Dateline and Dr. Wakefield’s patent activities

16 Sep

In the recent Dateline NBC episode about Dr. Wakefield, Matt Lauer asked Dr. Wakefield about his patent activities.

As a bit of background: before Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet article was published, his hospital, the Royal Free, had submitted a patent application for an invention of Dr. Wakefield’s. The application was titled, “PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR TREATMENT OF IBD AND RBD”

IBD is “inflammatory bowel disease”
RBD is “regressive behavioural disease” “(also referred to as pervasive developmental disorder)”

(definitions taken from Dr. Wakefield’s Great Britain patent application 2,325,856)

As you might assume from the title, the patent has as a main thrust the idea that certain transfer factors could be used therapeutically. In other words, the main point appears to be to use this as a treatment. This does not exclude the fact that the patent also includes a claim for a classic, preventive vaccine.

The original patent application, filed June 6 1997 (before Dr. Wakefield’s first autism paper in The Lancet), is shown on Brian Deer’s website.

There are nine claims to the patent. Eight of which relate to the proposed treatment. Claim two, however, states:

The composition according to claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus.

Prophylaxis, of course, meaning to prevent.

The existence of such a patent application raises the obvious question of conflict of interest. In other words, was there the possibility that Dr. Wakefield’s invention could result in royalty payments to Dr. Wakefield for a vaccine? Could he profit from what amounts to a single vaccine for measles (as opposed to the combination virus MMR vaccine)?

Dr. Wakefield in a previous statement
(again hosted on Brian Deer’s website):

The reference to the possible use of TF [transfer factor] to protect children against measles infection – the thrust of the Sunday Times’ conspiracy theory – was put in as an afterthought in the patent. It was entirely speculative and never pursued in any shape, manner or form.

The provisional patent filing was entirely speculative and was for a possible therapy; as such, it had no bearing on the 1998 Lancet paper.

Note that Dr. Wakefield acknowledges that his invention was claimed to be able to protect against measles infection. As we will see below, this is in direct contrast to his statements on Dateline.

Before we delve into that, I must strongly disagree with Dr. Wakefield as to whether this had bearing on the 1998 Lancet article. Part of the patent application clearly claims the use of the invention as a vaccine. Whether the invention was speculative or that the main use was as a therapy is immaterial. The appearance of a financial conflict of interest should have been reported to The Lancet, the referees, and to the press, in my opinion.

In his statement, Dr. Wakefield goes on to say:

It constituted no potential conflict until the patent was awarded.

Again, I strongly disagree. If the patent was a potential conflict of interest, so was the application. Both are a potential to profit.

Also, if the patent itself is a potential for profit, how can one justify the previous argument that the application was not a conflict since it was merely “for a possible therapy”? Again, if the language of the patent was a potential conflict due to the inclusion of the vaccine, the application was a potential conflict as well.

So, after that long introduction, what did Dr. Wakefield have to say to Matt Lauer?

Dr. Wakefield is back to denying that the invention was for a vaccine to prevent measles and is claiming it as merely a therapeutic agent.

But as we have already seen above, this is not what the patent states. This isn’t even consistent with Dr. Wakfield’s own previous comments.

Here is the section where Matt Lauer of Dateline interviewed Brian Deer on the topic:

First impression: Matt Lauer’s team messed up with the statement that the vaccine was “for the elimination of MMR”. I heard that statement as though the purpose of the Wakefield vaccine was to eliminate the MMR as a vaccine. The wording of the first sentence of the patent application is:

The present invention relates to a new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and measles virus and to a pharmaceutical composition…

I read this as the vaccine for the elimination of the MMR viruses from someone with a persistent infection of one or more of measles/mumps/rubella, not as for the elimination of the MMR vaccine itself.

It is not well worded.

The statement from the patent application that most clearly shows that it covers the invention as a vaccine is claim 2. It is short, clear and direct to the point.

The composition according to claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus.

