
20:32:44
Harold,
This isn’t a court of law sonny. Stop badgering people. The answer to your question is here:
Have you got a question that moves the debate forward or are you still being a concern troll? Sonny.
Kev
February 14th, 2009
20:36:03
OQF:
So he’s right, but still wrong by implication? Jesus you people are stupid.
Listen: Ive put stuff up on here that later I found upset people so I took it down. Its called ‘decency’ you should look it up and send a copy of the definition to the asshats at JABS.
John Stone
February 14th, 2009
20:44:52
Mr Deer,
It does not seem to help you to have a letter from Field Fisher Waterhouse stating you are not the complainant: they would surely not need to write a letter stating you are not complainant-of-record if you were not the complainant-in-fact.
In GMC cases it is common for the complainaint-in-fact not to be the complainant-of-record. The GMC frequently brings cases where the complainant-in-fact is not named, granting them anonymity, and the defending doctor may never learn the identity of the true complainant.
Accordingly, it is likely the letter from Field Fisher Waterhouse serves further to confirm your role as complainant, albeit unnamed. Therefore I repeat my request for you to publish all of your letters of complaint cited by Judge Eady in his High Court judgement, as well as your letter from Field Fisher Waterhouse stating that you would not be cited as complainant, and place a link to them in this forum so that we know where to look.
Can you also please publish your extensive correspondence as you cited on your website that you were still corresponding with the GMC over a three year period, quoting your own letter of 6 March 2007 in which you describe Dr Wakefield as a “charlatan”.
John Stone
One Queer Fish
February 14th, 2009
20:44:56
But surely Mr Deer partly put the part identities up for the purpose of humiliation as you can’t make out where the children come form, so it cant be said its for transparency?
JABS well if you go on there you take your chances ,...some wild ones over on JABS..
Dedj
February 14th, 2009
21:34:39
Harold : We we’re not talking about your right to disagree or agree, but about the style with which you present your disgreements. Opening up with a implied ad hominem and then going off on a tangent does not help your case.
You can disagree with Chew and the Gang all you want, but if you can’t even be bothered to go to the trouble of quoting their work that you disagree with – even when it’s on the same page – then there isn’t really any reason for them to put in the effort when you don’t.
Kev: Is there any evidence that Harold is popular enough to recieve such comments? Again, I must reiterate that I have never heard of any mention of Harold outide the ND-blog community, yet others – Larry, Kristina, Alexis, Dinah, yourself, David Andrews, Roger off the top of my head – have been mentioned to me in clinical, academic and practice settings.
OQF : I’m sorry, but I work with people with english as a second language, who don’t speak any english, and people who cannot/do not speak, and I can’t make out what you’re trying to say with your response to me.
Your question to Kev can be resolved by looking at the context of the page the names were on. That is, the information was to inform us of the involvement of the parents in litigation.
Of course, Brian could have put them up for the reasons you claim, but it appears unlikely.
Dedj
February 14th, 2009
21:37:07
Harold : We we’re not talking about your right to disagree or agree, but about the style with which you present your disgreements. Opening up with a implied ad hominem and then going off on a tangent does not help your case.
You can disagree with Chew and the Gang all you want, but if you can’t even be bothered to go to the trouble of quoting their work that you disagree with – even when it’s on the same page – then there isn’t really any reason for them to put in the effort when you don’t.
Kev: Is there any evidence that Harold is popular enough to recieve such comments? Again, I must reiterate that I have never heard of any mention of Harold outide the ND-blog community, yet others – Larry, Kristina, Alexis, Dinah, yourself, David Andrews, Roger off the top of my head – have been mentioned to me in clinical, academic and practice settings.
OQF : I’m sorry, but I work with people with english as a second language, who don’t speak english, and people who cannot speak, I can’t make out your response to me.
Your question to Kev can be resolved by looking at the context of the page the names were on. That is, the information was to inform us of the involvement of the parents in litigation.
Of course, Brian could have put them up for the reasons you claim, but it appears unlikely.
Clay
February 14th, 2009
21:38:10
Harold said:
Clay, Do you feel taller now?
No, that never even occurred to me.
Why, do you feel shorter?
The thing is, Harold, you’re just a pain in the ass. It’s just a waste of time for anyone to try to argue with you, because you refuse to see their points.
The other day, you said:
“Until a conviction is entered we will not know if Dr. Wakefield fraudulently fixed data as you seem to want desperately to believe. Just out of curiosity, what will you do if Dr. Wakefield is NOT convicted?”
Well, what will you do when he is? This man was trying to give the competition a black eye so he could promote his own vaccine. In the process, he initiated a vaccine scare that caused thousands, maybe millions, of parents to choose not to vaccinate their children, and many children got the diseases that would have been prevented.
What do you think of that – as a parent?
He’s the godfather of the whole “vaccines cause autism” mania, which has resulted in millions upon millions of wasted research dollars which could have been better spent. He’s given false hope to thousands of parents, that they could get a “pay-out” from the pharmaceutical companies, that they might be able to recover their children, by chelation, clay baths, HBOT, all those snake oil cures they’ve wasted their own money on, he’s caused a huge rift in the “autism community” that will take years to heal, if ever.
And YOU want to know if he’s been convicted yet. Not yet, but soon enough. I suspect they’ll take his license, will that prove to you that he fraudulently fixed his data?
Or will you scream “Conspiracy!” like the anti-vaxers are doing now?
Clay
February 14th, 2009
21:50:23
PITA said:
“And if you don’t want me to post here just say so and I won’t. I will respect your need for conformity. There is no need to make up silly “concern trolling” allegations.”
Here’s an idea, Harold, meet us halfway.
Prove that you’re not trying to get traffic to your blog by getting folks to click on your name, by signing with a simple, unclickable “Harold” instead of the link.
Oh, we’ll know it’s you, there’s no other Harold around here.
Harold L Doherty
February 14th, 2009
22:06:20
Kev
You are falling apart. Try to keep it together there popeye.
You and your buddies sling lots of mud and act tough but when someone disputes your silly ideas you fall apart and start screaming personal insults.
I will continue to advocate for autistic children and adults and challenge Neurodiversity ideology on my site and leave you to your members only party. You can slap each other on the back and pretend you really are tough guys after all.
Joseph
February 14th, 2009
22:17:23
Perhaps Brian will come here yet one more time to read all the idiotic stuff and clarify this.
For now I can only say that Brian Deer stated he has ample correspondence that proves he’s not the complainant of the GMC hearings, not that it was necessary for someone to write a letter in order to prove that he’s not. The question of whether he’s the complainant or not has never been controversial up to this point. And for God’s sake, isn’t it clear already that the GMC hearings started out at the request of John Reid, and that Wakefield said he welcomed the hearings?
