Autism Blog - Wakefield « Left Brain/Right Brain

10 Feb 2009

Author: Sullivan
Comments: 395

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)

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

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?

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

Joseph makes the same troll accusation against any one who challenges his fervent neuroodiversity ideological positions.

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

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.

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

And yes time will tell, whose telling the truth here.

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

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.

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

I would love to see someone present some of Mr Deer’s actual evidence provided to back up his latest accusations

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.

“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

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:

(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.

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:

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?

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

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.

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

One Queer Fish on 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.

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.

To understand Hannah’s case, it is important to understand mitochondria, which act like batteries in our cells to produce energy critical for normal function. Because the government’s concession hinged on the presence of Hannah’s underlying medical condition, mitochondrial dysfunction, some claim the decision is relevant to very few other children with autism. As a neurologist, scientist and father, I disagree.

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:

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.

Read the comments too. There’s one by John Best that states:

Hey, I’m on Doherty’s side and he won’t print my comments either.

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

I would not like to hold this up as exhibit A in my defence that’s a certainty.

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

the crucial point here i think, is whether Mr Deer approached the GMC, or whether the GMC approached Mr Deer.

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:

In GMC ‘complainant’ cases an individual will have approached the GMC with a complaint against a particular ractitioner.

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

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.

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

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.

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

alyric on 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?

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:

“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.”

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

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???

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

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.

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

Joseph Step Up and Condemn his words.

What am I, a leader of the autistics in this thread now or something? You can express your own opinion. I’ve expressed mine to the level I think is appropriate given what has transpired. Clay has expressed his. It wouldn’t hurt to see what other autistics here think.

@One Queer Fish: As you can see, we have more important things to discuss here. Your “spiraling” non-controversy is not that interesting anymore.
Matrk
February 17th, 2009
01:02:15

Joseph
“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.”

Brian knows exactly what is offensive.
he has frequented this blog for at least 3 years. As I have.

I would mind seeing judge Eadys letters now you mention it
Dedj
February 17th, 2009
01:06:12

Why should we condemn his words?

It’s very well known amongst autism services that a minority of people with an ASD or BAP, can be vicious, vindictive and manipulative.

We, as members of the ND movement, have to accpet the fact that autism and being a bit of a prick are not mutaully exclusive.
Dedj
February 17th, 2009
01:13:17

I wouldn’t mind seeing the Judge Eady letters either.

Bear in mind, Eady did not say Deer was the complainant, nor did he say the 3 letters were all complaint letters, or even official complaints (which would actually support Deer’s claims, as it could mean at least 2 complaints were dropped, possibly meaning the 3rd could have been dropped also).

Deer has a GMC representative confirming that he was not the complainant.

On the other hand, he has a judge saying that he wrote a letter of complaint.

To challenge the judge over this error would be foolish, as Judge Eady handed Deer a phenominal victory over his detractors. To spend extra money and time over a minor niggle would be pointless.
John Stone
February 17th, 2009
01:16:51

“The festering nastiness, the creepy repetitiveness, the weasly, deceitful, obsessiveness, all signal pathology to me.”

I just wonder that Brian Deer can use this terminology and not intend it to be “insulting” – it certainly doesn’t sound very scientific. But since he has taken to re-diagnosing children from 12 year-old medical records (without anyone apparently questioning his knowledge or competence) perhaps we all better watch it!
K
February 17th, 2009
01:58:53

Dedj:

Why should we condemn his words?

It’s very well known amongst autism services that a minority of people with an ASD or BAP, can be vicious, vindictive and manipulative.

We, as members of the ND movement, have to accpet the fact that autism and being a bit of a prick are not mutaully exclusive.”

Um, no I don’t accept your characterization nor Mr. Deers. If you would like to say I have at times sensory processing issues or that I have problems with communication, and you know this of me as an individual, then yes, I would say that your interpretation of these things could leave you to believe I am a prick, but that would be your interpretation.

I would also say, that what you wrote could be said of EVERYONE and is not exclusive to autistic people anymore than any stereotype of any minority is true of everyone in that group.

Doubly insulting is to use my disability as a metaphorical insult against another person because when that is done, its meant to insult the other person because my disability is considered fodder for insult throwing.

If you want to say I personally know people who are pricks, that is quite different than saying autistic are pricks because of their disability. Just because some autistic people also happen to be pricks doesn’t mean it is a comorbidity of autism. Perhaps they are just pricks?! or perhaps you perceive them as pricks because of their difficulty communicating in acceptable terms to you.

But throwing an insult at someone and using that person’s child’s disability is very low to me. Sorry Dedj, I don’t think you get it from my point of view.
K
February 17th, 2009
02:04:51

Dedj wrote:

“We, as members of the ND movement, have to accpet the fact that autism and being a bit of a prick are not mutaully exclusive.”

Can you provide some reference for this broad generalization other than the non-autistic service providers you cited earlier?

I think individuals can be pricks but I’m not ready to blame it on their autism and or disability.
Yellowriver
February 17th, 2009
02:10:16

The festering nastiness, the creepy repetitiveness, the weasly, deceitful, obsessiveness, all signal pathology to me.”

It sounds more like he’s trying to be some kind of poet or is he worried about his job and needs to go in another direction.
Chris
February 17th, 2009
02:10:44

K, you are taking it too personally, and it has nothing to do with with Wakefield’s actions, which is what is what this discussion should be about. Did he or did not fudge data on his paper? It was shown in the testimony (posted above) that he used bad PCR data, but did he also fudge the patients’ medical data?

Personally, I am more concerned about the vitriolic attitude, extreme closed mindedness and being completely clueless to reality exhibited by certain people. It cannot be good for their children, who deserve better.
Amanda
February 17th, 2009
02:12:59

And some of us don’t think that terms related to any mental “pathology” should be used as insults, much less having repetitiveness described as “creepy” or obsessiveness described as “weasly” and “deceitful”.

Reminds me of people who tell me that I move like a zombie (in part because of repetitive movements—and I’ve heard “creepy” too). There really aren’t too many good ways to take that. And I don’t think that the ends justify the means, or that just because someone believes something I also believe, then they can do no wrong in other areas, and thus that it’s wrong to criticize them somehow.

It seems like there’s some kind of unwritten rule that treats saying “Hey, you know that’s not a great thing to say/imply about people,” as if it’s (a) no more than a spiteful personal insult, and (b) an unthinkable thing to say about someone who’s done something important and right.

And it’s pretty irritating. (And also why it takes me a long time to trust people who say they’re allies. It seems like half the time everyone’s allied around one thing only, which in itself would be okayish, except that it ends up meaning that the rest of us don’t get much respect, and get treated like the troublemakers for pointing out there’s a problem.)
K
February 17th, 2009
02:24:19

Yes Chris, I am taking it a bit personally, but that’s mainly because I feel really insulted. I’ve spent the last three years defending this guy on blogs, on news websites, everywhere only to find out he had these views. I feel a bit like I’ve been deceived. I’m also a little angry with myself for being so gullible. I have no one to blame but myself on that one so I say “my bad”.

I do believe his reporting is accurate. It’s too bad he chose such ugly words to describe autistic people and to use a child’s disability to sling an insult at that child’s parents.

If I don’t speak up, who will? He should stick to the reporting and not stoop to the level of his critics. Its about winning an argument on the science and screw the “feelings of the subjects” of that science, by both sides, that I find very disappointing. I’m also disappointed again that I am so gullible and seemingly stupid.
K
February 17th, 2009
02:28:07

Sorry, I shouldn’t have written “If I don’t speak up, who will”. There are other people speaking up and I didn’t mean it to sound like I wrote it and regret that I wrote that.
alyric
February 17th, 2009
03:04:30

“The festering nastiness, the creepy repetitiveness, the weasly, deceitful, obsessiveness, all signal pathology to me.”

Sorry K feel insulted all you like but it’s not about you or any autistic either. Brian said so and very clearly too. The above statement belongs to three people. Honestly the nerve of some people to go off all offended when it’s not about them at all. Is this some form of narcissism so you can feel all self righteously huffy or can we get back to what the discussion should be about, which is the malfeasance of one Wakefield?
K
February 17th, 2009
03:09:08

Alyric : “it’s not about you or any autistic either.”

Well, there you go.

Sorry, the troublemaker autistic will just go away now. After all, this has nothing to do with autistic people.

It’s ok to use disability to sling insults as long as the person doing it supports your beliefs.
Kelli Ann Davis
February 17th, 2009
03:11:06

“But throwing an insult at someone and using that person’s child’s disability is very low to me.”

You mean like this: “The fact is, none of these characters gives a damn about autistic people….Kelli Ann go F yourself too.”

K: You might want to “practice what you preach” next time you want to complain about being “insulted” by someone else.

And Kev:

“Damn good question Kelli Ann – maybe one we could direct to David Kirby regarding the Hannah Poling concession documents hmmm?”

I can guarantee you David Kirby didn’t have medical records handed over to him by “officials” as seems the case with Brian Deer. BIG DIFFERENCE.

So Brian, how did you get your hands on confidential medical records?? And more importantly, who decided it was in the “public interest” to release them to a reporter???
K
February 17th, 2009
03:22:50

Kelli Ann, I guess you wouldn’t care about Deer’s comment about your child because your in agreement.

I was practicing what I preach, I didn’t say I was against insults, I said I was against a particular kind of insult that uses a persons disability as the insult.
alyric
February 17th, 2009
03:52:13

K

Where did you get the idea that disability had anything whatsoever to do with Brian’s remarks. Did he at any time say that these three specific people were disabled? I don’t remember any such comment. Again, what’s this got to do with you?
K
February 17th, 2009
04:04:00

Alyric asks:

“Where did you get the idea that disability had anything whatsoever to do with Brian’s remarks.”

“And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains.” – Brian Deer
Dedj
February 17th, 2009
04:10:59

“I can guarantee you David Kirby didn’t have medical records handed over to him by “officials” as seems the case with Brian Deer.”

Except, Kirby seems to have had them and published them well before anyone could have had public access to them. I believe this was heavily discussed over at Orac.

“Sorry Dedj, I don’t think you get it from my point of view”

Of course I don’t. You’ve entirely missed the point that it’s possible for some people with autism to be unsavoury characters for reasons that have nothing to do with autism, or that have everything to do with bias in the observer, but it’s also possible for people with autism to be electively vindictive and aggresive for reasons that are related to traits of social impairments or special interests.

I hate it when the special skills that some of us have are dismissed as ‘part of thier autism’, when it’s clear it was because of the effort of the person, but it’s also equally important to recognise that saying ‘because of their autism’ is not equivilant to saying ‘they can’t help it’.
Joseph
February 17th, 2009
04:27:09

You mean like this: “The fact is, none of these characters gives a damn about autistic people….Kelli Ann go F yourself too.”

@Kelli Ann: “Go F yourself” is not at issue. You can object to an insult like that on different grounds, but that’s not what is being discussed.

Um, no I don’t accept your characterization nor Mr. Deers. If you would like to say I have at times sensory processing issues or that I have problems with communication, and you know this of me as an individual, then yes, I would say that your interpretation of these things could leave you to believe I am a prick, but that would be your interpretation.

@K: I wanted to address this part, because here you are taking it too personally, in these sense that Dedj saying that some autistics can be pricks does not apply to you specifically. Autistics can be lots of things. Autistics can commit murder, etc. You’re not saying autistics are saints?

That is independent of the problem of using neurological disability to insult people, which I do agree is a problem.

I recognize, though, that it is very difficult for people not to use disability as an insult. It’s ingrained in culture. Autistics use neurological disability as an insult constantly.
K
February 17th, 2009
04:28:44

“but it’s also possible for people with autism to be electively vindictive and aggresive for reasons that are related to traits of social impairments or special interests.”

Do we blame other people’s neurology when they are pricks about their special interests? Since when did vindictivism become a core component of autism? If these traits are found in other neurologies, then that goes to my point that to attach a negative trait to autistic people that can be found in every group is wrong. I’m sorry, I just disagree. You can go on the Hub and find lots of very unvidictive, very nice and caring autistic people. You can also find some pricks there. But they aren’t a prick because of their autism. They are just plain vanilla pricks.

Do we blame a person’s race if we find the negative stereotypes true in an individual?