This is what Dateline should have used, in my opinion.

I think the segment below clearly shows that part of the intention of the invention was as a vaccine for the prevention of measles which is purported to be safer.

fragment of Dr. Wakefield's original patent application

fragment of Dr. Wakefield's original patent application

Back to the interview, I think that Mr. Deer makes a key point in stressing that the patent application discussed the invention as a “safer” vaccine. This makes it more clearly a possible contender to replace the MMR vaccine as a product.

Brian Deer notes on his website:

A letter from his lawyers dated Jan 31 2005 said: “Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine.”

It is very difficult to ascertain intentions. At a very real level, what Dr. Wakefield planned is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that there was a possibility (however remote) that Dr. Wakefield could profit if the combination MMR vaccine were removed. The appearance (at least) of a potential conflict of interest was there and should have been disclosed in the paper and press conference, in my opinion.

The information I would like to see on this would be Dr. Wakefield’s lab books (or notes, as the case may be). In particular, he is reported to have applied his “transfer factor” on at least one child. Were there any tests performed (say, measles titers?) that could have been used to justify development as a vaccine? For example, measles titers?

It is also worth noting that as far as I can see, all of the patents on this potential vaccine have been abandoned. In other words, Dr. Wakefield and/or the Royal Free Hospital do not appear to have continuing financial interests in the proposed measles vaccine, or the IBD/autism therapy.

As a final word–I find it interesting that in one of the patents Dr. Wakefield states that that the autism prevalence is about 1%. This from a document dated 1998, 10 years ago. So much for that epidemic, eh?

Section of GB patent 2,325,856

Section of GB patent 2,325,856

About these ads

31 Responses to “Dateline and Dr. Wakefield’s patent activities”

  1. Mike Stanton September 16, 2009 at 08:03 #

    Just like the blood draw episode this story seems to typify the entire Wakefield affair. What he did is not in doubt. But he and his apologists constantly try to spin what was subsequently said as if twisting the meaning of words somehow changes things.

  2. Jake Crosby September 16, 2009 at 15:59 #

    In his old statement he says:

    “it has never been my aim or intention to design, produce or promote a vaccine to compete with MMR;”

    How does that not match up with this?

    “there was a patent for a treatment, not a vaccine that prevents people at a population level”

    Now here’s the part you left out right after Wakefield says it was no potential conflict until the patent was awarded:

    “When the patent was later awarded, this fact was communicated directly to the Editor of the Lancet in order that it might accompany a letter, written in response to a paper by Taylor et al that claimed to find no evidence of a link between MMR vaccine and autism. The editor did not consider the patent disclosure of sufficient significance to publish it alongside my letter.”

    So not even the editor of The Lancet found it to be a sufficient enough conflict of interest to publish, pretty much defeats the whole point, doesn’t it?

    • Sullivan December 8, 2009 at 00:08 #

      Jake Crosby,

      it doesn’t matter if it could also include those applications. The fact of the matter is that according to the patent, the invention could be used as a vaccine, in the classic prevent-disease sense.

      Quoting Dr. Wakefield’s defense of himself doesn’t make a difference. Especially when the quote you cite has been contested.

      Move on, Jake. Wakefield’s patent was a COI. A big one. With the exception that his “invention” was junk, that is.

  3. Wakefield watching September 16, 2009 at 16:19 #

    And this is how Wakefield lies, and how he gets uninformed zealots like Jake Crosby to help him do it.

    Wakefield’s letter to the editor of the Lancet, dated 23 June 1999, disclosed:

    “Dr Wakefield is a named inventor on an issued UK patent for measles virus diagnostics.”

    Measles virus diagnostics? Answer us now Mr Crosby, what do you say to that?

    • Sullivan September 16, 2009 at 22:49 #

      Wakefield Watching,

      Wakefield’s letter to the editor of the Lancet, dated 23 June 1999, disclosed:
      “Dr Wakefield is a named inventor on an issued UK patent for measles virus diagnostics.”