@All the trolls: What exactly are you accusing Brian Deer of and what is your evidence of this? Let’s see it.
Socrates
February 14th, 2009
22:24:37
It doesn’t matter.
We’re examining Wakefield’s gusset here.
Deer’s a hack. He won’t be wearing knickers.
Chris
February 14th, 2009
22:56:54
More on Wakefield (and not written by Brian Deer):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....728998.ece
Roger
February 14th, 2009
23:48:15
So is Mr Deer along with the Federal Courts an Autism denialist .If my memory serves me correctly the Anna Polling Vaccine Autism link admitted in the US courts..strange?
I mean the vaccine neurodevelopmental damage is well documented despite the blanking of evidence by Mr Deer..Dr Wakefield has just said this
He said the Thoughtful House sees more than 2,000 children a year “and is thriving.” The ruling “won’t influence our research program,” he said, holding steadfast to his theories.
I think its all a last ditch panic to get as many of these Vccine cases finalised before Obama and the Kennedys kick in and sort out the Pharma Cartel for good..borrowed time everyone on here its a past era.
I would suggest you go and read what Hannah Poling’s father said himself about the case,rather than some blogger with an antivaccine agenda,or some news story,put out by some corporate source too lazy to provide details.Dr. Poling was saying that his daughter’s vaccine damage was due to underlying mitochondrial disease,of which autism was the initial manifestation.
Emerging evidence suggests that mitochondrial dysfunction may not be rare at all among children with autism. In the only population-based study of its kind, Portuguese researchers confirmed that at least 7.2 percent, and perhaps as many as 20 percent, of autistic children exhibit mitochondrial dysfunction. While we do not yet know a precise U.S. rate, 7.2 percent to 20 percent of children does not qualify as “rare.” In fact, mitochondrial dysfunction may be the most common medical condition associated with autism…Autism researchers do not currently understand whether mitochondrial dysfunction causes autism or is simply a secondary biological marker. Autism clearly has many different causes, and should really be separated into multiple autism(s). I propose that we clearly identify and research the subpopulation term of “mitochondrial autism,” which is distinguished by its unique biological, but not genetic, markers.
Based on what we know now, it is time to follow the prestigious Institute of Medicine 2004 report regarding autism and vaccines:
“Determining a specific cause (for autism) in the individual is impossible unless the etiology is known and there is a biological marker. Determining causality with population-based methods requires either a well-defined at-risk population or a large effect in the general population.”
This is an all-important piece of the Hannah Poling/vaccine story,that far too few of the anti-vax fearmongers in the blogosphere chose to ignore.There is ample evidence out there,that certain vaccines,and especially combined vaccines are not safe for children with mitochondrial disease.
A few months later,we saw the incredible Cleveland Clinic study that was completely twisted by anti-vaxers in the blogosphere,with little knowledge,or understanding of science.The notion that there is something in vaccines,that can somehow mutate,or damage mitochondria,is even nuttier than the thimerosol theory.
Personally.I was very find this study.I am an autistic adult,who has many serious lifelong medical problems,in addition to autism,that nobody could ever find a cause for.
I have had multiple regressions,my entire life.
I am also too old to have gotten the MMR shot.It looks like I have mito.I could never have been diagnosed,without The Cleveland Clinic study being published on the web.
Autism,like mental retardation,is not a monolithic thing,with one single cause,in spite of what the antivaxers say.The sooner they realize this,the better.
I would suggest all of those parents who claim vaccines gave their kids autism,get these children tested for mitochondrial disease.
Mr.Deer has done an incredible piece of investigative journalism.If he were an American,I would say he deserves a Pulitzer. I was on Hugh Fundenberg’s mailing list back in the 90s.I thought he was a crackpot then.I just never realized how big a crackpot he was.Dr.Fundenberg,Thoughtful House,and their ilk are nothing but profiteering con artists.The fact that they see so many people,is only proof of the ignorance,and gullibilty of the parents who take their kids there.I find a lot of fault with the neurodiversity movement,but I applaud them,for their role in exposing these frauds,and charlatans,too.
John Stone
February 15th, 2009
00:01:47
Mr Deer,
I do not think we ought to be distracted by these people. Where are the letters? Please publish them, as you have published so much else, so we can understand you role in this affair.
A High Court judge has said in a judgement that you wrote three letters of complaint about Andrew Wakefield in 2004 to the GMC (the first immediately after your very first article in the Sunday Times) and in the absence of further evidence we must assume that he was right.
John Stone
Socrates
February 15th, 2009
00:18:16
John,
Nobody really cares if Deer’s in league with the devil.
78% of the British public think journalists can’t be trusted.
You don’t have to prove to us he eats virgins.
We don’t care.
Wakefield – now, we do care about him…
Joseph
February 15th, 2009
00:49:24
This is OT in relation to the post, but I found an old post by Amanda that nicely illustrates Harold’s hypocrisy regarding what he said of Kev:
Read the comments too. There’s one by John Best that states:
I even wrote a comment there that I’d forgotten about.
Jypsy also has some things to say in regards to Harold’s comment policy. He’s never stated what his policy is, that I know of, but we can infer the policy is that he only accepts comments he can easily answer or agrees with.
Chris
February 15th, 2009
01:52:33
Here is some more information on the way Wakefield handled data in a questionable manner. This is testimony in the US Court of Federal Claims:
ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.go...../day10.pdf
It starts on the fifth page (about 2280, of all the testimony). On page 8 of the pdf file is this bit (hand transcribed because it does not let you cut and paste):
Q: What results did you receive from the gut biopsy materials for measles RNA?
A: They were all negative.
Then on to page 10 of the pdf:
Q: Did you inform Dr. Wakefield of the negative results?
A: Yes. Yes.
..... continuing on the next page…
Q: Did you tell Dr. Wakefield about the problems with Dr. Kawshima’s results?
A: Yes, I did.
.... More stuff… then on pages 13 -14
Q: You also state in your affidavit that you believe DR. Wakefield was aware of all of your negative results when he submitted his paper, “Ilieal Lymphonodular Hyperplasia, Nonspecific Colitis and Persuasive Developmental Disorder,” which was published in 1988 to the Lancet.
A: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: You were working at the lab at that time and you had published some articles with Dr. Wakefield other subjects, hadn’t you?
A: Yes. Yes.
Q: Why isn’t your name one the paper I just referenced?