Again, here is the quote that set me off a bit

“And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains.” – Brian Deer
K
February 17th, 2009
04:35:54

@K: I wanted to address this part, because here you are taking it too personally, in these sense that Dedj saying that some autistics can be pricks does not apply to you specifically. Autistics can be lots of things. Autistics can commit murder, etc. You’re not saying autistics are saints?

I agree, autistic people can be a lot of things, but what is being attributed can be attributed to all people and are not specific to autistic people as a group. Where I’m taking issue is when we attribute the above characteristics specifically to autistics and as a result of their autism. Being aggressive, a prick, vindictive and other such traits are not unique to autistics nor a result of their autism. Turn on a soap opera or any daytime talk show. Heck, based on the criteria above, everyone on the show Dallas was autistic :-)
Joseph
February 17th, 2009
04:49:23

Another thing that needs to be said is that Brian Deer’s work product is completely unrelated to his views on autism or the way he talks about disability. One has absolutely no bearing on the other. It’s possible to consider both issues separately and objectively.

His views on autism and disability probably don’t differ a whole lot from those of any other person.

With that said, I do have to wonder the following. What if JB Handley or Kelly Ann Davis had said exactly the same two things?
One Queer Fish
February 17th, 2009
10:33:36

Having just looked at the various comments on Mel’s site and other sites, it would seem that Mr Deers stance of not showing the Judge Eady letters is steadily declining his once strong position heading ultimately to a busted flush.
Matrk
February 17th, 2009
10:54:40

Brian is not our allie .
his inability to produce Judge Eadys letter , the fact he has access to children s medical reports which he can reference unchallenged. his instigation of a case which he is financially gaining from.
he’s spent the last 3 years claiming the children an neither sick or autistic now hes saying that he thinks they have “problems with there brains”
and to top it all of he seems to think it’s quite acceptable to insult other in terms of mental illness and autistic pathology.
many people have been moderated or banned from this blog for less.
Kev your attempt to defend him was feeble I have mild dyslexia and have problems processing written sentences.
Brian Deer
February 17th, 2009
12:59:07

For visitors outside the UK, who will not have experienced the impact of the print edition of my latest stories, I’ve built a temporary page at:

http://briandeer.com/solved/solved.htm

I hope this puts the discussion here into context.

Meanwhile, I have other things to get on with.
Joseph
February 17th, 2009
12:59:48

he’s spent the last 3 years claiming the children an neither sick or autistic now hes saying that he thinks they have “problems with there brains”

To clarify, Brian Deer has been saying that most of the children didn’t have GI illness, per their hospital records. He might have said they are not autistic, but this wouldn’t mean they don’t have other neurological disabilities.

You can’t expect someone to be on your side on every issue, if you see they are on your side on one issue. I don’t think that’s the problem at all.
Dedj
February 17th, 2009
13:30:01

“Being aggressive, a prick, vindictive and other such traits are not unique to autistics nor a result of their autism.”

The idea that a persons autistic traits can never contribute to a persons general unlikable demeanour strikes me as bizarre.

If we’re willing to argue that a persons autistic traits can help them to become a trained musician or great researcher, we must be willing to accept that some people with autism or BAP can display autistic traits during periods of unsavoury behaviour.

I fail to see why this is a hard concept to grasp.
One Queer Fish
February 17th, 2009
15:16:41

Mr Deer the busted flush is still on sooner or later thanks for the url to your web site but without your letters to Judge Eady, it seems pointless .On a similar matter I noticed on a forum that the 3 cases in America are possibly going to apply under the Freedom of Information Act on any and all correspondence between Brian Deer and the US Dept of Justice and US Dept of HHS involving the MMR vaccine and autism I suppose the same over here could happen probably revealing more that just the Eady letters.
alyric
February 17th, 2009
15:57:37

K said

“And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains.” – Brian Deer

Well you’ve got that out of context too, not surprising – see up thread, Kev has a comment on it. At least now you’re on very flimsy grounds.
alyric
February 17th, 2009
16:04:56

Stinky fish said:

“I noticed on a forum that the 3 cases in America are possibly going to apply under the Freedom of Information Act on any and all correspondence between Brian Deer and the US Dept of Justice and US Dept of HHS involving the MMR vaccine and autism ”

Since it’s hedged around with lots of maybes it’s probably not going to happen but it sure would be good if they did. Sunlight folks is the best disinfectant and the more exposure Wakefield gets the better. He tends to avoid answering questions direct so it would be rather nice to see him squirm while all this investigation was on-going.
K
February 17th, 2009
16:12:18

Alyric said:

“Well you’ve got that out of context too, not surprising – see up thread, Kev has a comment on it. At least now you’re on very flimsy grounds.”

I didn’t realize there was a proper context to use such ableist insults. I refer to Amanda’s post above as well as Joseph’s. I don’t think you really understand this from my perspective so I’ll leave it at that.

Dedj:

“The idea that a persons autistic traits can never contribute to a persons general unlikable demeanour strikes me as bizarre.”

That is a personal perspective, not a rational for group blame. Judge people as individuals, stop assigning group blame. If you can show me that no one other than autistic people are any of those metaphors you used, then I’ll rethink my position.

“If we’re willing to argue that a persons autistic traits can help them to become a trained musician or great researcher”

We? I don’t make those statements as they are just as ableist as the insults. I do read some folks making those associations, but autistic people are neither more talented nor untalented based on their autism.
One Queer Fish
February 17th, 2009
16:40:15

Alyric

As i say busted flush just a matter of time..

http://foia.blogspot.com/2009/.....lease.html
brian
February 17th, 2009
23:09:22

Although some of you have suggested that journalist Brian Deer is biased, it might be useful to bear in mind what bias means in a scientific context:

“Bias occurs in science when data are either wittingly or unwittingly concealed.”
AJ Wakefield. 1998. The Lancet. 351(9112):1356
alyric
February 17th, 2009
23:27:03

Nice one Brian:) The JABS contingent around here might have to think about that one, in that the one thing Brian Deer has not done is conceal data. You’d think they would be grateful for the data, clarification and all but they aren’t. There’s no pleasing some people.
John Stone
February 18th, 2009
00:09:23

alyric

“Nice one Brian:) The JABS contingent around here might have to think about that one, in that the one thing Brian Deer has not done is conceal data. You’d think they would be grateful for the data, clarification and all but they aren’t. There’s no pleasing some people.”

Wrong: Brian Deer certainly has not revealed the data, he has just made an allegation, so far unsupported (as he admits here):

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co......ment-56374

Meanwhile, we are confronted by the improbability that the other 12 co-authors signed off the study knowing that Wakefield had made the changes under their noses.

Anyhow, Deer is also not publishing the data in relation to his dealings with the GMC, which is also of vital public interest. So everything is actually on trust (indeed, concealed).
One Queer Fish
February 18th, 2009
00:31:07

alyric
Mr Deer has concealed his Judge Eady letters as Mr Deer knows; to be serious in your reports as a journo you must be open to scrutiny and show you aren’t biased with your information. Mr Deer sadly is failing miserably on both these accounts and leaves himself open to the criticism in kind he is rewarded copiously with ,on the various papers and web sites such as the Spectator. As matters stand in not publishing his letters the scenario now couldn’t be, quite simply more “biased” and so simple to resolve in which I hope he will by releasing his Judge Eady letters.

“Nothing to hide nothing to fear”.
Sullivan
February 18th, 2009
01:22:57

I guess I am not following Mr. Stone’s argument.

He says that Mr. Deer may not be presenting accurate information. If giving inaccurate information in a newspaper is bad, how about in a publication, press conference and 10 years of subsequent press releases (as in Dr. Wakefield’s case)?

But, once again, this is all a smoke-screen. Try to focus on Brian Deer, see if you can make enough mud stick. What Mr. Stone studiously avoids is the damage to Dr. Wakefield’s entire body of work for the past 10 years if he has been misrepresenting his results.

Dr. Wakefield refused to address the specific faults with his data—pushing responsibility off on his co-authors.

Why hasn’t Dr. Wakefield refuted each of the specific examples of misrepresentation of data that Mr. Deer presented?
Prometheus
February 18th, 2009
02:20:48

Perhaps I’m being a bit obtuse, but why does it matter if Brian Deer was the “complaintant” to the GMC when it was Wakefield’s actions that led to his investigation?

We’ve already heard more than enough testimony under oath – in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings – to know that Dr. Wakefield knew that there was no measles virus in his samples. That doesn’t seem to be causing as much stir as the question of whether or not Brian Deer made a complaint to the GMC.

Heck, if Mr. Deer thought that Wakefield had violated medical ethics in the way he carried out his research, it was Mr. Deer’s obligation to report it, as a member of society. If good people stand by while evil is done, what will become of us all?

If Mr. Deer’s complaints were unfounded, Dr. Wakefield will have an opportunity to present evidence in his defense. If Mr. Deer’s complaints were maliciously false – which nobody seems to be asserting – I assume there are procedures for dealing with that, as well.

As for all the caterwauling about what the GMC and the VICP have done to “poor autistic children” and their parents – isn’t it in everybody’s best interest that the truth be known? If the best evidence shows that vaccines don’t cause autism, isn’t it better to know that? Of are we better off if we are allowed to believe a convenient or palatable (for some) lie?

To me, all of the focus on Mr. Deer is nothing more than a vain attempt to direct the public’s attention away from Dr. Wakefield. If Mr. Deer obtained documents and information by illegal means, then he should pay the penalty. If not, he has done a valuable service to society by exposing Dr. Wakefield’s actions.

Besides, when have we – as a society – ever turned our eyes from evidence of wrongdoing because of how it was obtained? Did we say, “Oh, the Pentagon Papers were obtained illegally, let us not consider their contents.”? No! If Wakefield did what he is accused of doing, he should answer for it!

Additionally, all of the bleating about “due process” (which doesn’t apply to public debate) and “presumed innocence” (ditto, sad to say) is simply a ruse to try and make us feel “bad” about ourselves and – maybe – generate a little pity for poor, hounded Dr. Wakefield.

Well, Dr. Wakefield may have the hounds on his tail, but it appears – even before Mr. Deer’s latest revelations – that he has deserved it. He has an opportunity to clear himself before the GMC and he should avail himself of that opportunity, if he can.

Meanwhile, let’s not hear any more whinging about how “evil” and “mean-spirited” we are to be discussing the latest in a long, sad string of revelations of the ethical lapses of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Prometheus
alyric
February 18th, 2009
02:31:39

Sullivan this is getting tiring. The fish and Stone keep bringing up the same old irrelevancies as if they were the least bit important compared to Wakers not being able to refute a thing. He tried through his libel case and he lost big time. Wonder what excuse our dynamic JABS duo will use to explain away that.

Whatever they come up with, it’s getting boring. Good thing that Deer is such a good journalist who knows his craft. The loonies won’t get any change out of him on either side of the pond. Lord knows he’s had enough practice to recognise the breed and know how to handle them.
JosephS
February 18th, 2009
03:24:50

HCN - “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/”;

They, do not have a forum. Jabs is a forum for families who have been affected in some manner from vaccines and yes, members do get excluded for being renegade’s ( as in, dissent to the laws of the country) which, try to bully other members to see sense as they, see it. Jabsloonies is an example of fevered profanities over, out of context statements.

brian – “Bias occurs in science when data are either wittingly or unwittingly concealed.”
And this explains he did what, exactly?

Alyric – “ It’s getting boring.” Yes, Suppositions, insults, and wait, more suppositions and insults. This helps who….? The glee club.
John Stone
February 18th, 2009
08:46:40

People are being naieve about evidence here.

A High Court judge has said in a binding legal judgement that Brian Deer complained about Wakefield (at least three times). Deer, however, has said that they were not letters of complaint. The only reason for demanding that Deer produce the correspondence and publish it on his website (as he has published so much else) is to show that he cannot without discrediting himself. Deer presently stands discredited because he will not produce the correspondence.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 18th, 2009
10:19:04

“Deer presently stands discredited because he will not produce the correspondence.”

Okay. By that logic, it should be accepted on ALL sides that the non-production of kids ‘cured of autism’ automatically invalidates ANY claim that any kid has been cured of autism.
One Queer Fish
February 18th, 2009
10:27:54

I for one do not doubt Mr Deer’s professionalism applied to his journalism with which he can only do. Simply it is a fact needing clarified so as to answer his critics and this debate on here can then move forward.
If Mr Deer chooses not to publish his Judge Eady letters of complaint, it discredits his journalistic excellence, which up until now has been intact, and so far as the Spectator articles et-al are concerned a “no reply” shall be documented, fuelling further articles of the same and Mr Deer knows better than anyone else how these matters snowball, simple as that nothing else.
One Queer Fish
February 18th, 2009
10:56:12

busted flush on the cards

http://childhealthsafety.wordp.....al-action/

As for the Legal Aid money, for months in 1996 the Royal Free Medical School prevaricated accepting it because “Clearly, this could lead to a case against the Government for damages.” wrote Dean Zuckerman privately to the British Medical Association Secretary on 11th October 1996.

What no one knows and disclosed here publicly exclusively worldwide for the first time is that when The Sunday Times published its allegations against Wakefield in 2004 their journalist already had the documents showing Wakefield – a man accused of doing what he did for the money – was fed up with this and had arranged in May 1997 for all the legal aid monies to be sent back and that he had intended to raise the money himself for the injured children [see copy Freedom of Information memo below – added 17/Jan/09].
John Stone
February 18th, 2009
11:18:01

To state it even more clearly, Deer evidently recognised that it was a material issue whether he complained or not, because he denied it and even produced the Field Fisher Waterhouse letter. But what he has not done is produced the correspondence, so he is disputing what the High Court has ruled, which is very silly unless we can see the evidence.
Joseph
February 18th, 2009
13:08:42

He tried through his libel case and he lost big time. Wonder what excuse our dynamic JABS duo will use to explain away that.

They do try to rationalize that. I believe they say Wakefield preferred to spend his time on the GMC hearings. That makes no sense, of course. Removing himself from that libel case was highly damaging to Wakefield’s reputation. It’s obvious Wakefield withdrew after Brian Deer produced certain documents.
Kev
February 18th, 2009
13:13:54

Good grief. Brian, says it. The GMC say it. One judge uses a bad form of words and you hang on that like a rock climber slipping down a rock face and hanging on by one fingernail.

Get over it.

Now, lets back to whats important – the content of Brian’s journalism. The content of the evidence produced against Wakefield.
One Queer Fish
February 18th, 2009
14:53:51

Kev simply it’s the content of his Judge Eady Letters that we wish Mr Deer to publish: Mr Deer’s kudos as a journo is disappearing fast. Quite simply, publish or be dammed
John Stone
February 18th, 2009
14:59:46

Clearly this is a question that the regulars here do not want asked. If the judge just used “a bad form of words” why doesn’t Brian Deer publish the letters to show how mistaken we are?
Joseph
February 18th, 2009
15:07:16

Why doesn’t David Kirby publish all his correspondence with Generation Rescue and anyone connected with the Hannah Poling case, to answer charges that vaccine litigants might have been leaking information to him, and that he is payed by autism organizations?

Why doesn’t everyone publish all their correspondence with everybody else? That will clear things up.
One Queer Fish
February 18th, 2009
15:25:10

Joseph
You presume there is a connection between Mr Deer and payments from whom exactly? This is drawing a parallel with your own assumptions of David Kirby above of cash and non publication and this is why Mr Deer wont publish his letters form Judge Eady because it would expose monies of payment.. I see it more as Paranoia.. myself I’m quite sure Mr Deer has nothing to hide and nothing to fear.. simply just publish the document and silence all..
Dedj
February 18th, 2009
15:25:30

I find this game of ‘Gotcha’ with Brian truly hilarious.

On the one hand, he slated for talking about confidential information whilst respecting anonimymity.

On the other hand, he has people demanding he publish confidential information for thier personal perusal.

If Brian Deer is the original complainant – this will prove what exactly?

Remember, Brian is under no obligation not to follow in the footsteps of many other complainants and keep on investigating.

Not a single person has managed to quote a passage from a Act, white paper, or GMC/DoH command document thast forbids him from his behaviour.

Until they do, the best we can hope for is for the fun to keep on coming!
Dedj
February 18th, 2009
15:32:13

Amazing, we’ve gone from ‘Brian Deer is the original complainant’ to ‘Brian Deer took cash to be the original complainant – and was stupid enough to mention it in his letters’.

What next?
Joseph
February 18th, 2009
15:48:06

@One Queer Fish: What in the heck are you talking about? Seriously.

This is my read on the current situation.

The initial charge was that Brian Deer was the complainant who triggered the GMC investigation. Melanie Philips is apparently the one who came up with that claim. Then David Kirby repeated it. David Kirby, in fact, compared it to Brian Deer having sued Wakefield.

Well, that clearly didn’t match the historical record, and then Brian Deer also produced a letter from the GMC that shows the above to be impossible.

Now the spin from the JABS people is that Brian Deer could still be a de facto complainant. I’m not sure how this is interesting, relevant or improper, but that’s basically what they are hanging on to.

The reasons they are asking for Brian Deer’s correspondence are two-fold:

1) If Brian Deer does not produce all the GMC correspondence he has (a likelihood, if you note the letter he published is marked private and confidential) they can claim Brain Deer has something to hide.

2) If Brian Deer produces all the GMC correspondence he has, they can quote mine it to show that Brian Deer is a de facto complainant. They can also quote mine it for other bits they can use to attack Brian Deer and the GMC.

Am I right?
alyric
February 18th, 2009
16:14:04

Well now we know what sort of person the fish is and it’s not edifying. Would you look at this -history as she is rewritten:

“What no one knows and disclosed here publicly exclusively worldwide for the first time is that when The Sunday Times published its allegations against Wakefield in 2004 their journalist already had the documents showing Wakefield – a man accused of doing what he did for the money – was fed up with this and had arranged in May 1997 for all the legal aid monies to be sent back and that he had intended to raise the money himself for the injured children”

So the money went back did it? You’re either terrifically naive or dishonest and I think it’s the latter given the extent of the revisionism. The money – nearly one million dollars stayed in Wakers pockets and he built a very lovely very expensive house next door on the proceeds.

This is revolting.
One Queer Fish
February 18th, 2009
16:18:00

Joseph
no one is saying your right or wrong on all accounts above .This debate on here is a simple request to prove that Judge Eady is wrong in his selection of words (un heard of from a High Court Judge? show me some examples)

Sadly at this moment in time Mr Deer is the one who started the whole “who dunnit! “by saying he wasn’t the complainant ..as night follows
day publish the letter or be dammed simple as that…put your monies where your mouths are if not it’s a done deal ,a busted flush.
alyric
February 18th, 2009
16:20:36

John

as Kev said – get over it. No matter what Eady said in his careless fashion apparently it changes nothing. The GMC says that he’s not the complainant and common sense says he can’t be either. That leaves Eady with egg on hi face by the way. He should have known that Deer could not be a complainant.

You’re still left facing Wakers malfeasance, which you don’t like looking at, but tough – it’s not going anywhere and what Deer does or doesn’t do (minimal they said) isn’t going to save Wakers no matter what.
alyric
February 18th, 2009
16:32:02

Oh one very important point. The fish talks about the Royal Free wanting to reject the legal aid money. This is a serious and fabricated statement. They never knew about the money or the arrangements Wakers had with Barr. Those monies went to individuals. If the Free could have been implicated in any way, there would have been hell to pay. Hospitals don’t take legal aid money for ethical reasons too numerous to mention.

Fish when you try for the big lie, try something reasonable with a fair chance of working.

I’m beginning to see this bottomless pit of lies that Deer’s been putting up with. It’s incredible.
Ringside Seat
February 18th, 2009
16:38:56

Perhaps Mr Deer’s reluctance to say anything about Mr Justice Eady’s wording is that the judge gave Mr Deer a spectacular victory over Mr Wakefield in the High Court, as one can see from Mr Deer’s website.

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/eady-judgment.htm

I would not be wholly shocked if Mr Deer positively looked forward to the prospect of seeing his lordship again!

Also, it appears that, far from dropping his action because of the GMC hearing, Mr Wakefield had already obtained a stay in his claim against Times Newspapers until after the hearing, so there could be no possible conflict between the two.

As for Mr Wakefield’s conflict of interest, I think that was evidenced beyond doubt with proof of his four hundred thousand pound secret income from the English legal case.

http://briandeer.com/mmr/st-dec-2006.htm

and his vaccine:

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm
One Queer Fish
February 18th, 2009
16:52:28

Well half the lies on here arent true,are they? and the main one being it seems that a High Court Judge fudged his words ..its becoming the laughing stock on all over the world (www) ..obviously some posters on here dont like rasonable argument backed by evidence which is all we are asking Mr Deer for simple as that…sorry i cant write any more for laughing sorry..
alyric
February 18th, 2009
17:15:16

Keep laughing Fish it helps enormously with your lack of credibility.

This JABS place can’t be a healthy moral influence, but then aren’t they cozied up with a real piece of slime called Martin Walker? He’s got some track record apparently as an exploiter predator type. No moral high ground there at any rate so what can we expect from the gullible like fish?
Sullivan
February 18th, 2009
19:35:28

Clearly this is a question that the regulars here do not want asked.

Wrong. That’s why we have this blog post, and others like it. So we can discuss these things.

Clearly you are avoiding the big issues (Wakefield’s misconduct).
Sullivan
February 18th, 2009
19:43:56

Well half the lies on here arent true,are they? and the main one being it seems that a High Court Judge fudged his words ..its becoming the laughing stock on all over the world (www) ..obviously some posters on here dont like rasonable argument backed by evidence which is all we are asking Mr Deer for simple as that…sorry i cant write any more for laughing sorry..

Just because you and others are trying to attack Mr. Deer’s credibility and make him a laughing stock doesn’t make it so.

So, how about the real story? How about Dr. Wakefield’s misconduct? How about the fact that if half of what Brian Deer presented is true, Wakefield’s papers are junk and should be retracted? Would you care to comment on that?

Please, explain how Wakefield’s conclusions hold up if, say, kids were showing signs of autism pre MMR? How about if the regression came months, not days, after the MMR?

It is amazing—the person you should be angry at is Wakefield. Ask him to defend specific actions. Instead you keep defending him. Amazing.
John Stone
February 18th, 2009
20:30:48

Sullivan

I don’t think there is a shortage of people to attack Dr Wakefield, in fact there is howling mob of them, all deriving their opinions from one source – so, I think you can probably manage without me and, indeed, I am happy to leave you to it.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 18th, 2009
22:51:42

“you can probably manage without me and, indeed, I am happy to leave you to it.”

Good.

Now fuck off!
alyric
February 18th, 2009
23:00:16

Sullivan. these JABS folks are so blinkered, well maybe you can have some kind of dialogue with some of them but not the lot that showed up here, who seem to be fringe. Must be hard to control the membership when you’re an anti-vaxxer because you attract the rabid element.

Actually, it’s rather stunning that Stone thinks he’s going to get a response from Deer given that JABS is such a fringe organisation of rabid antivaxxers. What credibility have they got anywhere?
Sullivan
February 18th, 2009
23:24:00

Mr. Stone,

There is a BIG shortage of people who can actually defend D. Wakefield’s actions. A lot of people, you included, who have decided to attack Mr. Deer instead of facing the very difficult question: what is left of the MMR causation theory in light of the information Mr. Deer has provided?

There is no shortage of people believing in the MMR causation theory, all getting their information from one, very unreliable source (Dr. Wakefield).

Either you accept that Mr. Deer’s story is true, or you should be lodging a complaint with the GMC for Mr. Deer’s inaccurate representation.

My guess is that Mr. Deer would come through such a complaint clean. My guess is that you know that too.
One Queer Fish
February 19th, 2009
00:29:04

Mr Sullivan

The simple solution for Mr Deer is to publish his letters as mentioned by Judge Eady. Everyone knows on here that this furore is snowballing on here, and elsewhere around the www its rampant and out of control .If Mr Deer is still non-compliant and refuses to publish the Judge Eady letters the Dr Wakefield camp see it as another victory and rightly so. When there is zero evidence available to back up what Mr Deer’s pen say’s so be it , the debate on this matter is closed and victory to Dr Wakefield on this matter…it’s a busted flush. I ask you is it not quite simply, dogmatism to argue differently, and a bum deal to go seeking further dogma from the GMC on the validity of Mr Deers work when Mr Deer can cut to the chase and end the furore now..
Tsu Dho Nimh
February 19th, 2009
00:29:17

Isabella Thomas said:

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?

The pathologists who examined the bowel biopsies did not find abnormalities. By the time the results were published, someone – presumably Wakefield – wrote that there were abnormalities.

Draw your own conclusions.
Dedj
February 19th, 2009
00:54:29

“and elsewhere around the www its rampant and out of control”

Really? The top results are, in no particular order:

Brian Deer’s own website from 2 years ago.
Melanie Phillips.
A copy of Eady’s judgement.
Melanie Phillips.
A BMJ article from 3 years ago.
and Melanie Phillips.
Then it’s Paul Dacre all the way down.

Hardly ‘running rampant’ is it? In fact, no one appears particuly bothered except those who wish to claim some form of victory from him.

Somehow showing that Deer is the original complainant will somehow show something. It’s already been established well beyond reason that complainants are not obligated to stop independant investigations (and ironically, it was independant investigation that brought the parents to Dr Wakefield in the first place), and it already been shown without exception that Deer’s detractors can quote neither paragraph nor title of any Act or process that would preclude Mr Deer from doing so.

In essence, this attempt at playing ‘Gotcha’ would be pointless and wastfull , even if it were true.

Sad goings on indeed.
K
February 19th, 2009
00:56:59

To some:

It’s quite obvious that Mr. Wakefield’s (I use Mr. because he is about to be stripped from using Dr.) defenders don’t really care whether Mr. Wakefield committed fraud and they are having a fine time stoking you guys. The fact is, the defender’s of Mr. Wakefield are much more interested in defending him than they are in protecting their children. They have much more emotional capital invested in Mr. Wakefield.

I think there are several reasons for this. Primarily, I think it is caused by the way that mainstream medicine has treated their children (e.g. like animals). From the time of diagnosis and through the years, autistic children and then adults are treated as if they are animals by mainstream science. Mr. Wakefield, though also guilty of treating autistic children as if they are animals, is a smooth and seemingly caring person willing to listen to the grief of these parents. He is respite for them. He is a martyr figure for them. Someone that is saying “something” happened to these children and they feel he is being persecuted. Its a classic case. For the same reasons, the Geiers are able to do their Frankensteinian chemical castrations. Its why Matthew Israel is protected. Until mainstream science offers answers or comfort to grieving parents, this will continue.

Brian Deer doesn’t care ultimately about autistics, but rather rooting out corruption and dishonesty. That’s a worthy cause. He’s done good work here, albeit he joins the legions of others that perpetuate the autistic as damaged and pitiful. He should be taken to task for his insults against autistic children by those defending him because they are concerned with the proper welfare of autistic people, but not to the point of condemning his inner bigotry.

It seems to me that both sides are angry about the current state of autism. One side is concerned with not having their grief recognized and for mainstream science’s response to their children, and the other side is angry that these other parents are defending quackery.

Ultimately, the internal answer will not be found in these debates. It will be found during a dark and lonely moment for each, alone, perhaps crying on a future denied, where they come to the conclusion that the past is the past , that battles of this nature are personally destructive to themselves and their souls and recognize the future will be measured by how hard we work to make life better for our children in the best way that we can and on a local level.
One Queer Fish
February 19th, 2009
01:39:07

Kev
“Ultimately, the internal answer will not be found in these debates.”

There is always the argument against papers such as the Times :and other news papers are losing their clout year by year. They are losing advertising monies, too.

The better parts of the web are gaining better reputations and monies .What you have to ask yourself is Natural selection or Intelligent design ?

Cut to the chase Mr Deer ..why not publish now and make Kevs site go of the scale?
K
February 19th, 2009
01:47:07

queer fish I’m not Kev.
alyric
February 19th, 2009
03:10:41

Fish

you and Stone are JABS and therefore not credible. JABS is after all one of the rabid anti-vaxxer sites. Do they have credibility anywhere? Consequently you can hang around here thinking you’re going to get a response but that’s a form of self delusion about your importance in the scheme of things. Why should anyone take notice of you?
passionlessDrone
February 19th, 2009
03:11:40

Hi Sullivan –
“There is no shortage of people believing in the MMR causation theory, all getting their information from one, very unreliable source (Dr. Wakefield).”

It is my experience that you are incorrect. I only know about twenty parents of children with autism, and two of them both had children that were talking, one in full sentences, until the day they got the MMR. They didn’t have a clue who Wakefield was until their child stopped talking, that day, and went on to developed autistic tendencies. Of these parents, two are lawyers, one is an engineer, and the other a graduate student; they are not stupid people, they did not imagine their children were speaking before the doctors appointment.

For whatever reason, folks want to focus, focus, focus on Wakefield; which I feel unfortunate for a vareity of reasons, but whatever the result of the trial and ad naseum blogging on how horrible a person he is, it will do absolutely nothing to change what people have experienced.

– pD
Sullivan
February 19th, 2009
05:21:48

pD,

it’s odd that the petitioners couldn’t find any cases amongst 5,000 as strong as the ones you find in your experience.

While I can understand your mistake, you misinterpreted what I stated. But, I see where I wrote it poorly, so I won’t belabor it.

Also, stating that people may misremember events is not the same thing as stating that they are “stupid people”. We all forget important things. I know of one person who is reasonably intelligent, yet he was totally wrong on the “autism is just a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning” thing.
Sullivan
February 19th, 2009
05:23:00

pD,

as long as you are here, would you like to take on the big question? If Mr. Deer’s information is correct, isn’t Wakefield’s work reduced to rubbish?
One Queer Fish
February 19th, 2009
09:17:19

Mr Deer’s journo reporting loses kudos daily and will not be taken seriously by anyone outside this self worshiping forum. Mr Deer needs to disclose all his paper work relating to the Wakefield autism/mmr affair Brent Taylor,Nuki John Reid, and last but not least Judge Eady etc. Mr Deer’s work will sadly always have that dark cloud hanging over it until he does ..
Joseph
February 19th, 2009
13:58:01

It is my experience that you are incorrect. I only know about twenty parents of children with autism, and two of them both had children that were talking, one in full sentences, until the day they got the MMR.

@pD: I pose the same question to you that I did elsewhere. If what you tell us is so common, why couldn’t the PSC come up with slam dunk test cases? They had a lot of time to do so and thousands of claimants to choose from.

It appears that once you look at video evidence and clinical records, the recollections of the parents turn out to not be very reliable.
alyric
February 19th, 2009
14:51:17

pd

They picked Michelle Cedillo as a test case. Not a good choice. The video evidence showed clear signs of autism before the shots and her gastro problems started years after the shots. Was that the best they could do?
Brian Deer
February 19th, 2009
18:00:21

By the way, here is the paragraph from the General Medical Council’s investigator’s handbook, showing that launching investigations on the basis of media reports not only happens, but happens sufficiently frequently for there it to be set out in writing.

Enjoy:

“Press Cuttings

“On a daily basis, the GMC receives copies of articles that have appeared in the Press. These are received in hard copy format by an IM. The IM will consider whether any of the articles could form the basis of a new Enquiry which we need to progress through the Fitness to Practise procedures. If it is decided that we should create a new Enquiry on the basis of a press cutting, the press cutting will need to be sent to the Scanning Team for ad hoc scanning to the appropriate Investigation mailbox in Siebel.”
One Queer Fish
February 19th, 2009
20:03:35

Mr Deer you know thats a diffrent scenario as Mel puts it in the Spectator

http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel.....ghts.thtml

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?”
apgaylard
February 19th, 2009
20:30:15

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?”

The Washington Post during the Watergate crisis.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that Wakefield has been debunked – not just by Deer – but by a whole raft of scientific studies.
One Queer Fish
February 19th, 2009
22:37:36

Once again i would like to simply keep an open mind on this

http://www.autism.com/families/videos.htm
Matrk
February 19th, 2009
23:45:42

Brian thanks for digging that out really interesting,,,but not really applicable in a case where the journalist is the complainant.
BTW Have you found the full corespondense between your self and the GMC or perhaps the Judge Eady letters? I assumed thats what you have been doing the last couple of days.
Matrk
February 20th, 2009
00:09:22

Brian
unfortunately Sebiel was only implemented at the GMC in 2006 so if you were told earlier that this was the process someone is not telling the truth..
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/4148
so the best thing for you to do to clear this whole messy thing up is publish the Judge Ealy letters.
Dedj
February 20th, 2009
00:36:24

Publishing the Judge Eady letters won’t help a bean.

If they’re complaining (moaning) letters people will claim this proves he is the original complainant – yet no one has been able to quote Code or Act that prohibits him from investigating futher – and will claim he’s too heavily involved – yet informants are not prohibited from contuining to collect evidence.

If they’re official complaint letters, then he will have been the original complainant, unlikely and irrelevant as the investigation was brought under Reid, by the GMC, with the consent of Wakefield. The whole idea of this ‘Gotcha’ is to prove that Deer is involved and reporting it without declaration – something confirmed as false by the GMC.

If they match with Deer’s statements, you won’t hear a peep of apology from anyone. They’ll just move on to something else.

No one has yet said what they would actually do with the information, or even how it harms Deer’s case. We’ve just had repeatative demands.

No one here would dare lift a finger in complaint if Deer was a parent trying to get a errant Dr off the book through campaigning, but somehow Deer ‘hiding’ behind a nationally broadcast documentary and a publically accessible and self-named website is seen as conflict of interest, even though he’s been confirmed by the only relevant authourity as not having the status that’s supposedly his source of conflict.

No wonder he dismisses his detractors as cranks, it’s hard enough just trying to guess at what the hell point they think they’re trying to make.
K
February 20th, 2009
00:43:13

Dedj: “No wonder he dismisses his detractors as cranks,”

He didn’t dismiss them as cranks. He dismissed them by saying they had the same “broken” brains as their children.
One Queer Fish
February 20th, 2009
00:53:12

Guys look ,it is as simple as this it stops the doubters doubting Mr Deers journo articles if he publishes and shows he is not the complainant.. what’s the problem with the Judge Eady letter’s? That’s the number one Chinese whisper going round the www just now everywhere?

what’s the problem with the Judge Eady letter’s? as Mr Deer wont publish them??
Sullivan
February 20th, 2009
01:36:53

I guess you have mistaken me for someone who cares about those letters.

The number one question about autism and MMR floating around the WWW is whether the Omnibus decisions will have an impact on future families accepting the theory.

The number two question is whether the information Mr. Deer presented will cause a retraction (finally) of the Wakefield papers. And, will this affect future families.

I don’t think many people outside of your closed circle of friends have even heard of the Judge Eady letters, much less care.
Matrk
February 20th, 2009
12:39:48

mr fish
I does seem a little perverse that the people here are quite happy for Mr deer to riffle through autistic (or disabled) children’s confidential medical record and quote from them unchallenged. but when it comes to revealing his own correspondence he digs out a solicitor letter and a “process document” from the GMC which clearly was not in place at the time the complaint was made.
what is Brian hiding?
Isabella Thomas
February 20th, 2009
16:15:38

K on 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.

K,

Why did you call Dr. Wakefield ‘the gut perforator’?
This is a very serious accusation and need answering please.

This is labous
Isabella Thomas
February 20th, 2009
16:42:28

The word in the last paragraph to K dated February 20th is wrong and should say libelous not labous.
Typing too fast.
Isabella Thomas
February 20th, 2009
16:43:45

The word in the last paragraph to K dated February 20th is wrong and should say libellous not labous.
Typing too fast.
Joseph
February 20th, 2009
17:04:13

The gut perforator is actually Simon Murch, Wakefield’s colleague.
brian
February 20th, 2009
17:17:38

Perhaps K is referring to the case of Jack Piper, the child who suffered at least 12 bowel perforations during a colonoscopy procedure performed at Wakefield’s direction (Wakefield was the senior scientific investigator) by his colleague Simon Murch. Perhaps you will agree that Wakefield bears some responsibility for life-threatening injuries inflicted during a research procedure that a High Court ruled was ‘not clinically indicated or justified’ when Piper was awarded £500,000.
John Stone
February 20th, 2009
17:42:26

brian

The claim you have just made is without foundation as a careful reading of this admittedly misleading report in the Mail on Sunday shows this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....a-pig.html

The report states:

“High Court papers alleged the colonoscopy procedure performed on Jack in 1998 was “not clinically indicated or justified”.”

So there were papers in the prosecution bundle which made this allegation, but the claim was not apparently considered to be of sufficient merit to be introduced to the hearing. Further down the report admits:

“Claims by his parents that they could not give proper consent for the operation, and that the procedure amounted to assault, were not tested in court.”

So, there was definitely no ruling. Perhaps what is fascinating about the report is that while Wakefield and Murch’s names are smeared all over it, the name of surgeon responsible for botching the procedure and the nature of his negligence are never revealed.

I wonder, was there a GMC hearing into that? The real story here is not told. But the innuendo is obvious.
Joseph
February 20th, 2009
17:51:20

@John Stone: Explain what the purpose of the colonoscopy was. Why was it indicated? Whose idea was it?
John Stone
February 20th, 2009
18:30:41

Joseph

“@John Stone: Explain what the purpose of the colonoscopy was. Why was it indicated? Whose idea was it?”

And why should I know the specific reasons for the colonoscopy but your presumption that there was no good reason for Murch to suggest one has no particular basis. I would point out that that NAS issued a statement before the GMC hearing:

“The National Autistic Society (NAS) is keenly aware of the concerns of parents surrounding suggested links between autism and the MMR vaccine. The charity is concerned that the GMC hearing, and surrounding media coverage, will create further confusion and make it even more difficult for parents to access appropriate medical advice for their children.

“It is particularly important that this case is not allowed to increase the lack of sympathy that some parents of children with autism have encountered from health professionals, particularly on suspected gut and bowel problems. Parents have reported to the NAS that in some cases their concerns have been dismissed as hysteria following previous publicity around the MMR vaccine. It is crucial that health professionals listen to parents’ concerns and respect their views as the experts on their individual children.

“There is an urgent need for further, authoritative research into the causes of autism, to improve our understanding of the condition, to respond to parents’ concerns and to enable us to ensure that there are appropriate services and support in place to meet people’s needs.”

http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/.....38;a=13952

Now, I don’t think the NAS is any particular friend to Wakefield but it does acknowledge that there is a genuine problem with autism and bowel disease – so it is a little surprising that the paediatric gastro-enterology department at the Royal Free were seeing autistic children without bowel disease (according to Brian Deer, Evan Harris and the GMC prosecution) when there were plenty who did.

Furthermore, the suggestion that two senior gastro-enterologists – John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch -should have been ordering colonoscopies without clinical justification is quite extraordinary, and I should be surprised, even now, if the GMC finds against them.

The tragic Jack Piper story suggests the reverse conclusion to the one that you jump to. Thanks to the prosecution of the Royal Free doctors autistic children with bowel problems are not getting investigation or treatment. They are being discriminated against.
Sullivan
February 20th, 2009
18:55:37

Mr. Stone,

rumors of you leaving this discussion were obviously exagerated…by you.

Do you have evidence that autistic children at the RFH are being discriminated against? That those with genuine indications of bowel problems are not getting investigation or treatment? Or is this just another in a long line of unsupported assertions?
John Stone
February 20th, 2009
19:05:24

Sullivan, I quoted an NAS statement which was not specific to the Royal Free but related to the situation in the country as a whole. Are you suggesting that they made it up?
Yellowriver
February 20th, 2009
19:08:01

Mr Deer

There is no perhaps, he should be, and has been held responsible for life-threatening injuries inflicted during a research procedure for which, damages have been awarded. Let’s not forget, there were families who were pursuing litigation procedures against pharmaceutical companies for vaccination damages before Wakefield entered the frame and, had the results of his study found an irrefutable positive link, this would have aided claimants in their litigation procedures. It is horrific that this happened to a child in the first place, and it is also horrific that the child and his family have had to endure this tragedy and to be subject to reminders by the ongoing Wakefield et al affair. Having said that, it is equally horrendous that thousands of vaccine damaged children have life threatening injuries from which they have had no compensation for. Having an ASD tag with no causation links whatsoever enables vaccine damages to be withheld by way of inconclusive evidence. Extending Wakefield’s study into something more than it was, is irresponsible and damaging to many. Is it too much to ask, that all those responsible for stonewalling and perpetrating misguided misinformation, be held accountable for hampering further investigations and/or providing support, care and compensation for others affected by another life threatening injury to be considered?
Joseph
February 20th, 2009
19:38:57

The NAS statement says nothing about acknowledging “that there is a genuine problem with autism and bowel disease.”

Clearly, autistic children will have bowel disease from time to time. However, there is no reliable evidence that this occurs more often than in non-autistic children.

It would be unfortunate if doctors just dismiss real medical GI issues that autistic children have, just because they are autistic. Like Sullivan points out, though, there’s no evidence this is occurring, just speculation. But if this were really happening, I would further speculate Wakefield and his supporters should carry the bulk of the blame.
Sullivan
February 20th, 2009
19:39:26

Mr. Stone,

Since you are back, will you address the issue of whether Dr. Wakefield’s studies will have any validity if Mr. Deer’s story is true?
Sullivan
February 20th, 2009
19:42:04

One of the great logical problems with the bowel disease/autism arguments.

Argument 1) Doctors won’t acknowledge that bowel disease is linked to autism.

Argument 2) Doctors won’t treat bowel disease in children with autism, since they think it is just a part of the autism.
Dedj
February 20th, 2009
20:09:14

The NAS statement clearly refers to the risk of being dismissed by your doctors as being scared into imagining GI symptoms (or connecting them to autism) by the current ‘hearsay’ on autism and GI.

It doesn’t even go on to mention diagnostic overshadowing – it makes a clear statement that some Dr.’s may be additionally skeptical of parents (or self) claims of bowel problems, squarely and completly due to the current and past publicity over MMR and autism.

To take a simply and clearly worded statement and to even imply that it offers any support to the autism and increased gut problems arguement, is to badly misread it or to outright lie about it. No apology for attempting to pass it off as such will be expected, thus none will be asked for.

They are talking about autism and gut problems, but in terms of attitudes, not correlation.
alyric
February 20th, 2009
20:28:41

This seems to be a pretty typical Stone piece of attempted obfusaction:

““Claims by his parents that they could not give proper consent for the operation, and that the procedure amounted to assault, were not tested in court.”

So what, something was tested all right to get the boy paid half a million pounds. But no, the payment doesn’t seem all that relevant to Stone. Doesn’t he like it that Wakers has responsibility – senior researcher and all?
daedalus2u
February 20th, 2009
21:01:40

John Stone, do you have reading comprehension difficulties? What part of:

The hospital admitted the operation itself was negligent and gave Jack and his family a public apology.

don’t you understand?

Colonoscopies entail risks. They are only justified when the posible medical benefits outweigh the very real and very well known risks.
One Queer Fish
February 20th, 2009
21:08:14

It’s bedside’s the point where’s the Eady papers i did think they would be published for the Sunday Times this weekend oh! Forgot Mr Deer and the Sunday Times have been silenced by a court letter. or that’s what the www is saying?

Guys your arguments will never! “walk the walk all you do on here is talk the talk “ without the evidence namely

the Eady letters of complaint please you’re the laughing stock of the Autism www
Dedj
February 20th, 2009
21:31:36

Very few people outside of a very small circle of people seem to be even aware of the Eady letters, much less care about them.

As pointed out before, the top google results for this issue are:

This webpage
two of Brian Deers webpages
3 articles written by Melanie Phillips

There appears to be no evidence what so ever that this ‘is the issue of the autism www’ , or that there is even more than a handful of people that care if Deer is ‘the laughing stock of the autism web’

No one else seems to give a damn.

Anyway.

Brian Deer has said that he is not the complainant. Right, that word means that he has the status of the person lodging the complaint in a trial or hearing. Deer as been officially confirmed as not being the complainant. His status as ‘the orginal complainer’ does not a: make him the original complainant, b: give him the status of complainant.

Brian Deer does not possess the status that people are using to accuse him of being in conflict of interest.

No Act or Code has been quoted that forbids Deer from his current actions even if he did have status of original complainant.

Deer would have to be a stonking idiot to publich the Eady letters. Any whiff of a moan and the Deer hunters would be all over it. Complete exoneration and you wouldn’t hear the apologies for the sound of feet running the other way.

Examples have been given of reporters reporting on stories they were involved in. Scenarios have been given where a complainant may still investigate a case.

No one has yet explained how it would harm Deers case, apart from contrived negative publicity, if it were true.
Dedj
February 20th, 2009
21:39:10

Oh yes, there’s also a 3 year old BMJ article. And an archive of this webpage.

I think the term is ‘burned out’ , not ‘set on fire’.
One Queer Fish
February 20th, 2009
21:45:07

Its quite simply a case of facts Mr Deer cant provide them when required to do so.Mr Deer has supplied only innuendo backed by no evidence and is that not peculiar to a Journo who can without redress produce and publish confidential children’s medical documents, everything including the kitchen sink and bidet ,but! no Judge Eady papers.If it was me I would publish them and be dammed ..nothing to hide nothing to fear ,that’s the mark of a true professional journo and an also ran?
Brian Deer
February 20th, 2009
22:15:38

Of course, in all the excitement of this thread, I wouldn’t want folk to lose sight of my landmark report of the weekend before last: I believe the first time ever that a journalist has gone behind the words on the page of a medical research paper, and compared its claims with original case data.

The issues go much wider than just MMR: with my findings raising the question of why we give such weight to what we read in the journals.

The work of journalists is always eventually open the scrutiny. Perhaps Isabella can advise, but if what I published was untrue, I would get caught out eventually. Other journalists can check my facts, and even cranks can, for example, attend the hearings of the GMC. But with medical journals, you can’t get behind the words: until now!

I was told by a very senior medical journal editor the other day that a guy at the New York Times has for years been trying to accomplish something similar with other papers, but, to my knowledge, I’m the first ever to do it.

Perhaps this is immodest of me, but I’m very proud of this accomplishment, which will always be a highlight of my professional career. I’ve got some great tables comparing the Lancet paper with the children’s actual histories and diagnoses. Eventually I will publish them.

Meanwhile, back to the Omnibus hearings, where I see one of the special masters highlighting the fact that Dr Wakefield was repeatedly accused of scientific fraud.

http://briandeer.com/solved/cedillo-wakefield.htm
One Queer Fish
February 20th, 2009
22:39:47

Mr Deer simply ,the accusations of fraud against Dr Wakefield are based on one Journalists opinion your good self, no parent has ever complained past history at the GMC shows most of the complaints at the GMC stem from a parent or family member its curious to say the least..

Quite simply its a bad day when you have to blow your own trumpet in highlighting the above now banned (by the Sunday Times)newspaper article written by yourself . Mr Deer with the greatest of ease you are willing to publish further confidential children’s medical records but not your very own personal letters to Judge Eady why??
Matrk
February 20th, 2009
22:59:34

Brian you are quite right you are at the pinnacle of your career its all down hill from here.
of course the NYT is known for its unbiased reporting and especially its reviewing of Dr Offits book several months after publication.
also interesting to know you are on such good speaking terms with the editor…
Sullivan
February 20th, 2009
23:04:21

I know of one family which has quite publicly complained about Dr Wakefield’s clinic.

OQF: could you explain what you mean by Banned (by the sunday times) newspaper article?

Here is one of the articles I linked to above.

And, here is the other.

Both come up quite readily.

Is there a different article that you are referring to that has been “banned”. Could your provide a link?
Sullivan
February 20th, 2009
23:15:31

Brian you are quite right you are at the pinnacle of your career its all down hill from here.

Why make such childish statements?

Mr. Deer claimed it is “a highlight” of his career. Not the pinnacle, not the highlight, but a highlight.
One Queer Fish
February 20th, 2009
23:41:18

i am big enough to apologise my url(your first one) that i had saved wouldn’t open hence i thought the article had been removed/banned..mind you I did notice it has been changed at the top of the heading saying

” This article is the subject of a legal complaint”
No further movement on the Eady letters that’s what im really looking for so that the debate can move forward on here and elsewhere ..
Sullivan
February 21st, 2009
00:51:01

The letters are not holding up any debate or discussion.

The lack of people refusing to discuss the actual facts in terms of what the details Mr. Deer has disclosed means to the Wakefield studies does.

Would you like to take that discussion forward, One Queer Fish? Please, what is your opinion of Wakefield’s studies if Mr. Deer’s information is correct?
Dedj
February 21st, 2009
01:13:32

“I believe the first time ever that a journalist has gone behind the words on the page of a medical research paper, and compared its claims with original case data.”

Depends how tightly you define ‘original data’

It’s not unheard of for some researchers to allow the data (anonymised of course) to be available for scrutiny, although such research is usually done using outside data collectors working to an agreed protocol and hardly ever on complex data such as case histories.

I would doubt you’d be the first, but you’re undoubtedly amongst the few that have been so villified, when you’d otherwise be cheered if you were a parent investigating say, Dr Offit.
Dedj
February 21st, 2009
01:20:03

“Its quite simply a case of facts Mr Deer cant provide them when required to do so.”

But he isn’t required to do so. None of the people demanding the letters have indicated how their arguements about Deer’s involvement in the case would be either vindicated or supported, even if the letters did contain what they alledge.

Quite simply, Deer could have written 30 letters, but if he’s not the capital C Complainant then he does not have the status (or indeed the rights) of the Complainant, thus he is not obligated to follow either the Code or Act that governs the behaviour of Complainants.

Deer has not been shown to be in contravention of any Act or Code. In fact no-one appears to have stated clearly what he’s actually supposed to have done wrong, beyond continuing to report on something he ‘hides’ on a plainly public website and a nantionally broadcast documentary.
alyric
February 21st, 2009
02:08:29

“past history at the GMC shows most of the complaints at the GMC stem from a parent or family member its curious to say the least..”

Careful Fish you’re in danger of showing you do know what a complainant is. Now just a wee bit further and you’ll admit it.
One Queer Fish
February 21st, 2009
10:03:47

simple ,we all know that on here there are no clear charges against Dr Wakefield . Nothing about the case has been straightforward, nothing is clean or without the dirty finger marks of conspiracy, sleaze, innuendo, and vested interests of others. If Mr Deer was the complainant then the case against Dr Wakefield wouldn’t stand for the nano second it would take to read the Judge Eady complaints showing numerous conflicts of interests .Mr Deer has as Journo, complainant, main feeder etc of the charges?, There is a saying round here “your arse is out the window and flapping” this applies to Mr Deer if the Judge Eady letters say what Judge Eady said they said which fingers Mr Deer as the complainant and consequently in breach of the GMC code of conduct .

So there you have it guys now tell me which part of my request(show the Judge Eady letters) isn’t fundamental to the complaint against Dr Wakefield, and a resistance by Mr Deer not to show them, nothing to hide…I- d-o-n-t- t-h-i-n-k- s-o
Dedj
February 21st, 2009
13:35:10

“and consequently in breach of the GMC code of conduct ”

Really? Page and paragraph please.
One Queer Fish
February 21st, 2009
14:50:41

Quite simply for instance …

http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/ro.....ers.asp#19

c. Must not act maliciously or make false allegations.

d. Must not seek personal gain.
Sullivan
February 21st, 2009
16:39:00

simple ,we all know that on here there are no clear charges against Dr Wakefield

Which is why I phrased my question to you so clearly. And you dodge it with nonsense. I didn’t ask you to address “clear charges”, but the specific discrepancies between Dr Wakefield’s paper and Brian Deer’s news story.

The ONLY answer is that if Mr Deer’s article is correct, Wakefield’s study is junk.

If this were the only indication that Wakefield is wrong it be one thing. But, there are multiple studies trying to confirm Wakefield et al., and no confirmation.
One Queer Fish
February 21st, 2009
17:15:41

Dr Wakefield explains clearly the discrepancies between Mr Deer’s article and the facts Mr Deer w as we know has no medical background ..who would you believe?..Quite simply to add substance and Kudos to Mr Deer’s allegations ,and to quieten the Wakefield corner, it is fundamental Mr Deer publishes his Judge Eady letters of complaint, simply the reasons Mr Deer does not publish his letters is that it might, and probably does expose his position as the complainant in the GMC hearing, in which case he would be exposed as in breach of the GMC regulations chapter and verse..
Hard rock your call..

http://www.autismone.org/docum.....sponse.pdf
K
February 21st, 2009
17:38:28

Queer Fish

GMC regulations apply to doctors, not journalists. Let’s be honest. If a doctor took a chainsaw to an autistic child and cut his bowels out to prove it was the source of autism, you wouldn’t give a damn because in the end, you view the child as non-person unworthy of ethical medical attention. That’s the bottom line. For you and folks like you, a diagnosis of autism is a reason to perform experimentation on children because the experimentation is the lesser of what you view as two evils.

You’ll never be outraged at cases like Jack Piper or Tariq Nadama because you don’t see them as true human beings endowed with the same rights as other children, namely the right to ethical treatment and evidence based science. For you, all you care about is your own petty campaign for a doctor that you believe has the same interests as you but in the end, you are blind to his real motivation which is money, adulation and notoriety. All of which is at the expense of your child which you gladly sacrifice him/her for.
Dedj
February 21st, 2009
18:04:42

Deer is not making a complaint against a GMC council member. Thus the document quoted above does not apply to him.

Some of us like to read the information given to us by others to see if it is what they say it is.

Others obviously cut and paste without thinking.
One Queer Fish
February 21st, 2009
18:50:42

guys,no suprise is it , Mr Deer is not publishing the Judge Eady papers??nothing to hide publish the papers Mr Deer please..

Chapter 19
Procedure for dealing with complaints against members and the removal or suspension of Council membership under Paragraph 4A(3) of Schedule 1 to the Medical Act 1983 (as amended)

http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/ro.....ers.asp#19

Scope

1. This procedure is for considering complaints about a member. This includes, but is not confined to, complaints or information which allege or appear to imply a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct or which could otherwise lead to the suspension or removal of a member from office on the grounds set out in the GMC (Suspension and Removal of Members from Office) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’).

Principles

2. This procedure aims to resolve complaints and other issues at the earliest stage practicable, and to avoid unnecessary escalation or delay.

3. At all stages under this procedure, the member shall have:

a. The right to be heard.

b. A reasonable opportunity to persuade.

c. A reasonable opportunity of learning what is alleged and of putting forward an answer to it.

d. The right not to be taken by surprise.

e. The right to see documents relied upon.

4. A person using this procedure should:

a. Disclose information in good faith.

b. Believe it to be substantially true.

c. Must not act maliciously or make false allegations.

d. Must not seek personal gain.

Procedure

5. A complaint or other information should be in writing and addressed to the President. In the event of a complaint or other information about the President, another person designated by the Council shall assume the responsibilities that are assigned to the President under this procedure.

6. A complaint or other information should normally be submitted within two months of the event or of the event coming to the complainant’s knowledge.

7. A member of staff other than the Chief Executive or a Director who wishes to make a complaint against a Member should use the GMC grievance or harassment procedures initially. A Director should raise any matter with the Chief Executive in the first instance. The Chief Executive should raise any matter with the President.
Dedj
February 21st, 2009
19:19:13

OQF - you have been informed that the document you quote relates to complaints against GMC council members. This would not need pointing out to any rational, reasonable reader, as it’s clear from both content and context.

Dr Wakefield is not a GMC council member. Thus the document does not apply.

Any further attempt to reference the document in relation to Mr Deer can only be construed as an out and out attempt at lying, or a sign of desperation and/or incompetance.

I would advise you to inform your source as to thier error of reading.
Isabella Thomas
February 21st, 2009
20:46:02
1. Joseph on February 20th, 2009 17:04:13
The gut perforator is actually Simon Murch, Wakefield’s colleague.

Joseph,

A very serious statement to make .
Is this just your opinion or have you got proof?
One Queer Fish
February 21st, 2009
21:12:03

You are right of course. Interesting article here remember what i said concerning snowballing and matters gaining weight if rumours are unattended to ,namely the publishing of the Judge Eady papers.

http://www.americanchronicle.c.....view/91757

Governments and Drug Companies need backup plan as GMC case on Dr Wakefield falls apart.
February 20, 2009

Christina England

It is fast beginning to look as if the ‘Wakefield’ case was a put up job by British Journalist Brian Deer. Dr Wakefield is a British doctor who is being investigated for ‘Serious Professional Misconduct’ by the British General Medical Council for his claims that the MMR is linked to Autism and a painful bowel condition. It is rumored that Mr Deer has wagered a 10 year hate campaign on Dr Andrew Wakefield. He has written a series of extremely damaging articles in a British top selling newspaper ‘The Sunday Times’. It has now been revealed that he is the complainant behind the GMC complaint which has seen three top doctors Dr Andrew Wakefield, Dr Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, face being struck of the medical register for serious professional misconduct and he has a hate website dedicated to Dr Andrew Wakefield which can only be described slanderous.
Isabella Thomas
February 21st, 2009
21:13:08

http://www.americanchronicle.c.....view/91757

See link above from America stating,

Governments and Drug Companies need backup plan as GMC case on Dr Wakefield falls apart.
Matrk
February 21st, 2009
21:19:22

It’s clear to me who set the initial complaint in this case, Deer ignoring this issue will not make it go away.
alyric
February 21st, 2009
21:30:58

Dedj, you have to hand it to Fish for the number of attempts to snowball something. If she weren’t such a habitual liar it might have a better chance of succeeding but lets face it, she has no talent for the job. So far she has pretty faithfully regurgitated all the standards – it’s only Deer, he runs a hate site and it’s slanderous. Pity she pays no attention to the history that says Wakers tried that slander gambit and had to pay a lot of money to weasel out of it. So no the site isn’t slanderous. Meanwhile we’re waiting with baited breath for her to admit that with Deer right and Wakers wrong, it looks like there’s a lot of hot air and nothing more to the MMR causes autism hypothesis and that leaves Wakers completely discredited and deserving probably of a criminal investigation not just the disciplinary hearing of the GMC.
Joseph
February 21st, 2009
22:33:53

All the articles stating that the scientific fraud allegations against Andrew Wakefield have been shown to be false are clearly a case of argument by assertion (and outright lying).

Let’s see if Isabella Thomas, Fish and Stone are able to demonstrate that the allegations are false.
John Stone
February 21st, 2009
23:19:53

I think it might be helpful to point out that all three doctors have been relentlessy grilled about the 12 cases at the present hearing, and you would think if Wakefield was changing data it would have emerged. I don’t think the prosecution counsel made much headway with proposition that the children did not have serious GI problems – and in fact this aspect of the case had already largely unravelled in 2007 when most of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence very helpful to the defence. Loads of senior professionals, and not just the three doctors on trial were involved in clinical decision making about the children. I don’t believe that the prosecution has substantiated its case, either that children were part of a formal study or that they were involved in legal action at the time the investigations were carried out. The hearing has also heard that Profs Walker-Smith and Murch held quite independent views on the issue from Wakefield, and it was they who in consultation with other professionals decided on colonoscopies on grounds of clinical need (not part of Wakefield’s brief).

Personally, I would be surprised if anything happened at all to Walker-Smith and Murch as a result of the hearing.

The suggestion that 12 professionals allowed Wakefield to change the data underneath their noses, and this has not been previously discovered after 5 years of hostile investigation strikes me as somewhat implausible.

Of course, you can’t tell what the panel will decide but generally speaking if things were going Brian Deer’s way at the hearing I think we would have heard rather more from him about it.

Nothing leads me to believe that the allegations could be remotely true.
One Queer Fish
February 21st, 2009
23:43:58

Don’t any of you guys on here get distressed on my behalf, my only interest is simply to have an eye to the truth. We on here are not the only ones left wondering if, Mr Deer’s allegations are false , his boss editor at The Sunday Times Mr John Witherow is just now pondering his future, response to the letter below and if Mr Deer is false or not?. Whoever is genuine isn’t going to be decided on here quite simply one of the big riding factors now is the Judge Eady letters of complaint and Mr Deer isn’t showing them or defending his stance of not revealing them…the snowball has just got another foot thicker..

letter to Mr Deer’s boss Mr John Witherow

http://childhealthsafety.wordp.....ing-story/
A letter received by Editor Witherow late yesterday charges:-
The journalist Brian Deer and The Sunday Times, London have breached the overall obligations of the PCC Code regarding the “duty to maintain the highest professional standards” and The Sunday Times is also in breach by publishing such a story. The journalist Brian Deer has demonstrated a remarkable lack of professionalism, a disregard for professional ethics and an obsessive interest in Dr Wakefield, belying the detachment, objectivity and impartiality of a modern professional journalist in the 21st Century.
Mr Deer has demonstrated gross breaches of professional ethics in his behaviour and reporting, including his personal interest in making the complaints which have led to the extraordinary and intensive General Medical Council proceedings against Dr Andrew Wakefield. In short, Mr Deer stands to lose professionally should his complaints to the GMC prove not to be upheld and he has a personal interest in publishing stories to prejudice the GMC panel against Dr Wakefield to see that they are, which seems could well be one of the purposes of the story under complaint. Very much the same charges could be levelled at The Sunday Times itself in its reporting and that of its sister paper, The Times, London.“ [Full text below]
Sullivan
February 21st, 2009
23:46:31

Mr. Stone, your premise is so far wrong as to be a joke.

“and you would think if Wakefield was changing data it would have emerged”

It just did! Read Mr. Deer’s stories.

The suggestion that 12 professionals allowed Wakefield to change the data underneath their noses, and this has not been previously discovered after 5 years of hostile investigation strikes me as somewhat implausible.

Perhaps you missed these paragraphs.

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.”

However, after her challenge, it was explained, Wakefield’s team met for a “research review” of the biopsies. It was not an unusual move for a group of specialists to reconsider the evidence upon which their research was relying. It was nevertheless striking that their conclusion was that 11 of the children’s bowels were in fact diseased when their colleagues had found no abnormalities in at least seven of the cases.
alyric
February 21st, 2009
23:47:47

Stone would you mind trying for a little honesty rather than your usual. You must know that the fabricated data charges are not in front of the GMC. They may be later or they may be handed on elsewhere but you do know they form no part of current proceedings and Deer himself explained why. At the pace this part time committee moves, more charges would be enough to topple proceedings. As for your plausibility, well that’s all you ever had and it pales into insignificance against the actual charges so why don’t we possess our souls in patience and see what the GMC actually does.

What you believe to be reality isn’t terribly persuasive since so far you’ve managed to avoid the bits you didn’t seem to want, like the absence of ethical oversight, the publication of data knowing that it was nothing more than a string of false positives, the huge financial conflict of interest undisclosed. Actually accepting legal aid moneys without letting anyone know about it is as low as one can go. The sheer size of any of these would be enough to make a reasonable person pause, which lets you out of the realm of reasonable people.
Sullivan
February 21st, 2009
23:49:12

Nothing leads me to believe that the allegations could be remotely true.

And, if they are found to be true by people other than Mr. Deer? Then the question is whether you can’t believe the allegations because they are from Mr. Deer, or because your loyalty to Dr. Wakefield won’t allow it.

In either case, it demonstrates a clear bias.
Sullivan
February 21st, 2009
23:51:08

Don’t any of you guys on here get distressed on my behalf, my only interest is simply to have an eye to the truth. We on here are not the only ones left wondering if, Mr Deer’s allegations are false , his boss editor at The Sunday Times Mr John Witherow is just now pondering his future, response to the letter below and if Mr Deer is false or not?.

Given the previous legal action against Mr. Deer (which Dr.Wakefield lost), it seems a fairly safe bet that the editor looked very closely at the information that led Mr. Deer to his conclusions.
Sullivan
February 21st, 2009
23:52:42

What you believe to be reality isn’t terribly persuasive since so far you’ve managed to avoid the bits you didn’t seem to want,

Did you notice the irony when you wrote that?

Try addressing the issue of whether Dr. Wakefield’s conclusions have any shred of validity should Mr. Deer’s story be true.

I seem to recall that question has been posed to you before.
One Queer Fish
February 21st, 2009
23:59:26

Simply your missing the point, is simply the Judge Eady letters all the above is no more than “smoke and mirrors “by Mr Deer .GRoing by his non defence of his stand of not showing The Judge Eady letters Dr Wakefield shoudnt even be up in front of the hearing ..
alyric
February 22nd, 2009
00:12:38

This makes no sense whatsoever not in English and not even with judicious rearranging.

“Simply your missing the point, is simply the Judge Eady letters all the above is no more than “smoke and mirrors “by Mr Deer .GRoing by his non defence of his stand of not showing The Judge Eady letters Dr Wakefield shoudnt even be up in front of the hearing ..”

What the fish has disintegrated into.
One Queer Fish
February 22nd, 2009
00:23:22

Sorry i was distracted and my thumb hit the enter button on the keypad and the post went of half cocked with me hitting the keyboard trying to stop it as it went. …..anyway, simply point is no Judge Eady letters no Kudos and all the above points are just irrelevant based on questions at the GMC designed in a manner to make Dr Wakefield look incompetent ,which if you’ve ever seen any of his lectures you would be laughed at for suggesting it even in your thoughts that the man is incompetent

.Put me out of my misery where’s The Judge Eady Letters…
Joseph
February 22nd, 2009
00:26:37

So how about it, no one can defend the claims repeated in several places (some linked to in this thread) that the allegations of scientific fraud have been shown to be false? Let’s see how it is that they have been shown to be false.
One Queer Fish
February 22nd, 2009
00:42:46

Simply Dr Wakefield has defended his practices in his reply to Mr Deers “false allegations”

http://www.autismone.org/docum.....sponse.pdf

quite simply how can anyone better Dr Wakefield’s words without mis quoting him?

If Mr Deer cant supply The Judge Eady letters of complaint is it justified to demand answers that only Dr Wakefield can answer himself ,which he has done as above..
John Stone
February 22nd, 2009
00:45:33

Dr Davies was examined for two whole days at the GMC hearing, so perhaps Mr Deer would have had to be under-ingenious not to find at least a single sentence she uttered which might be helpful to his case. Not certain that he has represented the burden of her evidence, though.

http://www.cryshame.co.uk//ind.....mitstart=4
John Stone
February 22nd, 2009
00:48:27

PS I also agree with One Queer Fish that Deer will not have a shred of credibility until he produces those documents.
Isbella Thomas
February 22nd, 2009
00:57:19

http://spectrumpublications.co.....=bfischkin

Bad Justice, Bad Journalism, A Maligned Doctor And A Dead Mother
Anne
February 22nd, 2009
00:58:16

“GRoing by his non defence of his stand of not showing The Judge Eady letters Dr Wakefield shoudnt even be up in front of the hearing ..”

Even if Mr. Deer were the complainant, which he denies, then the GMC would know it and would have decided to proceed with its investigation anyway. Obviously, even if Mr. Deer were the complainant, it has no bearing on whether Dr. Wakefield should be up in front of the hearing.

While I agree that information from a reporter shouldn’t be the sole basis of anybody’s conclusions about what really happened, I doubt that the GMC is relying on newspaper reporters to make its determination of Dr. Wakefield’s fitness to practice. The same is true of the special masters’ conclusions about Dr. Wakefield’s work in the Snyder and Hazlehurst cases. Evidence that Dr. Wakefield’s work was unsupported at best, and fraudulent at worst, came from the testimony of Dr. MacDonald, Dr. Rima, Dr. Chadwick, Dr. Bustin, Dr. Griffin and Dr. Fombonne. This is the kind of evidence that Dr. Wakefield has to worry about. Whether Brian Deer is a de-facto complainant in the GMC proceeding is beside the point.
Isbella Thomas
February 22nd, 2009
01:02:03

Joseph on February 21st, 2009 22:33:53

All the articles stating that the scientific fraud allegations against Andrew Wakefield have been shown to be false are clearly a case of argument by assertion (and outright lying).

Let’s see if Isabella Thomas, Fish and Stone are able to demonstrate that the allegations are false.

Joseph,

The truth will out.
Joseph
February 22nd, 2009
01:09:05

The truth will out.

So you’re admitting those are simply assertions, and you currently have no way to truly claim the allegations are false. Thanks.

In fact, Wakefield’s response appears to be a tacit admission of the facts in dispute, except he’s shifting the blame.
One Queer Fish
February 22nd, 2009
01:25:55

Anne quite simply your attempts to dumb down the importance of the Judge Eady letters is desperate. Mr Deer “de-facto complainant “ has obviously an opposite position on this to yourself hence his robust defence..as for Bustin et-al they were trying to reduce the political pressure that was on them at the time hence the change of evidence…

The Best Of British Journalism Mealanie Phillips writes

http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel.....ghts.thtml
First he threatened to sue the TV station, denying that he had laid the initial complaint which formed the bulk of the GMC inquiry and claiming instead that the GMC had approached him for information about Wakefield following his stories:
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.
Well, various people did think that Brian Deer’s complaint was the trigger for the GMC inquiry. One of those people, it appears, was Brian Deer. Screenshots record that, on his website, Deer previously boasted that he had instigated the GMC hearing. In May 2007, his website noted:
GMC inquiry: After submissions by Brian Deer to the UK General Medical Council, the doctors’ regulatory body announced a public inquiry in to the affair. Sunday Times December 12 2004.
By last week, however, the wording had been changed to:
GMC inquiry: After Brian Deer’s reports, the UK General Medical Council, the doctors’ regulatory body, announced a public inquiry into the affair. The Sunday Times, December 12 2004.
In May 2007, he wrote on his website:
Pending a General Medical Council [GMC] fitness to practice panel hearing – arising from the investigation set out on this page… (my emphasis)
Those highlighted words have now vanished from the website, which uses instead this formulation:
Following Brian Deer’s investigation, and charges laid against Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch by the General Medical Council…
The perception that the GMC was investigating Deer’s complaints about Wakefield was shared by no less a person than a High Court judge. In a libel ruling in November 2006 arising from a Channel 4 Dispatches programme about the Wakefield affair, Mr Justice Eady noted that:
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. In due course, on 27 August of the same year, the GMC sent the Claimant a letter notifying him of the information against him.
Last week, Deer claimed that Eady was ‘mistaken’ and that he had not been the ‘complainant’ in the GMC hearing. In the current narrative of the affair posted on his website, after noting that on March 6 2004 some of the authors of the original Lancet paper ‘retracted’ the interpretation that had been placed upon it, he goes on:
Shortly before this retraction [for the retracted “interpretation” text, check the opening abstract of the Lancet paper], the General Medical Council announced its own investigation into the affair, which it said raised questions over Wakefield’s fitness to practice medicine. GMC officials then approached Brian Deer and asked if, in the public interest, he would pass them his findings, and later requested him to supply his research materials – including pivotal documents – to the council’s retained lawyers, at the firm of Field Fisher Waterhouse [FFW] in London. Deer, however, is not the complainant in the case – which was brought on the GMC’s own initiative – and his information has been compounded with submissions, including complaints, from dozens of other sources, including parents directly involved.
To prove that he was not the complainant, he cites a letter written to him in May 2005 by the GMC’s lawyers, Field Fisher Waterhouse. This ran as follows:
I write further to your telephone conversation with Peter Swain last Thursday seeking clarification in relation to your role in the above General Medical Council (“GMC”) proceedings.
I have now had the opportunity to review the GMC’s files. My understanding is that further to your articles appearing in the Sunday Times in February 2004 in relation to your investigation into Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine, you were approached by GMC case officer Tim Cox-Brown, who asked you to supply the GMC with further information regarding this matter.
Your situation as a journalist who has carried out an investigation into the conduct of the practitioners in question is unusual for the GMC. I note from the GMC and FFW’s correspondence files that there does appear to have been some confusion in relation to your role in these proceedings.
In GMC ‘complainant’ cases an individual will have approached the GMC with a complaint against a particular practitioner. If the GMC decides to hold an inquiry, legal representation is offered to the complainant for preparation and presentation of the case before the Professional Conduct Committee.
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 and clearly involves issues of a wider public interest…
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.]
If Deer had previously been approached by the GMC for this information—presumably in the two days that elapsed between publication of his article and this letter—this was a strange form of words. For he made no mention that it had thus approached him. Instead, he asked the GMC for permission to lay out his evidence before it. So how can this apparently direct contradiction be explained?
One possibility is that Deer had not previously been approached by the GMC, and that there was some other explanation for its lawyers’ letter to him (it does not say, for example, precisely when its case officer had asked him for further information).
But if the GMC had indeed already approached Deer before he wrote to it, then it follows that his form of words was highly disingenuous – purportedly asking for permission to present his information while concealing the fact that it had already asked him to do so. And if this was the case, the GMC would seem to have been complicit in this contrived fiction.
Then consider the timing of all this. Deer says the GMC approached him for information after it had announced its own investigation into Wakefield and his colleagues. Deer’s Sunday Times article appeared on February 22 2004. On February 23, the Times reported:
Investigators for the GMC would speak to Dr Wakefield before deciding what action to take. A GMC spokesman said: ‘We are concerned by the allegations’.
On February 24 the Daily Mail reported that the GMC
said it would be considering what action may be necessary.
On February 25, Deer wrote his letter to the GMC accusing Wakefield and his colleagues of serious professional misconduct. At that stage, the GMC had merely said it was considering what action to take. So whether the GMC approached him before he wrote that letter or not, it was Deer whose complaint was fundamental to the eventual GMC hearing and whose allegations – reinforced by two further letters of complaint to the GMC during 2004 — have formed the bulk of, if not all, the matters it has been investigating.
The GMC itself said Deer’s role was confusing; indeed, its lawyers’ letter to him was apparently in response to his appeal to clear up the confusion. But the question of who actually made the first approach to whom is surely beside the point — as is the distinction between ‘complainant’ and ‘informant’, which is clearly a technicality resulting solely from the fact that Deer was not himself personally involved with these doctors. By any standard, his letter of February 25 was a complaint to the GMC.
The overwhelmingly important point — reinforced by these letters —remains that Deer was absolutely central to the GMC’s investigation. Deer did not merely supply information. His letter laid before the GMC allegations of serious professional misconduct. Moreover, whatever its technical status in the eyes of the GMC it was presented as a formal complaint, giving the full names of the doctors and their registered medical practitioner numbers and phrased in officialese. The GMC lawyers’ letter refers to further meetings with him on 24 February 2005 and 7 March 2005. None of this involvement was mentioned in his story in last week’s Sunday Times.
Isbella Thomas
February 22nd, 2009
01:29:47

Joseph,

Please do not put words into my mouth.
Thank you.

Thank God for doctors like Professor Walker-Smith, Professor Simon Murch and Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
What makes me very sad it that research had to be stopped because of a journalist who was not medically qualified decided to make his own diagnosis of the children’s conditions. A journalist who not only attacks doctors but also attacks parents of autistic who are fighting for justice for their sick children.
John Stone
February 22nd, 2009
01:31:57

It just occured to me that it is quite comical that after more than 100 days evidence at the GMC Brian Deer can only find one sentence he can quote in the Sunday Times!
Joseph
February 22nd, 2009
01:34:07

Either provide a precedent that shows a journalist cannot or should not offer evidence to an investigative commission, or admit you’re making up a standard that is irrelevant, for the only purpose of obfuscating and distracting.
Joseph
February 22nd, 2009
01:39:01

Please do not put words into my mouth.

You clearly admitted tacitly that you cannot show the allegations are false.

Can you admit that saying “the allegations have been shown to be false” is intellectually dishonest?

Let’s see if Isabella Thoma, Fish and Stone can tell the difference between intellectual honesty and intellectual dishonesty.
One Queer Fish
February 22nd, 2009
01:39:22

100 days to write one sentence i thought Mr Deer was an expert on medical matters?Just as well he isnt you would die before you got the prescription..
Chris
February 22nd, 2009
01:46:51

While looking around I noticed the same message on two blogs I go to, and then I googled the tinyurl link used, and noticed that yesterday Clifford Miller spammed a similar message on several blogs:
“It turns out journalist Brian Deer made it up:-
“Sunday Times Journalist Made Up Wakefield MMR Data Fixing Allegation”:
http://tinyurl.com/djbtzq

And he was helping the US Justice Dept sink 4500 US kids claims for vaccine damage compensation – what kind of normal journalist does that? Ans: none.
“US Federal Court, US Justice Dept & The Sunday Times – More Questions Than Answers”
http://tinyurl.com/ac5xkt”;

Well, since Deer did not testify on the Autism Omnibus cases, I am not sure how he helped “sink” the claims (it was pretty clear that the testimony from Chadwick and Bustin pretty much discredited Wakefield, plus the complete idiocy of the some of the petitioner’s “experts”, like Vera “I use their library and I go to their parties” Byers).

Under UK law, is this spamming by Mr. Miller an example of libel?
One Queer Fish
February 22nd, 2009
01:49:25

Joseph

Simply look for an answer in all that was said earlier which was ,if Mr Deer attended to the Judge Eady complaint letters when it arose none of the above speculation and evidence would have arisen ..so ask yourself why Mr Deer is not willing to show the letters? because quite simply it would jeopardise his position as journo ,complainer, feeder of accusations ,compromise journo standards, the list goes on ,and on, and on..
,

Show the Judge Eady letters simple as that and show everyone in the world that Mr Deer isn’t false and the Wakefield case in the GMC doesn’t stem from Mr Deer(seriously)
Isabella Thomas
February 22nd, 2009
01:51:04

Joseph,

What makes you think that Brian Deer is telling the truth?
What evidence do you have against the parents on the front line of all of this?
Joseph
February 22nd, 2009
02:06:49

What makes you think that Brian Deer is telling the truth?

You’re changing the subject and answering a question with another. These are the questions of interest that you haven’t answered:

1. Can you admit that saying “the allegations have been shown to be false” is intellectually dishonest?

2. Can you produce a precedent that shows it’s improper for journalists to voluntarily submit their findings to investigative commissions? (If you can’t, you’re clearly making up a standard.)
alyric
February 22nd, 2009
03:27:54

Anne, you joined the discussion quite late and you really need to be aware of all the posts on this thread especially the ones by Brian Deer, He has laid out succinctly his relationship to the GMC enquiry. It’s minimal apart from agreeing to supply some his files. He also said that basically the GMC did their own data gathering from around three dozen sources including children’s medical records. The JABs crowd here are strenuously ignoring the common sense explanation in favour of conspiracy theory or some really poorly written pieces like anti-vaxxer Barbara Fischkin, who has admitted to doing autism-vaccine lite in her latest piece.

Your point about Wakefield having to overcome Bustin et al is well made but just watch the JABs loons ignore it. The more telling the point the more they will do so.

Unfortunately they think they’re entitled to all kinds of informational largesse from Deer. Fortunately Deer seems to know them pretty well so there won’t be any forthcoming.

They may be loud but there’s few of them. Even the frothing at the mouth at the Editor of the Times with threats of losing his job among other nasties emanates from one site in the US.

How come we attracted these folks I can’t say. They seem to want to repeat themselves endlessly and maybe don’t have too much to do of an evening.
Anne
February 22nd, 2009
04:07:20

Hi, Alyric. My point, maybe somewhat clumsily made, was that the issue of whether Brian Deer was a “complainant” or not is a red herring. Doesn’t matter. It’s just an attempt to deflect attention away from the real issues.

I have to admit that I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the Wakefield GMC proceeding or the Wakefield libel cases. I just read for the first time Judge Eady’s December 2004 discovery order in the Wakefield v. Channel 4 libel case and saw that the Judge ordered Wakefield to turn over to the defendants – including Brian Deer – the documents that the GMC provided to Wakefield in connection with the GMC investigation. Holy crap, filing that libel case was a giant mistake!
Anne
February 22nd, 2009
04:16:39

December 2006, that is.
Yellowriver
February 22nd, 2009
06:03:41

Brian Deer and his tireless Deerites are all showing symptoms of Swine fever (characterized by high fever, lack of appetite, diarrhea, and lethargy). The majority of which, are spending more time on blogs, than actually doing anything of real significance. Certainly not, encompassing caring individuals. They also don’t realise the numbers affected over the MMR issue, totally underestimate them, they only offer suppositions of harm and misleading of the masses (their own doing), They also think if Wakefield et al go down it will finish people off, lol. Wakefield’s doing alright; he’s not exactly in the gutter is he. He is still endeavouring to find answer’s which is more than many others can say. A massive waste of time and money thrown in a direction which is stonewalling progress on any front in the pursuit to discover causation to many disabilities and Brian Deer seems pleased as punch with himself. If anything he has succeeded in making Wakefield a martyr to many.
Sullivan
February 22nd, 2009
06:04:23

It just occured to me that it is quite comical that after more than 100 days evidence at the GMC Brian Deer can only find one sentence he can quote in the Sunday Times!

Why? It wasn’t the subject of his piece. The subject was the information he unearthed about Dr Wakefield’s studies.

Nice attempt at diversion, though.
Sullivan
February 22nd, 2009
06:09:57

http://spectrumpublications.co.....=bfischkin

Bad Justice, Bad Journalism, A Maligned Doctor And A Dead Mother

You may notice that I wasn’t impressed with that piece.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1899
Yellowriver
February 22nd, 2009
06:14:10

Alyric says

“You really need to be aware of all the posts on this thread especially the ones by Brian Deer, He has laid out succinctly his relationship to the GMC enquiry. It’s minimal apart from agreeing to supply some his files. He also said that basically the GMC did their own data gathering from around three dozen sources including children’s medical records”

Yes Anne, he is still using the children’s data to make sensational stories out of them. Why is he so determined to do this. He is only showing himself up for the callous and sad person he is so he can get his points across and add to his collection of trophies for his mantle piece, which I would imagine he has a shrine attached, dedicated to himself.
Kev
February 22nd, 2009
06:23:26

I’m not sure where this thread is going. Fishy, Stone and Thomas can do nothing to answer any question on the meat of Brian’s reports simply falling back on saying ‘he shouldn’t have said them’ over and over again. And we go round and round and round.

Unless there’s any great reason for keeping this alive I think I’m going to shut it down.
Yellowriver
February 22nd, 2009
06:28:04

Run along there Kev then with your tail between your legs like the good sheep that you are. Only joking about the tail.
John Stone
February 22nd, 2009
07:34:33

Sullivan

Goodness, I make a telling point about about Deer’s one sentence quote from the entire GMC hearing (Susan Davies) and I am being distracting – but it was you who raised it in the first place. Now, that is being distracting!
John Stone
February 22nd, 2009
07:41:59

Kev

Not being sure where the thread is going is, of course, and excellent reason for shutting it down. By far the safest thing, I would say.
Clay
February 22nd, 2009
08:15:58

“Unless there’s any great reason for keeping this alive I think I’m going to shut it down.”

I was hoping you’d say that. Those three are just sticking their fingers in their ears and saying, “La, la, la”, and you can’t talk any sense into them. Anti-vaxers are impervious to logic.
John Stone
February 22nd, 2009
08:29:26

“I was hoping you’d say that. Those three are just sticking their fingers in their ears and saying, “La, la, la”, and you can’t talk any sense into them. Anti-vaxers are impervious to logic.”

Clay, I wonder who is actually doing that – I have answered a lot of points even if people don’t like the answers. Please note that the so-called ant-vaxxers did vaccinate their children. This is just ad hominem junk.
Chris
February 22nd, 2009
09:24:25

Yes, close the comments. These people are very silly.
One Queer Fish
February 22nd, 2009
09:53:45

its very simple the questions posted by the self worshipers on here have been answered by us the non self worshipers .Links for instance to Dr Wakefield’s comments have been posted, what could be a better answer but a direct, direction, directly to Dr Wakefield’s response refuting Mr Deer’s “false rumours”. Obviously not the response expected hence your disappointment. on here

I came across this forum and was intrigued by the various comments and not least the Judge Eady letters. So far as I can see, quite simply if Mr Deer had published his Judge Eady letters the rumours circulated just now ,and gathering Kudos rapidly concerning why Mr Deer wont release the Judge Eady Letters Of Complaint would have knocked 80% of them on the head. Simply one cannot afford to ignore such serious allegations such as the Spectator ,et-al of why non publishing of The Judge Eady letters, but as the rumours rumble on un challenged they gather speed and Kudos similar to the content of Mr Deer’s articles , rumours backed with no scientific evidence except his own expert opinion ..well then that’s ok then? Needless to say not one self worshiper asking Mr Deer for the evidence to back up rumours of clinical falsity. not that im surprised but would just thought I would also ask a pointless question to match the other pointless questions asked of us and in whole answered. .shame about the Judge Eady letters?
Isabella Thomas
February 22nd, 2009
10:51:05

In what way are you using the “La, la, la”,
I do recall Brian Deer saying in the Times article that is what children with special needs do.
Kev
February 22nd, 2009
12:45:50

Nothing to do with safe John, but very much to do with being booooored with your inability to parse English.

Guys, look. The game is up. Wakefield’s science is shit and established by both science and now a US court that has examined said science to be shit. Its also now been shown that St Andy altered his results somewhat to make sure they reflected his desires.

What exactly are you defending him for? Or is it that you cannot stand to be exposed for dupes? There’s no shame in that. He screwed you lot over most of all.

And having engineered the last word, thread closed :)