      Measles virus diagnostics? Answer us now Mr Crosby, what do you say to that?

      Besides the question of whether Dr. Wakefield gave full disclosure there (it appears clear that he didn’t) I’m having a little trouble finding the patent that Dr. Wakefield refers to.

      First, were any of the UK patents on this invention actually issued? I see a number of UK patents applied for and published, but I don’t see any issued. Perhaps I am misunderstanding English–they are listed as “patent speficications” and many are listed with phrases like:

      Application withdrawn, taken to be withdrawn or refused ** after publication under section

      I bring this up because Dr. Wakefield stressed that a conflict of interest was not in place until after the patent was issued.

      Again, perhaps I misunderstand proper English. To me “issued” means that the patent was granted, not just that the application or specification was published.

  4. Wakefield watching September 16, 2009 at 16:36 #

    I forgot to post the letter:

    http://briandeer.com/solved/wakefield-diagnostics-letter.pdf

    Now is Jake Crosby’s chance to play the reporter. He can check the patents (both the 1997 initial filing, the published filing of 1998 and the presently issued US patent), all of which refer – at the very beginning to the “prophylaxis” of measles; he can look at Dr Wakefield’s letter claiming to have disclosed this in a letter to the Lancet re Taylor et al, and he can now read the letter to the Lancet.

    With his own eyes.

    And perhaps now he can explain what he has learnt about Dr Wakefield’s integrity.

  5. brian September 16, 2009 at 18:40 #

    Regarding Wakefield’s patent, Jake Crosby wrote: “So not even the editor of The Lancet found [information regarding the patent award] to be a sufficient enough conflict of interest to publish, pretty much defeats the whole point, doesn’t it?”

    I think that you misunderstand this.

    Wakefield was responding in the pages of The Lancet to the authors of an article who had concluded: “Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism.” Wakefield hoped that the patent award would somehow buttress his claim, but The Lancet apparently did not agree, and so declined to publish that information alongside Wakefield’s correspondence.

    Of course, The Lancet is on record as follows:

    “There are no substantiated data to suggest that the MMR vaccine causes autism, enterocolitis, or the syndrome first described by Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues in The Lancet in 1998.”

    In the end it doesn’t matter if Wakefield is a Brave Maverick Doctor or a weasel in a lab coat; what does matter is that the evidence shows that Wakefield was wrong.

  6. century September 16, 2009 at 19:09 #

    .

  7. Jake Crosby September 17, 2009 at 01:25 #

    @Wakefield Watching,

    I’d say that does not conflict at all with the last quote I took from Andrew Wakefield, much less prove that he is lying as you insinuate.

    You want to talk about lying, here is one from Brian Deer himself:

    “This is false. No participants in the programme complained of being tricked, or made any complaint whatsoever – Brian Deer”

    Have you ever seen “Selective Hearing: Brian Deer and the GMC,” if not I suggest you do. In fact, one mother, Rosemary Kessik said Brian Deer introduced himself as “Brian Lawrence,” using his middle name as if it were his last name. Is that not trickery? Answer me now, Mr. Watching, is the above quote from Brian Deer not a lie?

    • Sullivan September 17, 2009 at 03:54 #

      I’d say that does not conflict at all with the last quote I took from Andrew Wakefield, much less prove that he is lying as you insinuate.

      I won’t speak for Wakefield Watcher, but for myself.

      I didn’t insinuate that Dr Wakefield lied. I stated it plainly.

      Dr. Wakefield claimed that the patent was not for a vaccine. It was.

      If you want to do an “answer me now” demand, you could respond to questions yourself.

      As to your statement:

      “This is false. No participants in the programme complained of being tricked, or made any complaint whatsoever – Brian Deer”

      Have you ever seen “Selective Hearing: Brian Deer and the GMC,” if not I suggest you do. In fact, one mother, Rosemary Kessik said Brian Deer introduced himself as “Brian Lawrence,” using his middle name as if it were his last name. Is that not trickery? Answer me now, Mr. Watching, is the above quote from Brian Deer not a lie?