A: Well, my name isn’t on that because non of my data went into the paper. There was a manuscript witch did use some of the PCR data I think from Dr. Kawashima’s lab, and I asked for my name to be taken off anything that was related to PCR data because I wasn’t comfortable with the quality of the data.
Q: You specifically asked that your name not be on that paper because of your reservations about the data?
A: Yes, that’s right.
JosephS
February 15th, 2009
07:45:20
Kev – Am I using Yellowriver’s IP address (sorry Yellowriver have removed and wish you no harm, one night only). What’s the chance’s of that happening? 1 in a 100, 1 in 80? I must say, your ability to decipher my meaning and direction is quite astounding. Please excuse my frippery as I appreciate your trying to help even if it is conceited.
Are there any adverse reactions or side effects to these anti-stupid pills or are they considered 99.9% safe?
As for priceless, yes, that is it, no additional material to be concealed or rebuked. Now that would be stupid.
JosephS
February 15th, 2009
07:58:44
Kev – Am I using Yellowriver’s IP address (sorry Yellowriver have removed and wish you no harm, one night only). What’s the chance’s of that happening? 1 in a 100, 1 in 80? Please excuse my frippery as I appreciate your trying to help even if it is conceited.
Are there any adverse reactions or side effects to these anti-stupid pills or are they considered 99.9% safe?
As for priceless, yes, that is it, no additional material to be concealed or rebuked. Now that would be stupid.
JosephS
February 15th, 2009
08:04:39
Kev – Am I using Yellowriver’s IP address (sorry Yellowriver have removed and wish you no harm, one night only). What’s the chance’s of that happening? 1 in a 100, 1 in 80? I must say, your ability to decipher my meaning and direction is quite astounding. Please excuse my frippery as I appreciate your trying to help even if it is conceited.
Are there any adverse reactions or side effects to these anti-stupid pills or are they considered 99.9% safe? As for priceless, yes, that is it, no additional material to be concealed or rebuked. Now that would be stupid.
Brian Deer
February 15th, 2009
10:25:19
Hi Kev,
As promised, here is my status in the GMC proceedings.
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/deer-ffw-letter.pdf
If the cranks had been paying attention, the fact that the proceedings were brought on the GMC’s initiative was declared in open session.
The fact that Wakefield himself called for a GMC inquiry was plastered all over cranksites some time ago.
One Queer Fish
February 15th, 2009
11:55:49
Thanks Mr Deer ,but the way in which i read the wording is that, Informant or Complainant is playing with words, the letter here says your more technically an informant .It would seem that no one complained? the crucial point here i think, is whether Mr Deer approached the GMC, or whether the GMC approached Mr Deer.
This letter states the GMC approached Mr Deer first. They didn’t so far as i can see in this letter Mr Deer approached the GMC and Judge Eady said that as well ,as Mr Stone said above
“A High Court judge has said in a judgement that you wrote three letters of complaint about Andrew Wakefield in 2004 to the GMC (the first immediately after your very first article in the Sunday Times) and in the absence of further evidence we must assume that he was right.”
Its all very ambivalent as to intent and just a typical “I never said that letter from a lawyer.” all deniable and open to interpretation..
I would not like to hold this up as exhibit A in my defence that’s a certainty.
Socrates
February 15th, 2009
12:01:09
Deer’s not up before the GMC on charges of misconduct.
Isabella Thomas
February 15th, 2009
12:14:41
Brian Deer,
Answer these questions please.
‘Ms Thomas, of course, is one of the individuals who KNOWS FOR A CERTAIN FACT that data on children was changed and misreported in the Lancet’
‘came to court during Wakefield’s gagging efforts against me, and complained to the judge. It was another of her efforts to conceal facts which have assumed great public importance. The judge said I was entirely entitled to publish the information, and ruled in my favour’
If I remember it, this ‘mother’ handed a letter to the judge which Brian Deer wrote to her MP attacking her personally and when Brian shouted he was told to be quite! This mother wanted her children’s medical records and that of other parents back from Brian Deer and not sent to the USA government. This mother has e-mail correspondence from Brian Deer which he states he ‘prised confidential documents from the Royal Free Hospital’ Which doctor is allowed to give confidential letters to journalists from the Royal Free Hospital? Brian Deer has no experience in Autism and cannot say which children have autism and which do have not. He has no understanding of their conditions and the way they suffer. Most GP’s have no understanding of Autism and mostly blame the parents. Parents have to fight their way through the system to get recognition for their very sick children to get any type of help. Vaccine damage Autism is very different from other types of Autism as these children are in a great deal of pain without popper medical treatment. Parents have to watch their children suffering but I am so proud of the way parents are fighting back and no matter what you throw at us, Brian Deer or the brave professionals who help us and our children we will all stand tall and continue the fight for justice because we are so very proud of the way our children are also doing the same.
He cannot say in public outside the GMC that my children do not have bowel disease or Autism and then say months later they were brained damaged. Who gives the right Brian Deer the right to be judge and jury in a case he does not understand.
One Queer Fish
February 15th, 2009
12:27:42
That’s right Socrates Mr Deer isn’t up in front of the GMC , in person .The point here its all deniable Mr Deer denies trumping up the charges ,Judge Eady(High Court Judge) is seemingly in the dark? And a dodgy letter from the lawyers ,Hey Presto and Dr Wakefield is up in front of the GMC..
Grabbing at straws comes to mind, seems to me they could put any interpretation whatsoever onto that letter ,I have just given you one scenario there are worse that you cold stretch with a nano if imagination. I think Mr Deer is on the brink of being stitched up, not that I like anyone being stitched up by the government(you just don’t see it coming)
One Queer Fish
February 15th, 2009
12:39:19
I found this about a Brent Taylor it just shows you how these things come about..Try googling medical records + mmr for more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....c-boy.html
They are demanding that the Royal Free Hospital in north London explains why the notes, which contain confidential information on the boy and several members of his family and are crucial to their legal case, were used by the doctor without their consent. The incident raises new concerns about NHS researchers accessing information on patients without permission.
Thomas is one of 170 children who, as revealed by The Telegraph, have been diagnosed with a new combination of bowel disease and autism by Dr Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues at the department of paediatric gastro-enterology at the Royal Free Hospital, where Professor Taylor also works as head of the Department of Child Health.
John Stone
February 15th, 2009
13:19:13
Mr Deer,
There is a legally binding High Court judgement, previously uncontested by anyone, that you are the complainant in the GMC hearing against Andrew Wakefield.
As a journalist you must now publish all the correspondence between you and the GMC and it lawyers to explain the nature your relationship with them. It is inexplicable that they should say you are not the complainant when you plainly are.
John Stone
century
February 15th, 2009
13:42:04
Letter to Brian Deer states:
“As stated in Peter Swain’s letter to you dated 16 December 2004, your role in this matter is that of
‘informant’rather than ‘complainant’.This is due to the fact that the conduct of the practitioners in
question has not affected you directly..”
Semantics.
If you had had a child seen at RFH gasto dept (and passed info to the GMC) then you would have been called a compainant.
Role of Brian Deer -> informant = COMPLAINANT
Joseph
February 15th, 2009
15:09:23
Why is it crucial? Let’s say Brian Deer offered his work product to the GMC in order to make their job easier. How does this matter at all in relation to whether Wakefield committed fraud or not?
Why is it relevant if a judge was confused about Brian’s role?
You should also read the part of the letter that says the following:
Really, Brian has proven his position beyond doubt. The historical record supports him too. Can you guys admit to being wrong for once in your life?
Or do you think he fabricated the letter too? If you think that, be a man and say it.
John Stone
February 15th, 2009
15:44:11
I am sure that Mr Deer can answer for himself.
One Queer Fish
February 15th, 2009
15:56:00
I think one of the reasons this point is crucial is because the GMC are feeding the case ,partly from Mr Deer’s Newspaper stories.
mis-leading or supplying false facts knowingly and not correcting the Judge , a High Court Judge is no matter to be laughed at especially when the only defence you have is a letter that could mean anything you wanted to suit the way the reader is going to read it which Mr Deer’s letter supplied on here today is designed to do…maybe I miss something? I found this article in the Spectator ..they obviously think crucial it is..
http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel.....ield.thtml
What the Sunday Times did not report was that the GMC investigation into Wakefield was triggered by a complaint from… Brian Deer, who furnished the allegations against him four years ago. He has thus been reporting upon the hearing into his own complaint. Since when has a reputable paper published a story by a reporter who is actually part of that story himself—without saying so – and who uses information arising from the disciplinary hearing which he himself has instigated and which is investigating allegations he himself made in the first place?
daedalus2u
February 15th, 2009
16:15:22
Newspaper articles are not evidence that is admissible in court. Investigators may start with newspaper articles and then in the course of their investigation go to the same source material that the journalist used. If the investigators reach the same conclusions as the journalist, what that means is that the journalist was careful and got his/her facts correct.
Evidence that is admissible in court requires a known “chain of custody”. That a newspaper reporter said it is not good enough.
Joseph
February 15th, 2009
18:07:02
It’s like talking to a wall. What part of “this is clearly false” did you guys not get? The GMC investigation started at the request of John Reid, not Brian Deer.
But I think that’s irrelevant ultimately.
Reporters who supply information to investigative committees do not lose credibility from that point forward, nor are they required to provide a disclaimer every time they write about the case. That’s just nonsense.
Again, take Woodward and Bernstein. Take any reporter who provided information to the 9/11 commission.
Brian Deer
February 15th, 2009
18:11:45
Correct daedalus,
The GMC has sourced all of its evidence for itself. As you say, when they checked my facts (and facts from something like three dozen other sources), they filed charges of serious professional misconduct. That’s up to them, and their lawyers’ decision did not involve me.
The fact that they would lay charges against Wakefield et al, with an aim to prove these to a criminal standard, as required in a body with a long history of protecting doctors, says it all, as far as I’m concerned. I think most lawyers would accept that my chances of proving them to the civil standard, required in journalism, would be rather promising. In this context, I would offer Dr Wakefield a Japanese word I picked up recently: “Sosueme”.
That said, no GMC charges relate to the repeated changing and misreporting of diagnoses, clinical histories and so forth, which is a wholly new question which I am perfectly entitled to investigate and report. This I have done, in the public interest, and entirely professionally.
Mad Melanie’s rantings are no more than that. Laughable.
Mike Fitzpatrick makes the interesting point that it may be that the doctors have been charged with the wrong offences, and that the GMC should have gone straight for charges of dishonesty in the Lancet paper data.
The trouble with that is that they would either have had to abandon the very serious ethical issues they have taken up, or the hearing would have gone on for the rest of the panel’s natural lives.
Isabella Thomas
February 15th, 2009
18:20:34
Brian,
Are you saying that the children in the Lancet Study do not have any type of bowel disease and that Dr. Andrew Wakefield made this all up along with Simon Murch and Walker-Smith?
John Stone
February 15th, 2009
18:22:58
Mr Justice Eady, in a UK High Court judgement, previously uncontested, stated that Brian Deer was the complainant against Andrew Wakefield, and listed three separate letters of complaint written by Deer in 2004. As a journalist Brian Deer now needs to publish all his correspondence with the GMC and its lawyers in order to clarify his relationship with them.
So, let us see them.
One Queer Fish
February 15th, 2009
19:06:27
daedalus,
I suppose this is why Dr Wakefield feels that the case against him is a fraud and a deception,.So far nobody is party to the evidence of Mr Deers reports except it seems the GMC whom it seems, have the “chain of custody”, The trail to Judge Eady it would seem today , has been subject to fraudulent mis- information and uncontested by Mr Deer , which if transpired to be true ,one would suppose that even if Dr Wakefield was found guilty it would compromise the prosecution case against him and towards acquittal or overturn a guilty verdict on appeal because it would seem the trail going to Judge Eady was not correct .
Seems a few twists of the cats’ tail still to materialise
Brian Deer
February 15th, 2009
19:39:16
And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains.
One Queer Fish
February 15th, 2009
19:48:48
Mr Deer the chain seems not to be correct and no evidence to suggest diffrently?
Im suprised Dr Wakefields defence havent come on this before?
Isabella Thomas
February 15th, 2009
19:57:22
Brian,
Are you saying that the children in the Lancet Study do not have any type of bowel disease and that Dr. Andrew Wakefield made this all up along with Simon Murch and Walker-Smith?
Answer the question instead of attacking the parents.
John Stone
February 15th, 2009
20:01:14
Mr Justice Eady, in a UK High Court judgement, previously uncontested, stated that Brian Deer was the complainant against Andrew Wakefield, and listed three separate letters of complaint written by Deer in 2004. As a journalist Brian Deer now needs to publish all his correspondence with the GMC and its lawyers in order to clarify his relationship with them.
Mr Deer, publish the documents.
Kelli Ann Davis
February 15th, 2009
20:14:50
“The cranks and malicious liars need to beware. Medical confidentiality is not absolute. There is a balancing that needs to be performed. Confidentiality needs to be balanced against the public interest. If the overriding public interest requires that confidentiality be broken, it will be broken.”
Really Brian?? So exactly who determined there was an “overriding public interest” in this situation which called for private medical records to be handed over to a journalist???
Gosh, too bad your “rules” don’t apply to the VSD here in the States. But I guess that only works when it helps support vaccine uptake.
Kelli Ann Davis
D.C. Political Liaison for Generation Rescue
alyric
February 15th, 2009
20:35:17
Lord I’ve never read so many illiterate individuals yet.Why don’t they read, why can’t they reason? Brian isn’t the GMC complainant – never has been. If he got the facts wrong, even by a fraction, the lawyers would be yelling libel from the roof tops. Why aren’t they John Stone? John Stone should have a shot at that one but he won’t because there goes all his silly anti-vaxxer ravings – up in smoke against cold hard fact.
Where did this Isabella Thomas come from and could she take her hysterical nonsense somewhere else please?
One thing I’ve noticed with the anti-vax crowd is how they totally ignored their own experts in the omnibus. They had years to assemble the best they could with the best arguments they could and their own people totally ignore them because they weren’t good enough. Time to face the music John Stone and ask why they were not good enough.
One Queer Fish
February 15th, 2009
20:52:40
alyric
I think if Mr Deer produced the evidence to back Judge Eady we would all leave you alone to self worship one another.
“Libel” and “chain of custody” are two diffrent things.
If Mr Deer has nothing to hide he would produce his letters as Mr Stone refers to from Judge Eady simple enough request,
Audi et alteram partem
Isabella Thomas
February 15th, 2009
21:07:20
alyric,
Where did this Isabella Thomas come from and could she take her hysterical nonsense somewhere else please?
What hysterical nonsense are you talking about?
Joseph
February 15th, 2009
21:10:42
As much as I hate intellectual dishonesty, I’m no longer going to address those who can’t let go of something that has been proven to be a falsehood through various means. What’s the point, really?
I do have a question for Brian Deer, in case he’s still reading.
Is the GMC expected to rule on the matter of whether Wakefield committed scientific fraud, or would a completely separate set of hearings be necessary to consider this question. In other words, what’s the timeframe we might be looking at?
alyric
February 15th, 2009
21:58:33
With you there Joseph. Hysteria a la Thomas seems to be in the air. AoA seems to have determined that Brian Deer is responsible for the demise of the parents omnibus case. |Fortunately they seem to be relying on Mad Melanie so that’s not much of a recommendation for their rationality.
Note that no one seems to want to tackle the really big hole in their arguments as to why the lawyers aren’t yelling libel. Maybe Brian’s latest round of information is accurate? How about that? Wskefield really is the complete fraud. Why are we not surprised?
Socrates
February 15th, 2009
22:07:53
Alyric,
We are of one mind on this.
A pointless ‘discussion’ that has little connexion to the outside world. It has lost it’s frame of reference in the unacknowledged BAP and/or stupidity of its protagonists.
Quackspeak. Pseudorhetoric. Onanism. Narcissism.
Our saviour walks among us an his name is Brian. Blessed are the Cheesemakers!
HCN
February 15th, 2009
22:17:41
Thomas, Stone and others are infamous in the UK for being completely clueless. If you show them a red rock, they will insist it is blue because Wakefield remarked that it was a blue rock.
Like the AoA, they have their own forum which is also moderated with a cast iron clown glove. If you don’t agree with them, you are banned. One of those banned members has created a blog to react to some of their lunacy (apparently of them is a real doctor who posts rather bizarre sexual rants in response):
http://jabsloonies.blogspot.com/
One Queer Fish
February 15th, 2009
22:35:18
Alyric,
Quite simply, just because libel isn’t happening just now doesn’t mean it is never going to happen .To fund Legal representation at a GMC hearing requires serious money but, to take on a libel case as well would be beyond most peoples financial reaches. Its as simple as that not a positioning of weakness as you imply, and as simple as the the Eady complaint letters that Mr Deer is being asked for, but he obviously has his reasons for not supplying them? Maybe it will happen at a later date that’s if he wishes the “chain of custody” to be scrupulous in its chronological documentation, and also the papertrail pertaining to the GMC’t Dr Wakefield would walk free on appeal if found guilty if it was not scrupulously factual.
Brian Deer
February 15th, 2009
23:55:45
Joseph,
No, there are no charges on issues of scientific fraud, apart from the issue of Wakefield being accused of lying to a panel of the MRC, when he told them that the Lancet children all came through “the standard route”, when in fact they were recruited by him through JABS and Dawbarns.
The reason seems straightforward enough. The allegations were put to the doctors in late 2004, who declined to respond (a situation which would, in any other forum but the doctors’ regulator, be interpreted negatively). The GMC’s lawyers then pulled the RFH, local hospital and GP medical records of 11 of the 12 Lancet children. It’s clear that it’s only when they read the records that they will have spotted the extraordinary mismatches with the Lancet paper that I’ve reported on. By then it was kinda late (probably two years into their inquiries). To add another raft of charges would probably tack another year onto the outcome of the thing (because panel members are not full-time, like judges, and so can’t sit continuously). And the defendants’ lawyers are already complaining of lack of speedy process – even though it’s their lack of civil procedure rules-style cooperation which has done much to slow it down. I suspect that any more charges would simply be unmanageable.
In a libel case, or indeed any civil case, the parties are ordered to exchange documents, and to narrow the areas of dispute, so as to save time and money. This isn’t true of the GMC, so there have been countless instances when the defendants’ produce what they say is supportive evidence years after they could have done. Their lawyers literally circulate paperwork, out of the blue, that the prosecution has never seen before, much less had time to digest. You wouldn’t see that in any court.
So, short answer: no charges of scientific fraud. But that wouldn’t preclude Wakefield being charged again when the present thing is over.
And certainly, I predict that the Lancet will be forced to withdraw the paper in its entirity, not least because all three defendants have now repudiated their claims of five years ago (in response to questions from me) in which they said they had ethical approval for the project. Now, despite formal statements, published in the Lancet, they now say that they did not have ethical approval, and didn’t need it because the project wasn’t research. Total reversal of their position.
Truly a fascinating case, but you wouldn’t know it from what has been circulated on the cranksites. They have no interest at all in informing the public. I remember, for instance, some of us journos were talking about the core issues when some strange short woman in big boots from one of the cranksites came in and started shrieking abuse, obviously to disrupt. Strange business.
Yellowriver
February 16th, 2009
00:44:03
Brian Deer says
And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains.
Is this how you get your kicks
you also quote
(d)Malicious liars and cranks fabricated the suggestion that I was reporting my own allegations. There are a number of such individuals who appear to gain some kind of emotional satisfaction in spreading confusion among vulnerable people. The amount of frank lying in this whole affair is bottomless.
Do you not understand that your (d) statement is untrue.
One Queer Fish
February 16th, 2009
01:19:03
Brian the only information on the GMC that i can see available for the public to read is from a Martin Walker @
http://www.cryshame.co.uk/
You could simply put yourself in the clear by simply publishing the letters of complaint you sent to Judge Eady as John Stone asks above ,why not?
alyric
February 16th, 2009
03:12:13
Queer fish
Don’t you think that Brian is sick and tired of being asked to answer fabricated nonsense such as you and especially John Stone keep coughing up. Try reading what Brian writes.Oh sorry, I keep forgetting, you can’t because you wouldn’t have anything to say apart from more fabricated lunacy. You poor thing. These conspiracies do take some effort to keep up don’t they?
John Stone
February 16th, 2009
08:24:53
Just to be clear, I have not fabricated anything, and there is no alternative other than that Brian Deer – as a journalist – publishes his correspondence with the GMC and its lawyers in order to clarify his relationship with them.
One Queer Fish
February 16th, 2009
09:42:15
Alyric
Sorry for taking an interest in this forum and putting Mr Deer to any unintentional trouble. When I came across the site I was intrigued by the postings and this is where the debate has arrived at, a stalemate between Mr Deer and the Judge Eady letters.
Wouldn’t it be very interesting to take the debate forward but that rests with Mr Deer.
Jimbo
February 16th, 2009
11:51:46
Queer fish, the topic of the debate is “Wakefield”, and not “Deer”.
I find it very instructive how keen the antivax loons are to make an issue of irrelevancies to distract from any discussion on the failings of their hero, Saint Andrew. What next, a debate about Brian Deer’s colour of underwear?
Sunday Times Journalist Challenged Over Role in US MMR Cases & Denying Being Complainant In UK MMR Case « Child Health Safety
February 16th, 2009
14:20:38
[...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....t_20891151 [...]
Sullivan
February 16th, 2009
16:55:17
I don’t know or claim that you have fabricated anything. I do see you sidestepping the real topic—if the details that Mr Deer has published are true, is there any validity at all to Dr Wakefield’s papers?
Given Hornig(2008) and many other papers, Wakefield’s work was already at best questionable. Lancet should a full retraction, not just a retraction of conclusions.
John Stone
February 16th, 2009
18:40:28
Sullivan
I believe it was entirely reasonable to raise a single issue that arose out of this blog (my other thoughts on the matter are available alsewhere – including Hornig).
I quote the editor of ChildHealthSafety in response to CS (possibly even yourself):
“[ED: How do you know what he printed or says is true? The Judge stated his letters were letters of complaint. He denies that but does not publish the letters to prove they were not letters of complaint. Which account is going to be the more accurate – his or the Judge in a legal judgment binding on him in a case in which he was a party and which was just setting out the facts which were uncontested.]
“As a journalist he is obliged to be independent objective and impartial, so the public can have some confidence in what he writes. If he wrote letters of complaint, that means he is not impartial, is directly involved, has a personal interest in the outcome of the case and therefore should not be reporting.”
http://childhealthsafety.wordp.....hallenged/
Deer keeps on asking us to take an absurd amount on trust. Where are the letters, so we can see for ourselves?
Isabella Thomas
February 16th, 2009
19:55:03
You post anything like that again and I will ban you. Would it have killed you to simply post a link? – KL
Kev
February 16th, 2009
20:01:25
John – I guess those letters must be in the same place where the document saying Hannah Polings vaccines caused her autism are….except, oh wait, they’re not, they are actually available to be read!
K
February 16th, 2009
20:04:15
Isabella,
Do you think what Deer wrote about Wakefield was true or not and how do you come to the conclusion you come to? Is it important to you if Deer printed the truth?
Chris Ogilvie
February 16th, 2009
20:07:57
Queer fish
Don’t you think that Brian is sick and tired of being asked to answer fabricated nonsense such as you and especially John Stone keep coughing up. Try reading what Brian writes.Oh sorry, I keep forgetting, you can’t because you wouldn’t have anything to say apart from more fabricated lunacy. You poor thing. These conspiracies do take some effort to keep up don’t they?
Well, alyric, you’d know the answer to that last question. What lyric are you anyway? Some simple punk one, I’d imagine.
I rather think Brian Deer is, in fact, scared by the fact that he can’t answer simple questions or provide such proofs to answer basic questions. I’m surprised by how his supporters/backers aren’t a little worried by how many questions he’s simply ignored just in this forum alone!
Your role in all this will be uncovered Brian. God help you, Sir.
K
February 16th, 2009
20:13:53
The fact is, none of these characters gives a damn about autistic people, either the gut perforator Wakefield and his cult followers or Brian Deer as evidence from his comments. Brian Deer, go F yourself. Kelli Ann go F yourself too. See Sullivan, they don’t give a rat’s A.s.s, none of them.
Chris Ogilvie
February 16th, 2009
20:13:55
KL - Hmm..not very fair of you not to leave the quote in place at least.
Here’s the Spectator link which discusses Brian Deer’s journalistic mistakes, in case anyone’s interested.
Kev
February 16th, 2009
20:15:28
Chris, not only can you not quote correctly, you can’t formulate a point.
What simple questions do you feel Brian has to answer?
His role in this has been uncovered you jackass. Read, digest.
Chris Ogilvie
February 16th, 2009
20:19:28
KL - Hmm..not very fair of you not to leave the quote in place at least.
Kev – You make yourself look like a food with personal attacks. Do please try to grow-up. This isn’t a playground. Oh, and my point was perfectly formulated – you just disagree with it.
Here’s the Spectator link which discusses Brian Deer’s journalistic mistakes, in case anyone’s interested.
K
February 16th, 2009
20:20:27
While autistic people give their support to Deer all over the internet, including me, he insults us and our children. I’d like an apology from him.
Chris Ogilvie
February 16th, 2009
20:20:34
KL - Hmm..not very fair of you not to leave the quote in place at least.
Kev – You make yourself look like a food with personal attacks. Do please try to grow-up. This isn’t a playground. Oh, and my point was perfectly formulated – you just disagree with it.
Here’s the Spectator link which discusses Brian Deer’s journalistic mistakes, in case anyone’s interested.
Kev
February 16th, 2009
20:21:40
Does he K? Where?
Chris Ogilvie
February 16th, 2009
20:23:50
Kev – You make yourself look like a food with personal attacks. Do please try to grow-up. This isn’t a playground. Oh, and my point was perfectly formulated – you just disagree with it.
Here’s the Spectator link which discusses Brian Deer’s journalistic mistakes, in case anyone’s interested.
Chris
February 16th, 2009
20:25:24
KL - Hmm..not very fair of you not to leave the quote in place at least.
Kev – You make yourself look like a food with personal attacks. Do please try to grow-up. This isn’t a playground. Oh, and my point was perfectly formulated – you just disagree with it.
Here’s the Spectator link which discusses Brian Deer’s journalistic mistakes, in case anyone’s interested.
Chris
February 16th, 2009
20:25:47
KL - Hmm..not very fair of you not to leave the quote in place at least.
Kev – You make yourself look like a fool with personal attacks. Do please try to grow-up. This isn’t a playground. Oh, and my point was perfectly formulated – you just disagree with it.
Here’s the Spectator link which discusses Brian Deer’s journalistic mistakes, in case anyone’s interested.
K
February 16th, 2009
20:28:49
“And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains” – Brian Deer
Chris Ogilvie
February 16th, 2009
20:31:18
Kev – You make yourself look like a fool with personal attacks. Do please try to grow-up. This isn’t a playground. Oh, and my point was perfectly formulated – you just disagree with it.
Here’s the Spectator link which discusses Brian Deer’s journalistic…ahem…approaches, in case anyone’s interested.
apgaylard
February 16th, 2009
20:31:28
John Stone wrote:
Impartial and objective does not mean avoiding coming to conclusions. It means being led by the facts. If the facts Deer has unearthed expose Wakefield – then this is what he must report to be impartial and objective. It would be extremely partial to do anything else.
There is no obligation on journalists to stop reporting on a story that they have unearthed – unless it is sub judice; which these events are not.
Woodward and Bernstein’s All the President’s Men was published before Charles Colson was sentenced, United States v. Nixon was decided and Congress started to impeach Nixon. They broke the story and published articles throughout the Watergate crisis. They got Pulitzer prizes.
It’s not very edifying to invent a bogus standard and judge Deer against it.
In the end Deer’s work will stand or fall on the truth of his allegations and the evidence that he has collected. It will not matter one jot whether he was an informant, complainant campaigner or plain old whistle-blower in the GMC hearing.
Let’s hope that these new allegations are investigated and the evidence placed in the public domain. Then we’ll see.
Yellowriver
February 16th, 2009
20:42:34
But what Deer does not reveal is that on February 25, 2004, three days after his article attacking Wakefield had been published in the Sunday Times, he had written to the GMC in these terms:
Following an extensive inquiry for the Sunday Times into the origins of the public panic over MMR, I write to ask your permission to lay before you an outline of evidence that you may consider worthy of evaluation with respect of the possibility of serious professional misconduct on the part of the above named registered medical practitioners. [Andrew Wakefield, John Walker Smith and Simon Murch.]
Chris Ogilvie
February 16th, 2009
20:44:45
Dear Kev – You make yourself look like a fool with personal attacks. Do please try to grow-up. This isn’t a playground. Oh, and my point was perfectly formulated – you just disagree with it. There’s a difference.
Here’s the Spectator link which discusses Brian Deer’s involvement in the GMC hearings, which was deleted earlier.
Chris
February 16th, 2009
21:17:12
K, that comment was meant as an insult to Stone, Thomas, the Queer Fish, century, Davis, Doherty and others who are being struck by a clue-by-four and still not getting a clue. Those people do not claim to be autistic.
Kev
February 16th, 2009
21:17:49
Damn good question Kelli Ann – maybe one we could direct to David Kirby regarding the Hannah Poling concession documents hmmm?
K - autism is partly a problem with the brain. All the positive aspects shouldn’t rule out the negative. Both exist.
Chris
February 16th, 2009
21:21:19
Oh, by the way, K, my son does have a problem with his brain: a seizure disorder and actual damage around Broca’s area. It was not caused by vaccines, but it has caused some other issues. So saying something is wrong with his brain is not an insult, but a statement of fact. Though, considering his developmental delays, and learning disabilities he is much brighter, compassionate, and has more a clue than Stone, Thomas, the Queer Fish, century, Davis, Doherty and others.
Autismnostrum
February 16th, 2009
21:25:34
I’m not surprised at the reactions here. Getting caught up in semantics and trying to trip up Brian Deer about what exactly defines a “complainant” doesn’t make his report false.
And even if it were, Wakefield’s research has been discredited by the scientific community. It’s invalid. The research is bad. He had clear, undisclosed conflicts of interest. There’s ample evidence he at least ignored facts, even if he didn’t outright falsify his claims. Tearing Deer down doesn’t raise Wakefield up, no matter what you try.
K
February 16th, 2009
21:32:22
“Oh, by the way, K, my son does have a problem with his brain: a seizure disorder and actual damage around Broca’s area. It was not caused by vaccines, but it has caused some other issues. ”
Well, that has nothing to do with autism strictly. But, I needless to say won’t be defending Deer any longer.
Kev, you wrote: ” autism is partly a problem with the brain. All the positive aspects shouldn’t rule out the negative. Both exist.”
Do positive and negative aspects only apply to autistics or do they apply to everyone? If they apply to everyone, then who was Deer referring to exclusively?
Kev
February 16th, 2009
21:41:46
They refer to everyone who has mental health issues (like me) or mentally centred disabilities (like my daughter). I would imagine Brian was referring to the people commenting here who seem incapable of processing fairly simple sentences.
Chris
February 16th, 2009
21:53:57
K said “Well, that has nothing to do with autism strictly. But, I needless to say won’t be defending Deer any longer”
I don’t think he needs to be defended, just that mis-truths be addressed as the lies they are. The ones who are spreading the lies need to confronted. This is not “defending” Mr. Deer as much as objecting to lies.
This also pertains to Wakefield, and it seems that the testimony given in the American Autism Omnibus proceedings clearly shows that he used bad data, even after he was told it was bad data. (see the bits of transcript I posted up thread)
K
February 16th, 2009
22:21:16
Mr Deer was using my disability to insult others and for me that crosses the line. He has no proof that my brain isn’t exactly what is best for my functioning and should find more informed ways if he wishes to insult people..
One Queer Fish
February 16th, 2009
22:28:18
A wman scorned and all that …just found this guys any comments from Mr Deer???
Mr Deer does not reveal that on February 25, 2004, three days after his article attacking Wakefield had been published in the Sunday Times, he had written to the GMC in these terms:
Following an extensive inquiry for the Sunday Times into the origins of the public panic over MMR, I write to ask your permission to lay before you an outline of evidence that you may consider worthy of evaluation with respect of the possibility of serious professional misconduct on the part of the above named registered medical practitioners. [Andrew Wakefield, John Walker Smith and Simon Murch.]
http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel.....ghts.thtml
Joseph
February 16th, 2009
22:40:13
K is correct that neurological disability should not be used as an insult, although there’s no way for Brian Deer to have known that, unless he frequents blogs that discuss the philosophy of disability and disability rights. Everybody does it. But now he knows.
That’s true of any disability. Blind and deaf people will say you shouldn’t use “deaf” and “blind” as insults either.
Chris
February 16th, 2009
23:07:50
Chris said “That’s true of any disability. Blind and deaf people will say you shouldn’t use “deaf” and “blind” as insults either.”
Sports enthusiasts are very guilty of that each time they yell at a referee!
Chris
February 16th, 2009
23:09:03
AAAAGH… I meant “Joseph said”... I am not really thinking of myself in the third person!
Brian Deer
February 16th, 2009
23:10:36
Well, actually Joseph, I didn’t intend that observation as an insult. I made it as a shorthand way of raising an issue that I believe may reasonably be raised.
I genuinely think that the three individuals I was criticising – and I know who all three of them are – do need to question whether their personal behavioural issues are indicative of a better explanation for their children’s issues. Certainly a lot better explanation than MMR.
The festering nastiness, the creepy repetitiveness, the weasly, deceitful, obsessiveness, all signal pathology to me.
Joseph
February 16th, 2009
23:17:50
For anyone wondering about the timeline, it was reported on February 23, 2004 that Wakefield would welcome an inquiry.
John Reid reportedly called for a inquiry the previous Friday, which would have been February 20.
Joseph
February 16th, 2009
23:22:44
But you see, Brian, when you say things like this, you’re making generalizations about autistic people. I can assure you, any autistic person who just read that, cringed.
It’s not that some autistic people don’t have these traits. Traits like obsessiveness are basically universal in autistic people. It’s the way it’s said, and the way it’s generalized. Plus, this may come as a surprise to you, a lot of autistic people don’t see autism as a pathology.
Brian Deer
February 16th, 2009
23:27:04
No, Joseph, while I see what you are saying, I am refering to three specific individuals. I don’t believe these things are universal to people with autism. You need to bear in mind that the relevant children don’t all have autism anyway. I’m not making a point about autism!
Brian Deer
February 16th, 2009
23:42:20
On the other thing, yes, the timeline played out in Feb 2004 as follows:
(1) I put allegation to Horton at the Lancet that the Wakefield paper was not covered by ethical committee approval. At the time, the authors denied this and issued a statement. Now the defendants at the GMC have all repudiated this statement, and now claim they didn’t need ethical approval. (Horton, at the GMC, said otherwise, as does the prosecution).
Here are the statements the defendants and the RFH issued in 2004, and which the defendants now say were untrue:
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-murch.htm
and
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-hodgson.htm
(2) Horton issues a press notice, and an interview to the BBC regretting publishing the paper due to the fact that Wakefield was being payrolled by lawyers: another point I raised.
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-bbc.htm
(3) The then-secretary of state, John Reid, said he thought the GMC should investigate.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....027465.ece
(4) Wakefield said he welcomed a GMC investigation and would “insist” on one. (see same link)
(5) GMC staff approach me and say that Reid and Wakefield want an investigation, did I have anything to contribute.
(6) I say, yup, you bet. Like countless journalists before me, I supplied my findings to a statutory regulator, with a view to them getting to the bottom of the matter. IMO, the ethical issue was plainly a matter of possible serious professional misconduct, since it was quite plain that no IRB approval covered the Lancet paper.
Nothing wrong with me doing that. The GMC has sourced all its allegations to its own authority, and relies on nothing from me. No reason why I shouldn’t continue my investigations. Nothing I publish could influence the panel, since the court of appeal has said that GMC panels are beyond prejudice. End of story, so far…
Joseph
February 16th, 2009
23:58:36
It doesn’t really matter if that’s the case. Bear in mind that there are many autistic people reading these comments, with quite a bit interest some of them, and the autistic adults I know are by and large anti-quackery.
There’s no manual on what you should and shouldn’t say around autistic people, that I know of. Imagine, though, you’re in a room full of blind or deaf people, and consider what might or might not be a good idea to say. Or imagine you’re in a room full of gay people; not a good idea to start calling some outside people “sissies” or something like that, wouldn’t it?
Clay
February 16th, 2009
23:58:36
Joseph said:
The festering nastiness, the creepy repetitiveness, the weasly, deceitful, obsessiveness, all signal pathology to me.
“But you see, Brian, when you say things like this, you’re making generalizations about autistic people. I can assure you, any autistic person who just read that, cringed.”
Naw, I didn’t cringe, or think he was talking about autistic people. I wondered how he knew Best and Doherty! Then I realized he was talking about Stone and Queerfish and Isabella. (Is that right?) But yeah, “repetitiveness” and “obsessiveness” are words that can apply to many of us.
One Queer Fish
February 17th, 2009
00:02:23
Mr Deer I thought you would have come back with some letters R.e Judge Eady to silence the above escalating scenario highlighted by Mel in the Spectator…
this is not meant as a dig but only a solution to the on going spiralling frenzy..
Matrk
February 17th, 2009
00:11:44
Brian
“The festering nastiness, the creepy repetitiveness, the weasly,
deceitful, obsessiveness, all signal pathology to me.”
what pathology are you talking about here, I certainly sounds like you are decribing autistic traits.
if not what pathology?
People, Brian has been posting on here for at least 3 years he should know what is acceptable within the autistic community.
One Queer Fish
February 17th, 2009
00:21:39
Matrk
That`s clear Mr Deer is not talking about the autistic sufferers just sweet nothing`s to myself and others ..would like to see the Judge Eady letters before going to bed , work to go to … simple request
Matrk
February 17th, 2009
00:36:34
Mr Fish
I don’t believe that is true , what we see here is Brian’s real view on autism.
I can understand why Micheal Savage would make comments out ignorance, but I really cannot understand where Brian is coming from , he has sat on the longest trail covering the treatment of autistic kids but has chosen twice to use language that all in this community would find offensive. Unlike Savage Brian should know better.
Joseph Step Up and Condemn his words.
Joseph
February 17th, 2009
00:49:04
Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 33554432 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 7680 bytes) in /home/leftbra3/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php(211) : runtime-created function on line 1