      Shall we put this in context? The statement from Mr. Deer is an annotation to a comment made by Dr. Wakefield in 2004:

      The Sunday Times and the Dispatches programme of 18th November raise a number of issues in relation to MMR, autism and events at the Royal Free Hospital. Since many of the claims by journalist Brian Deer have been demonstrably false and there in no objectivity in the manner of their intended portrayal, I declined to participate in any way in the making of the Dispatches programme. In addition, vulnerable parents have complained of being “tricked” into participating in the programme. [This is false. No participants in the programme complained of being tricked, or made any complaint whatsoever – Brian Deer]. I was not invited to comment on the Sunday Times article prior to its publication.

      Had Mr. Deer made the comment today, it would be a lie (assuming your quote from the video is accurate). Dr. Wakefield issued his statement in 2004. That is long before the “Selective Hearing” video.

      Please tell me you didn’t know the context of the Brian Deer quote.

  8. Jake Crosby September 17, 2009 at 07:04 #

    Sullivan,

    Andrew Wakefield could not possibly be lying about putting in a patent for the measles vaccine you claim because it never existed. When he stated what the patent was for, both in 2004 and now, he was not referring to an afterthought, he was referring to what he helped develop already, what he planned to run a clinical trial for, and for what he intended to use it for, and for that matter what it even could be used for, and that was a treatment.

    It takes decades to develop a vaccine used to prevent disease in the general population. If it was really a patent for that kind of product, he would have waited until he had actually developed one, not before one even existed as a prototype because by then the patent would have expired before it could have brought in any money.

    Dr. Wakefield did not even stand to gain financially at all from the patent, because any money earned from it would have all been poured into building a new GI center for the Royal Free Hospital anyway.

    http://www.drbilllong.com/Autism/WakefieldIX.html

    Rosemary Kessick complained about Brian Deer’s deceptive tactics even at that time. She called up where he worked asking why he used a different name, the reply she got was that he uses his middle instead of his last name with drug companies so they don’t know who he is. She replied by saying she is not a drug company, she is a parent. So what Brian Deer said on his website was a lie even at that time.

    • Sullivan September 17, 2009 at 14:32 #

      Jake Crosby,

      he lied on Dateline. The backstory doesn’t change that. Even if true, it doesn’t change. Wakefield lied. The patent specifically states that the invention could be used as a vaccine. Wakefield specifically stated that it wasn’t.

      The rest is a smokescreen. Not even a good one at that.

      You stated:

      Dr. Wakefield did not even stand to gain financially at all from the patent, because any money earned from it would have all been poured into building a new GI center for the Royal Free Hospital anyway.

      The webpage is opinion, not fact, as it doesn’t have any evidence to back it up. What was the IP policy that Dr. Wakefield agreed to when he assigned his rights to the Royal Free? Had that changed by the time he submitted his paper?

      Even the opinions don’t support your statement. You say “any money earned”. The page you refer me to says “almost all…” Big difference. Very big.

      From the webpage you reference–

      almost all the royalties from whatever vaccine was to be developed would inure to the benefit of the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine. The first applicant named on the form, then, was the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine.

      What a double standard, eh? Most of the royalties (the vast majority, in fact) from CHOP’s sale of the Offit/Plotkin/Clark vaccine invention went to….CHOP. But, hey, Dr. Offit got, what, about 3% of that and that “justifies” people on your blog bashing him for it. Somehow this even justifies publishing false information.

      If you can come up with a document where Dr. Wakefield gave up all rights to royalty payments, that would be something. Vague statements about where “almost all” of the royalties would go or what Dr. Wakfield’s intent were don’t count.

    • Sullivan September 17, 2009 at 15:22 #

      Once again, intent isn’t the issue. Dr. Wakefield didn’t say on Dateline, “I never intended to develop the vaccine”, he said the patent wasn’t for a vaccine.

      More importantly, a conflict of interest statement should be made even if his intent (unproven) was to give all his proceeds away.

      If it was really a patent for that kind of product, he would have waited until he had actually developed one, not before one even existed as a prototype because by then the patent would have expired before it could have brought in any money.

      Whoever told you that doesn’t understand patents.

  9. Wakefield watching September 17, 2009 at 09:02 #

    Once again, here is Wakefield’s claim about the patent:

    “The provisional patent filing was entirely speculative and was for a possible therapy; as such, it had no bearing on the 1998 Lancet paper.

    “It constituted no potential conflict until the patent was awarded. When the patent was later awarded, this fact was communicated directly to the Editor of the Lancet in order that it might accompany a letter, written in response to a paper by Taylor et al that claimed to find no evidence of a link between MMR vaccine and autism. The editor did not consider the patent disclosure of sufficient significance to publish it alongside my letter.”

    The evidence already shown here in links is that both the substantive claims in these paragraphs are false.

    The patent documents (all three: the first unpublished claim, the second published claim, and the third issued patent) ALL clearly specify a vaccine for the PROPHYLAXIS of measles.

    Second, the letter to the Lancet Wakefield refers to makes no mention of any vaccine or treatment, but to a patent for “measles virus diagnostics”. Plainly something of no relevance to a letter about vaccine statistics.

    Is it possible for Wakefield’s admirer to EXPLAIN these discrepancies – which it is hard to believe Wakefield wasn’t aware of when he issued his statement.

    I don’t see how it is possible to conclude anything other than that Wakefield issued the false claims in the statement, MEANING to throw people off the scent.

    As for Wakefield’s claim that inventors make nothing from vaccines when the patent is assigned to their employer, maybe you should ask Paul Offit about that.

    Let’s stick to the point here folks. What does Jake Crosby say about this?

  10. Wakefield watching September 17, 2009 at 16:17 #

    Come on Jake. Just tell us you were misled. If you genuinely care about issues, or even your campaign for whatever it might be, why bet the farm on Wakefield, when you can now see – on this one little issue – how he operates?

    You can forget the hearsays, the claims, the allegations you read on websites. Look at the documents.

    Be your own person.

  11. Joseph September 17, 2009 at 16:34 #

    @Jake: As I’ve advised you previously to no avail: Stop defending crooks and liars.

  12. Ringside Seat September 18, 2009 at 17:46 #

    Sullivan really did us proud on this one. We have Wakefield making claims on network television, and in statements, about how his patent wasn’t for a preventative vaccine, which are proven with documentation to be false. We see that his claim, when challenged, to have notified the editor of the Lancet, is also proven to be false by someone posting the letter here.

    Jake a turns up here to throw up all kinds of argumentative nonsense, hearsay and diversionary fabrication (eg the stuff about Mrs Keswick, who was not in Brian Deer’s program). But, when asked simply to deal with the material in front of him, Jake goes silent.

    It’s classic stuff. The same with the critique of Dateline as a whole. Very similar to Aids denialism. When engaged by rational evidence, they change the subject and smear. They smear Offit, they smear Deer, but are entirely silent on the substantive material.

    You can be fairly sure that Jake is presently being coached and primed by the Wakefield inner circle, who would doubtless be very concerned if somebody on the periphery of their conspiracy started to think for themselves, and checked facts in the interests of the people who really matter: those with autistic disorders.

    With both the patents (proven false with documents), and the birthday party story to the Mind Institute (which Wakefield himself claimed to be false, according to the BMJ report from the GMC hearing) there are now two examples where he has been caught out simply not telling the truth.

    I think Jake now has a real responsibility to get to the bottom of these points.

  13. Jake Crosby December 7, 2009 at 09:15 #

    The UK version of this patent was probably the patent Wakefield was referring to in his letter to The Lancet: “Regressive Behavioral Disorder,” though it also mentions the word “vaccine.”

    http://briandeer.com/mmr/us-patent-2003.pdf

    Hence, the likeliest reason why he said “Measles Virus Diagnostics” in his disclosure, it goes with the title. Not that it still isn’t an ND canard and straw man no matter what, as usual.

    As far as interpreting “prophylaxis” to mean a rival to the MMR when single jabs already existed, its a dishonest simplification of the definition as discussed here:

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=3293#comment-66832

    By vaccine, Wakefield could have easily meant one only given to certain people, like the rabies vaccine.

    Meanwhile, I’m still having a hard time figuring out how saying on Dateline “It was not a patent for a vaccine that prevents a virus on the population scale.”

    …contradicts this statement from 5 years earlier, the same one that you claim contradicts the above line:

    “The claim appears to be that, whilst at the Royal Free Hospital, I was developing a new vaccine to compete with MMR and that I conspired to undermine confidence in MMR vaccine in order to promote this new vaccine, and that this represented a conflict of interest. This is untrue. The facts are that:

    no vaccine or anything resembling a vaccine was ever designed, developed or tested by me or by any of my colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital;

    it has never been my aim or intention to design, produce or promote a vaccine to compete with MMR;”

    Reads consistently to me.

    And now for the devastating blow to your conspiracy hypothesis, which doesn’t even qualify for “theory” status:

    You say:
    “The appearance of a financial conflict of interest should have been reported to The Lancet, the referees, and to the press, in my opinion.”

    An opinion with which even Brian Deer disagrees:

    “Wakefield was under no legal or professional obligation to disclose the patent”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article391141.ece

    “No legal or professional obligation,” according to the hero of Neurodiversity and MMR vaccine Industry alike. Pretty much settles it.

    Bye Bye Conspiracy Hypothesis.

    • Sullivan December 7, 2009 at 18:53 #

      Jake,

      I believe the link you gave is where it is discussed that in the medical literature one need not disclose a patent until it is public? That’s why I stated “in my opinion”. A claim this dramatic by Wakefield should have been handled professionally. Professional behavior, in my opinion again, is seriously lacking in much of Dr. Wakefield’s career.

      “By vaccine, Wakefield could have easily meant one only given to certain people, like the rabies vaccine.”

      In which case, he lied on TV. Doesn’t matter what purpose he intended for the vaccine to be used, he patented a vaccine. Plain and simple: his comments on TV were not consistent with the facts. What part of that is so hard to understand? Who cares if he wasn’t “developing” a vaccine. He was in the process of patenting a vaccine.

      • Sullivan December 7, 2009 at 19:13 #

        Jake Crosby,

        can you clarify “By vaccine, Wakefield could have easily meant one only given to certain people, like the rabies vaccine”. Are you trying to assert that it was only to be given to people already exposed? Basically, are you making the same argument (that it was a treatment only) in a different way?

        If so, that doesn’t hold water. It doesn’t matter what Dr. Wakefield claims he “intended” for the patent to cover. What matters is what it actually covers. It actually covers the use of his invention as a regular vaccine to prevent measles infection.

        It (ETA: the it=the vaccine) wouldn’t work, but that is beside the point.

  14. Dedj December 7, 2009 at 19:36 #

    Jake, we’ve been over this before.

    You were shown to be using a pedantic and out of context definition of prophylaxis.

    You were given direct quotes from the text and direct references to the text that indicated Wakefield intended his invention to be used as a vaccine or vaccine ingredient alternative.

    Wakefield IS correct that he did not patent a vaccine to directly rival the MMR. This is also irrelevant. He did – as stated in the patent – believe that his ‘agent’ could be used as an alternative ingredient to the contemporary ingredient in MMR. As you have already been informed – repeatedly – the use of his agent in IBD is always mentioned secondarily to it’s use in vaccines.

    That you are still stuck on a point dealt with ages ago – and still don’t get why it’s irrelevant despite several people explaining it to you in more detail than a supposedly informed person such as yourself should need – does not speak well for your ability to understand the situation or act as an informed source.

    This has been gone over before. Pedantic arguements from dictionary definitions and hero-worship don;t fly here Jake. Come up with something that shows that you’ve actually understood the patent or get lost. Come on Jake, the text is even highlighted for you and is explictly mentioned in the claim section in the UK patent. The US patent mention this on the first line. How could you have missed it?

    How you thought we were talking about the 2003 patent when the opening post clearly references the earlier patent is something you will not be able to explain. Once again your arguement is a mess of confusion.

    I for one am not willing to put up with your nonsense much longer.

  15. Jake Crosby December 7, 2009 at 23:58 #

    No, Sullivan, it covers “prophylaxis” which could just as easily refer to a treatment, post-viral exposure in certain children, and very-well not mean what you think it could mean. Your opinion of how the application may be interpreted doesn’t matter, especially when Wakefield, as Deer admitted in his own article, was under no professional or legal obligation of disclosure.

  16. Dedj December 8, 2009 at 00:13 #

    Put the dictionary down on the ground and back away slowly.

    “No, Sullivan, it covers “prophylaxis” which could just as easily refer to a treatment, post-viral exposure in certain children, and very-well not mean what you think it could mean”

    Which is why you were reffered – repeatedly – to it’s use within the context of the actual patent, as well as direct statements within the patent(s), and the extensive corroborating arguements within the patent(s).

    I find it weak that you are still trying to argue interpretation when that actual use of the term is in the patents.

    Try again, and keep up this time.

  17. Jake Crosby December 8, 2009 at 06:08 #

    You are entitled to your opinion, Sullivan.

    • Sullivan December 8, 2009 at 06:17 #

      You are entitled to state the obvious, Jake Crosby.

  18. Dedj December 8, 2009 at 16:15 #

    ““No legal or professional obligation,” according to the hero of Neurodiversity and MMR vaccine Industry alike. Pretty much settles it.”

    For a start, Brian Deer doesn’t say that Wakefield should not have declared a COI, so the supposed disagreement with Sullivan does not exist. Also, he goes on to include a quote saying that it ‘should have’ been made public. In other words, his piece has the opposite tone and connotation you implied.

    You quote mined and cherry picked in other words.

    Secondly, Deer isn’t a ‘ND hero’, and there are definetly elements of the ND movement who would find the idea of being on the ‘same side’ as a pharmaceutical company abhorrent.

    You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to claim of imply that someone said something they clearly didn’t.

  19. www.bontiberi.com November 17, 2013 at 07:05 #

    Have you ever thought about publishing ann ebook or guest authoring on othyer websites?

    I have a blog based pon oon the same subjects youu discuss
    and would really like to have you share some
    stories/information. I know my viewers would enjoy your work.

    If you’re even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e mail.

  20. dziergamsobie.blogspot.com November 17, 2013 at 07:05 #

    I’m not that much off a online reader to be honest but your blogs really nice, keep it up!
    I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back down the road.
    Many thanks

  21. magic johnson hiv cured 2012 November 17, 2013 at 12:23 #

    Good day I am so delighted I found your webpage, I really
    found you by error, while I was searching on Google for something else, Anyways I
    am here now and would just like to say thanks a lot for a tremendous post and
    a all round interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to read through it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when
    I have time I will be back to read a great deal more,
    Please do keep up the excellent job.

  22. Mackenzie December 23, 2013 at 14:37 #

    It’s nearly impossible to find experienced people about this subject, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about!
    Thanks

  23. auto dealer websites July 26, 2014 at 18:05 #

    Hi, I do think your website could be having web browser compatibility problems.

    When I take a look at your website in Safari, it
    looks fine however, if opening in IE, it’s got some overlapping issues.
    I simply wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other than that,
    excellent site!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,158 other followers

%d bloggers like this: