BMJ, Brian Deer file anti-SLAPP motion against Andrew Wakefield

11 Mar

About 2 months ago Andrew Wakefield filed a defamation lawsuit against the British Medical Journal, Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee for the series of three articles “The Secrets of the MMR Scare” and public comments made since. In particular, Mr. Wakefield took issue with statements about his research being fraudulent (and variations on that term like “fraudster”, “bullshit” etc.). Mr. Wakefield claimed that the facts presented by the BMJ articles were incorrect and based on information not available to him at the time he wrote his Lancet article.

Mr. Wakefield chose to file his defamation suit in Texas (his home state). This presented him immediately with two hurdles. First he has to show that the court has jurisdiction over primarily UK entities. Second he faced the possibility of an anti-SLAPP motion. SLAPP stands for “Strategic lawsuit against public participation“. Per Wikipedia:

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.

Many states in the U.S. have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation. Texas enacted a law fairly recently and this motion could be the first major test of that law. I say “could” because of the first hurdle: jurisdiction. As Popehat has already noted, the plaintiffs in the anti-SLAPP motion “specially appear”. I.e. they keep the right to fight on jurisdictional grounds.

The motion and Mr. Deer’s supporting declaration can be found on Mr. Deer’s website. Mr. Deer’s declaration goes through the full history of his involvement with Mr. Wakefield’s research.

As Popehat notes, the motion appears quite strong. As is the case with legal motions, it covers multiple arguments. For example, they not only argue that the statements on their own are permissible speech, but they argue that the statements themselves are accurate.

Here is a section of the table-of-contents for the motion:

V. TEXAS’S NEW ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE APPLIES TO DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS.

VI. DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE HE CANNOT SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED STATEMENTS ARE FALSE

A. Dr. Wakefield Must Prove that Defendants’ Statements Are Not Substantially True.
B. Dr. Wakefield Is Precluded from Re-litigating the GMC’s Findings, Which Establish the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements.
C. The Undisputed Evidence Also Establishes the Substantial Truth of the Challenged Statements.

1. Dr. Wakefield’s Misreporting and Falsification Permeated His Research.

2. Dr. Wakefield’s Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest.
3. Dr. Wakefield’s Review of the GP Records

VII DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENTS OF OPINION AND RHETORICAL HYPERBOLE ARE NOT ACTIONABLE.
A. Several of Defendants’ Statements, Including that Dr. Wakefield’s Research Must Have Been “Fraud,” Are Nonactionable Expressions of Opinion.
B. Defendants’ Expressions of Rhetorical Hyperbole and Colorful Language Are Not Actionable.

VIII DR. WAKEFIELD’S CLAIMS BASED ON BRIAN DEER’S WEBSITE PUBLICATIONS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
DR. WAKEFIELD IS A PUBLIC FIGURE, AND HE CANNOT SHOW ACTUAL MALICE.
A. Dr. Wakefield Is a Public Figure.
1. The “MMR Scare” Is a Public Controversy.
2. Dr. Wakefield Had More than a Trivial or Tangential Role in the
Scare.
3. Dr. Wakefield’s Claims Are Germane to His Participation in the
Controversy.
B. Defendants Did Not Act with Actual Malice.

1. Actual Malice Is an Exceedingly Difficult Standard to Satisfy.
2. The Evidence Here Precludes a Finding of Actual Malice.

Mr. Wakefield faces a number of burdens to overcome this motion. He must show that the statements made were more damaging that the truth. He must show that the statements are false–not just minor wording differences but that the “gist” of the truth is missing from the statements made. He must show that either he is not a public figure (very difficult for a doctor who has had a publicist for at least 10 years and has certainly put himself into the public sphere). He must show that Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the BMJ acted with actual malice.

He must present substantive evidence for each of these before he can go to trial. If he fails, he faces not only payment of reasonable legal fees and costs, but also the possibility of a penalty to deter future frivolous lawsuits. In that regard, the motion puts forth the history of Mr. Wakefield’s previous legal threats and lawsuits.

The most famous instance of Mr. Wakefield’s litigious history is his lawsuit against Brian Deer in 2004. Justice Eady made very clear statements on that:

[Dr. Wakefield] wished to use the existence of libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the ‘downside’ of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification.

To put this in perspective–such a statement by the judge in Texas would almost certainly be followed by not only a dismissal of the case, but a financial judgement in favor of Mr. Deer, Ms. Godlee and the BMJ.

The motion makes it clear that Mr. Wakefield has faced negative commentary on his work and his character from many quarters in the past few years. From their introduction:

Two months ago, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was named by Time magazine as one of the “Great Science Frauds” of modern history. Last April, the New York Times described him as “one of the most reviled doctors of his generation.” In 2009, a Special Master presiding over vaccine litigation in the United States Court of Federal Claims recognized that Wakefield’s 1998 paper in The Lancet medical journal, which suggested a possible link between the lifesaving Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) vaccine and the development of autism in children, was considered a “scientific fraud.”

The Lancet has now fully retracted Wakefield’s paper, and its editor has state publicly that the paper was “utterly false” and that Wakefield “deceived the journal.” Wakefield’s home country’s medical board, the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council (“GMC”), convicted him in 2010 of multiple charges of “serious professional misconduct,” including “dishonesty” and “unethical conduct.” It further held that his misconduct had been so severe and extensive that the only punishment that would adequately protect the public from him was the permanent revocation of his medical license. As the New York Daily News put it, “Hippocrates would puke.”

As to specific instances of calling Mr. Wakefield’s work fraudulent, they quote multiple instances of the term being used. As noted above, one of the Special Masters in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (vaccine court) called the work “scientific fraud”. Probably the most damaging instance for Mr. Wakefield are quotes from his own attorney in the General Medical Council (GMC) hearings who stated that some of the charges, if found proved, would amount to charges of fraud. Those charges were found proved.

There is definitely a movement amongst Mr. Wakefield’s supporters to recast his defamation suit as a retrial of not only his Fitness to Practice hearing before the GMC, but as a legal test of the validity of his MMR/autism hypothesis. Even just within the past couple of days Jenny McCarthy re-emerged in her role as a vocal Wakefield supporter with this (and other) erroneous arguments.

Courts are well aware of attempts for people to use defamation cases as a proxy for fighting other arguments. For example, readers might recall a recent defamation case where Barbara Loe Fisher (of the self-named National Vaccine Information Center) sued Dr. Paul Offit, writer Amy Wallace and Conde Nast publications for two words in an article: “she lies”. In the decision dismissing the defamation suit the judge noted:

Not only does Plaintiff’s claim of the statement’s falsity invite an open ended inquiry into Plaintiff’s veracity, it also threatens to ensnare the Court in the thorny and extremely contentious debate over the perceived risks of certain vaccines….and, at the bottom, which side has the truth on its side. This is hardly the sort of issue which would be subject to verification based on a core of “objective evidence”

and

Courts have a justifiable reticence about venturing into a thicket of scientific debate, especially in the defamation context

However, one must note that Mr. Wakefield’s defamation suit does *not* involve the issues of his research conclusions/findings (or non-findings as they have been retracted from the public sphere). The question put forth by Mr. Wakefield was whether statements such as “fraud”, “fraudster”, “determined cheat” are actionable defamation and whether these are based on allegedly misrepresented details from the research–such as diagnoses of the children and when symptoms appeared. Mr. Deer shows in his declaration that the facts presented in the BMJ studies are accurate.

On the “weight of evidence” front, consider this: Mr. Wakefield submitted a 17 page defamation claim. The defendants have responded with a 53 page anti-SLAPP motion and 5 declarations. The declarations include one from Mr. Deer with 101 pages and 104 exhibits. Where Mr. Wakefield is using a neighbor as his attorney, one who is not a specialist in health, media or defamation cases, the BMJ team are using a top Texas law firm and a total of seven attorneys. The lead attorney is listed as having experience with healthcare and publishers:

Tom has a wide range of experience in state and federal appeals and trials. His experience includes commercial, intellectual property, and healthcare litigation, and class actions. He has represented publishers and broadcasters in all aspects of media litigation throughout his career.

the second attorney listed has direct experience on defamation:

Marc’s practice focuses on media and privacy law, class actions, and general commercial litigation. His media law experience includes representing publishers in litigation involving claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation, copyright, and related causes of action. In addition, he has defended companies in consumer class actions across the country relating to advertising and digital privacy. He regularly provides advice regarding website terms of service, arbitration agreements, and privacy law.

According to the BMJ’s motion, ” To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff [Mr. Wakefield] must submit “clear and specific evidence” to support each essential element of his claims.”

I suspect that Mr. Wakefield will have a meeting with his attorney very soon to discuss strategy. They are outclassed on the facts of the case, on the manpower and expertise of the attorneys and the credibility of the witnesses. They will discuss “each essential element of his claims” and how they stack up against the evidence presented. One might suspect that Mr. Wakefield’s attorney was unaware of how shaky their position was at the start, getting his facts from Mr. Wakefield. They now know, through hundreds of pages of arguments and evidence, how the defense can answer the “essential claims”.

If they can dismiss before the jurisdiction question is addressed and avoid the anti-SLAPP motion, they might be well advised to do so. The “reasonable costs” the BMJ are incurring are sure to be sizable. And the litigious history of Mr. Wakefield will surely play into a determination of whether to impose penalties on top of those.

From where I sit, Mr. Wakefield just doesn’t have the facts on his side. Nor does he have the law on his side. The jurisdiction question may be a blessing in disguise for Mr. Wakefield: giving him the opportunity to bow out before the anti-SLAPP motion goes into effect.

About these ads

176 Responses to “BMJ, Brian Deer file anti-SLAPP motion against Andrew Wakefield”

  1. Jack March 23, 2012 at 19:16 #

    I can’t get your contacts form to work. Some new research you might like to discuss in Nature:

    A novel blood-based biomarker for detection of autism spectrum disorders: http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v2/n3/full/tp201219a.html

  2. MikeMa March 24, 2012 at 13:13 #

    Jack,
    I saw a synopsis on science daily as well.

    Small study and no mention I could see of what parts of the spectrum might be marked. Still if a biomarker is found for any autism id, that moves us a step closer to genetics and away from the vaccine/toxins crappola.

  3. Jack March 27, 2012 at 10:20 #

    Thanks Mike. Yeah I saw that one. I agree. Perhaps a larger study will be in the offing at some (yet to be determined or funded) point.

    • Sullivan March 30, 2012 at 20:11 #

      Patricia,

      I suspect many people are like me and suspicious of links without any discussion.

      this time I did click through. When I read “‘Can justice ever be served in this case if Dr Andrew Wakefield, the principle victim of the conspiracy is denied an independent appeal?’” I lost interest.

      Dr. Wakefield dropped his appeal. If that counts as “being denied”, then so be it.

      But, hey, another chapter in Martin Walker’s book. I recall reading online peas by him for anyone to buy the few copies he had printed up. If even those who support Mr. Wakefield weren’t buying this, why would I waste my time and money?

  4. Science Mom March 30, 2012 at 20:07 #

    A whiny little conspiracy screed by Wakefield. So what Patricia? Is this supposed to have some probative value?

    • Sullivan March 30, 2012 at 20:23 #

      Science Mom,

      I couldn’t resist. I read through part of it. I found this bit particularly odd:

      While the corporate pharmaceutical lobby groups were consistent in their labelling of Wakefield and his parent supporters as ‘antivaxers’, this couldn’t have been further from the truth, not only had the Wakefield children received their childhood vaccinations, as, obviously, had the parents who were now complaining of adverse reactions, but Wakefield himself promoted the single vaccines for mumps, measles and rubella.

      How much nonsense in one sentence. First, the conspiracy angle (which is common in that document). Second the idea that if one had given vaccines to their children in the past, they can’t be against vaccines in the present.

      But, what really gets me is that the author is avoiding the simple argument: How can one say Andrew Wakefield was anti-vaccine since he had applied for a patent and was planning on developing his own vaccine? He had a financial and professional interest in vaccines. Just not the one in current use.

      It’s obvious why they don’t use that argument. But it is the clearest example they could give, and it even uses the facts.

  5. Denice Walter March 30, 2012 at 21:18 #

    OMSJ is the project of one Clark Baker, best known for ‘investigations’ into ‘scandalous science’ such as the most famous scientific fraud of all time: research that shows HIV is the cause of AIDS.

  6. Science Mom March 31, 2012 at 00:23 #

    this time I did click through. When I read “‘Can justice ever be served in this case if Dr Andrew Wakefield, the principle victim of the conspiracy is denied an independent appeal?’” I lost interest.

    Yup, that did it for me too but I still couldn’t help but laugh and roll my eyes to the back of my head. Perhaps this will be plaintiff exhibit 2 for his SLAPP suit, after sludge scientist Lewis’ “expose” of course.

  7. Passing Thru March 31, 2012 at 05:36 #

    Is this the same Martin Walker?

    http://briandeer.com/mmr/mli-information.htm

  8. Patricia March 31, 2012 at 12:13 #

    http://www.bolenreport.com/Andrew%20Wakefield/briandeer2.htm

    Yes it is the same Walker. And this is the same Deer.

  9. Denice Walter March 31, 2012 at 16:38 #

    @ Patricia:

    I would regard anything Bolen writes with suspicion: he formerly publicised a well-known American cancer quack, Hulda Clark ( who,-btw- died of cancer) and has a history of maligning and suing his critics ( see Quackwatch). You might ask, “Why should I believe you?”

    You shouldn’t- I’m just someone on the internet- but you can look him up yourself. I would hope that the reasonableness of my writing ( as well as its elegance) might inspire you to *at least* consider what I say. For the past 12 years or so, I’ve surveyed alt med media and websites, learning many interesting facts about people who make their living by offering novel ideas and health products un-supported by science: there exists an entire pack of entrepreneurs who benefit financially from getting people to suspect medical consensus and procedure while they simultaneously pad their ravenous egos by enlisting an entire corps of followers. They usually tell their supporters to question the establishment ( i.e., their critics)- in other words, don’t trust experts, the goverment and the media- “Trust me!”

    I believe that these prevaricators unfairly mis-treat the public by supplying mis-information, useless products and masquerading as news outlets- people should know more about them and how they operate. Because I value education and counsel people, I see my internet activities as a natural outgrowth of my work.

  10. Patricia March 31, 2012 at 18:13 #

    Denise

    Funny that. You are just soo spot on Denise. I would have said exactly the same about Brian Deer. He too has a history of malignment and defamation. Particularly of his critics.

    What is it with journalists eh? You are so right Denise – people should know more about these self serving, egomaniacal, peddlars of untruths and opinion.

  11. Thomas March 31, 2012 at 18:19 #

    Patricia: Are you still upset Deer slagged Merck for its Vioxx fraud? Let it go…

  12. Patricia March 31, 2012 at 18:37 #

    Thomas

    Can’t believe you missed the point again…go to the back of the class.

  13. Thomas March 31, 2012 at 18:42 #

    I’ll take that as a yes. Thanks.

  14. Denice Walter March 31, 2012 at 18:44 #

    @ Patricia:

    You need to consider the sources of your information more carefully: people cannot write anything they choose if they work for respectable news providers like the Times: they need answer to internal mechanisms of control- editors et al- they have to show where and how they received their information. Internet sites run the gamut from reality-based sources ( perhaps even originating from newspapers and television and subject to the same controls) to outlandish conspiracy-mongering havens that merely repesent someone’s fevered imagination- without any accountability. Believe it or not, readers can learn to differentiate levels of reliability on the ‘net. I would trust the Times more than Age of Autism: a hundred times.
    Maybe you should question your own sources a bit more.
    Have a nice day, I have a friend waiting.

  15. Patricia March 31, 2012 at 19:46 #

    And I think you would do well to raise your awareness of what constitutes a respectable and trustworthy source of information. I am sorry to have to shatter your naive belief in the sanctity of the once revered Times newspaper, but you obviously have not heard of a certain Mr Murdoch and the recent revelations of the Leveson Enquiry.

    I wish you a pleasant day with your friend.

    • Sullivan April 1, 2012 at 17:07 #

      And I think you would do well to raise your awareness of what constitutes a respectable and trustworthy source of information

      As someone who relies upon the Bolen report, you are in no position to lecture others on the subject. The piece you linked to is a classic example of ad-hominem attacks without real substance.

  16. Julian Frost March 31, 2012 at 20:01 #

    @Patricia:

    [Brian Deer] has a history of malignment and defamation. Particularly of his critics.

    There are these things called “libel laws”. If Brian Deer has defamed anyone, his “victims” are more than able to sue him for damages. May I remind you that Wakefield brought suit against Deer then stalled for ages, only to drop the suit and pay Deer’s legal fees when the Court forced his hand.

  17. MikeMa April 1, 2012 at 13:30 #

    Defamation, libel, slander and malignment [sic] are all effectively meaningless if what is reported is true.

  18. Denice Walter April 1, 2012 at 16:21 #

    @ Patricia:

    Altho’ I hate to respond because this really _isn’t_ the place: alternative sources rely upon creating reasons to have people doubt the veracity of standard news sources ( like the Times) – it’s Mr Murdoch pulling the strings- then what about other sources in total agreement with the Times? Television and journals? Then crossing the Atlantic, there’s the *other* Times plus journals and television in the US and Canada; I do even recall that this story was covered in NZ and AUS. So should I suppose that the entire media – both print and broadcast- of the English-speaking world is in Murdoch’d pocket?

    As I’ve mentioned what I do involves *precisely* this: watching how alternative outlets manipulate information and people. In addition, they usually add the government to their list. Thus, people shouldn’t trust any standard source of informatiou but should believe those with axes to grind on the internet. If you don’t have solid data, you need to find ways to undermine realistic sources just as when you have no real education, you need to put up a many-lettered facade and tear down people who went through the real ordeal. Believe me, the people who write most vehemently about vaccines causing autism on the net never studied physiology and development.

    With that I’m off.

  19. Patricia April 1, 2012 at 21:01 #

    Sullivan I have never “relied” on the words of any one journalist in this whole debate about the causation of autism – which has now reached undeniable epidemic proportions – unlike those trusty posters of yours on this Forum who keep churning out the same tired old offensive and insulting and fevered imaginings of one Brian Deer, whose name BTW means nothing in truly respected journalists of the UK, despite his protestations to the contrary and his persistent references to his own “award winning” achievments, that bear no real weight in this country.

    But far be it from me to attempt to dissuade any of you here of the veracity of his garbage. My point in putting up these links had been to illustrate the inherent dangers of believing in the sanctity of the opinions of any non scientific journalists that ultimately serve other paymasters, who in turn seek primarily to entertain, rather than to properly inform.
    In Deer’s case I would unhesitatingly add that the man is hell bent on a highly personal vendetta of Andrew Wakefield which has at its roots the malignancy of his own troubled personality and has nothing whatsoever to do with either autism or vaccine injusry or the corruption of a pharma industry.

    Those are my own opinions of course.

  20. Chris April 1, 2012 at 21:26 #

    Patricia:

    – unlike those trusty posters of yours on this Forum who keep churning out the same tired old offensive and insulting and fevered imaginings of one Brian Deer,

    Excuse me? Did you miss my posting here? It included these papers:

    Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9.
    Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.

    BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6.
    Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.

    Plus article, and from different authors this review.

    You never said anything, nor did you mention that they all are from before 2004.

  21. Joe April 1, 2012 at 21:54 #

    BMJ’s editor is on the board of GSK, GSK makes MMR. Murdoch’s media empire, went after Wakefield. Murdoch, was running GSK, so to speak. Murdoch was found in very compromising position that was involving some pretty heavy corruption.

    Billionaires do not like to lose a penny! less alone Billion’s

    Everyone that went after Andy, worked for Directly or In directly
    for GSK. Even people in the British government,that had a hand in the persecution of Andy had ties to GSK.

    (either on the board, or works for someone on the board)

    If all of you on this board, can’t figure this out. You have
    just confirmed our suspicions as to what you do for a living.

    • Sullivan April 2, 2012 at 05:59 #

      And the history between Glaxo and Brian Deer was so friendly?

      http://briandeer.com/dtp-dpt-vaccine-2.htm

      By the way, Glaxo grew out of the Wellcome Trust. The same trust that funded Andrew Wakefield, right? But, hey, Mr. Wakefield was setting up his own pharma company and that doesn’t bother his supporters.

  22. MikeMa April 1, 2012 at 22:05 #

    Chris,
    Patricia’s Wakefield worship means never having to say she’s sorry for his fraud, unethical patient selection & treatment, and conflicts of interest. Easier to pin it all on Brian and sweep the Wake-facts under the rug.

  23. Chris April 2, 2012 at 00:44 #

    Exactly. By 2003 it was already known that Wakefield’s study was flawed, not really relevant and basically wrong. All Brian Deer found out was why: blatant fraud.

    I have also provided this 2003 article by Ben Goldacre: Never Mind the Facts. It is about a docudrama that aired in the UK where Wakefield is depicted as a maverick hero doctor, “Hear the Silence.” Dr. Goldacre has this to say about its veracity:

    The only things that the writers of Hear the Silence get wrong, to be fair, are the science and the story.

    Patricia, is Dr. Goldacre another form of Brian Deer? Is the Guardian an evil Murdock paper? Was that article published before or after 2004?

  24. Chris April 2, 2012 at 01:56 #

    Joe:

    BMJ’s editor is on the board of GSK, GSK makes MMR.

    Here is the GSK Board:

    http://www.gsk.com/about/boardofdirectors.htm

    Here is the editorial Staff of the BMJ:

    http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff

    I checked, and no one on the GSK page is listed on the BMJ page. Why do you guys not check before you say such outrageous whoppers? It makes you look like lying fools.

    If you do find there is a common name between those two pages, then please tell me who it is, because it is definitely not Fiona Godlee.

  25. Joe April 2, 2012 at 04:33 #

    Chris this was wrote by LONDON (Reuters) This year, he gave up his directorships of GlaxoSmithKline. ( Speaking of Murdoch )

    If you cannot see the stupidity, of having someone with this much influence with the media on a pharma Co. GSK board. You have no soul, left.

    This is from your own! link [Sir Crispin Davis] Reed Elsevier’s CEO, Sir Crispin Davis.

    MMR JUDGE FAILED TO DISCLOSE HE WAS BROTHER OF Glaxo SmithKline DIRECTOR AND LANCET BOSS. Remember the Lancet, that removed Dr.Wakefields work. It appears he Davis had money to lose if it stayed in the lancet.

    He Hogg took the parents funding away, so they would not get help for their lawsuits for vaccine damaged children. His brother had many conflicts of interest.

    Mr Justice Davis (aka Sir Nigel Anthony Lamert Davis), who had dismissed the appeal over the removal of funding of the MMR litigation by the Legal Services Commission was the brother of Lancet proprietor (CEO Reed Elsevier) Crispin (Henry Lamert) Davis who at the time had also recently become a non-executive director of Glaxo SmithKline. Though this has not been reported in the media the following press announcement was issued by the judiciary yesterday afternoon:

    “In 2003 Mr Justice Davis’s brother was appointed as a Non-Executive Director of Glaxo SmithKline, a company which was formed as a result of a merger with Smith Kline Beecham. At the date of the hearing before Davis J, the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother’s position did not occur to him.

    You! can’t see anything wrong with this kind of corruption?

    Thank’s for the link, you helped me make my point.

    Looks like, you were wrong.

  26. Joe April 2, 2012 at 05:06 #

    Fiona Godlee BMJ financial ties to Merck–manufacturer of 13 vaccines. She also acknowledged she had some income from GSK
    the manufacturer of several vaccines as well.

    That’s quite a conflict!

    Sorry! I was wrong about the board appointment,but as you can see
    she did not have clean hands. Her hands are stained with our children’s blood and suffering. God Great book, the Bible says;
    The Love of money, is the route of all Evil.

    • Sullivan April 2, 2012 at 06:05 #

      Joe,

      Unless you can back up the last comment (the one still in moderation) with links, I’m not approving it.

  27. Joe April 2, 2012 at 05:20 #

    My son suffers with his Gut problems so intense at times, he looks like he is going to pass out.

    These children that have gut problems and are suffering are ignored, when they go to the Dr. Were told, It is only bad Autistic behavior. Along with, what makes you think he’s in pain.My reply; His digging ruts out of the tops of oak chairs, while tears are streaming down his face and screaming like someone who is being burned or skinned alive.

    Boy! have you all got a lot to answer for come judgement day.

    And the witnesses being used, will be our kids and one Dr. named Wakefield.

    • Sullivan April 2, 2012 at 06:02 #

      Joe,

      In the years that Andrew Wakefield was at Thoughtful House and supported by private donors, what research did he do on the treatment of “autistic enterocolitis”.

  28. Joe April 2, 2012 at 06:17 #

    Sullivan, are you talking about the conflicts of Godlee?

  29. Joe April 2, 2012 at 06:37 #

    http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/rein-response-fiona-godlee

    Fiona Godlee acknowledges that AHRP was right to criticize the BMJ
    and its editor-in-chief for failing to disclose to its readership, the BMJ financial ties to Merck–manufacturer of 13 vaccines. She also acknowledges income from GSK–manufacturer of several vaccines as well.

  30. Joe April 2, 2012 at 07:15 #

    Sullivan is it natural for a child to bleed out of his rear?
    would you be concerned if it were your child?

    How would handle waiting 6 mos. to see a Gastroenterologist,
    and she tells you some children just don’t like the feeling
    of pooping.

    You see, we told her he is not pooping but every 4 to 5 days in between that he screaming in pain. The only thing that helps is Gas X.

    She then tells us, some children just don’t like the feeling
    of pooping. I brought her a present,a blood and mucus soaked diaper, and told her this is from a child who you say don’t
    like the feeling of pooping.

    He sits in the corner grunting for sometimes hours, and this
    is what we get Blood and Mucus. Dr. this is after using stool softeners and stimulants everything we can think of. She looks
    at us and smugly says Wakefield has been discredited. You see,
    we asked her for a pill cam. She said NO! and then dismissed us and said give him miralax. She never called us back to ask about our son. Ever! The current medical community, is saturated with misplaced Pride Arrogance and at it’s worse Greed.
    some children just don’t like the feeling of pooping
    We parents are fighting for a better medical system that’s it.

    One that has compassion, not contempt for children in pain.

    It is amazing that those we trusted, that’s supposed to care for our children are willing to sacrifice our children. Just to make sure,that their perceived to be right. Even if, they are not.

  31. Joe April 2, 2012 at 07:33 #

    Was I right? Yes I was.

    Brian Deer had total ties to Murdoch through the Times. And his under handed tactics to find out the names of these children was
    unethical if not down right against the law. And showed,the Apple does not fall far from the tree. The Apple,Deer / The tree,Murdoch

    The private eye Co. used to investigate Wakefield was funded directly by a Pharma group.

  32. David N. Brown April 2, 2012 at 08:10 #

    Denise,
    I believe you are in error in saying that Tim Bolen (aka “the Bolenator”) “has a history of maligning and suing his critics ( see Quackwatch)”. To my knowledge, Bolen has never sued anyone. He does have a history of making litigiously-themed threats, sometimes on “behalf” of parties he has no authority to represent. See DDI v. Stephen Barrett, plus the “cease and desist tweet”.

    David N. Brown
    Mesa, Arizona

  33. Passing Thru April 2, 2012 at 14:02 #

    If Mr Murdoch is pulling the strings, why is it Fox News is the only media outlet in the United States giving any platform to the anti-vax nuts?

  34. Joe April 2, 2012 at 14:45 #

    Dr. Wakefields clinic Thoughtful House had treatments for these
    kids. Please name any that the IACC have come up with? or the
    Autism centers of excellence. Both are tax dollar funded and
    have come up empty,except for of course behavioral training.

    A.S. Bob Wright new toy to make money with, his grand son was
    helped very much according to his mother Katie. By one of the
    Dr’s from the Clinic Dr.Krigsman a Gastroenterology specialist.

    In fact he is able to stop his pain, almost completely.

    He Christian Bob Wrights grandson, starts speaking again just
    after his first round of Chelation.

    A.S. = Autism Speaks

    Not one dime of A.S. money has went toward the therapies that helped Christian. Except, trying to disprove the good it done
    to his own flesh. That sounds strange, till you understand GE
    parent Co. of NBC has a Thimerosal plant. Bobs Wrights Golden
    parachute would come plummeting to the ground, if GE’s product
    was found to have damaged any children. GE NBC stocks would plummet to the ground. just like his Golden parachute retirement
    plan.

    • Sullivan April 2, 2012 at 15:20 #

      Joe,

      It wasn’t Mr Wakefield’s thoughtful house, or he couldn’t have been let go. You can ask the newly-renamed center there why they let their GI doctor go.

      I see that you dodged the question as to what research he did on GI complaints in autistic children.

      He had the opportunity and time. Don’t blame me that he didn’t use it

      As I warned you before, you are not going to flood this discussion like you do at the Huffington Post. Overnight you entered seven comments, most of which are repetitive.

  35. Denice Walter April 2, 2012 at 15:26 #

    @ David N. Brown:

    I should have been more clear – however, I did refer to Quackwatch where the whole sordid tale is recounted by Barrett.

  36. Chris April 2, 2012 at 15:32 #

    Joe:

    MMR JUDGE FAILED TO DISCLOSE HE WAS BROTHER OF Glaxo SmithKline DIRECTOR AND LANCET BOSS. Remember the Lancet, that removed Dr.Wakefields work. It appears he Davis had money to lose if it stayed in the lancet.

    The judge is not a BMJ editor. You specifically said “BMJ’s editor is on the board of GSK, GSK makes MMR.” So stop changing your story.

  37. Joe April 2, 2012 at 16:07 #

    You Asked ;why is it Fox News is the only media outlet in the
    United States giving any platform to the anti-vax nuts?

    That’s easy, the media loves Pharmaceutical Company’s money and
    they have come to depend upon their income. Some just to stay afloat,in fact it was CBS that said one time we are going to run this (vaccine causing damage story) but we have already been told
    they will hurt us(meaning pulling block buster, drug commercials)

    ABC in the beginning, said we believe this is happening to the kids and we want to be the first to get the story out. Then I guess someone got threats of what the Pharma Company’s would do
    to their steady income from them. Because it came down from corporate to AX the story.

    Do you really want to live in a world where the Pharma Co. and
    the OIL. Co. control everything including. The freedom of the press????

    You are from the UK right? does it not piss you off that the oil Co’s are ripping you in the UK off at $6 dollars a gallon or what ever it is. What is it now anyway? per gallon

    Presidential candidate Santorum said at a town hall mtg “we in
    the US. have been conditioned to think health care should be free

    You don’t mind paying $900.00 for a I pad, but you do mind when
    a drug cost you $900.00. That keeps you a live” At the time he said that, his child was found to have a rare disorder that’s going to cost tax payers millions. As a member of the Senate they pay nothing for the most generous health plan in US. history.

    It was brought out 15 yr’s ago, when ABC still had a conscience
    that drugs cost pennies to a dollar to make and they mark them
    up by up to hundreds to thousands of times their original cost.

    It’s called supply and demand, speaking of such here in the
    US. the Oil Ceo’s were told they do not have to swear in when
    they are testifying in front of Congress. They know they are going to lie to them.

    How much solders blood,and lives are shed just to protect their oil profits? Do they the Oil Co’s pay a dime out for protection of their product? No! not one dime. In fact they appear in front of Congress, and say we have the right to get what ever the market allows. At that time single moms, where on TV saying I cannot even afford the gas now to go to work.

    That’s who you want running the world? I choose Jesus as my King

    In fact there is a really good christian song by Building 429
    the lyrics are take this world,but give me Jesus. This is not! where I belong.

    Great song! you can listen on you tube.

    The Bible also says; the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our God.

    When this happens, there will be real justice and peace, Such as the world as we know it. Has ever known.

    I already know what you are going to say , your just ranting an rambling on. No! just trying to make sure that they make the vaccines as safe as humanly possible.

    Also, I think it’s pathetic that Oil Co’s can rape and pillage
    during a time of war. We send our men and women, to fight and
    sometimes die so their profits keep flowing.

    The love of money,truly is the root of all evil.

  38. Joe April 2, 2012 at 16:22 #

    You won’t release my account of my sons experience with worse than quacks? Why not! It’s true, every bit of it.

    Sullivan is it natural, for a child to bleed out of his rear?
    would you be concerned if it were your child? leaking blood
    and mucus.

  39. Chris April 2, 2012 at 16:24 #

    And I should add: BMJ is not the Lancet. Joe, you have proved nothing. No BMJ editor is part of GSK.

  40. Joe April 2, 2012 at 18:57 #

    Chris, the Lancet was involved and so was GSK in jacking up
    Wakefield.

    James Murdoch’s GSK directorship is only part of a far reaching network of conflict of interest which undoubtedly promoted the stripping of Wakefield’s licence to practice medicine in the UK. Deer’s research was assisted by Medico-Legal Investigations, a private eye company whose only source of funding is the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry; judge, Sir Nigel Davis, denied parents whose children Wakefield treated the right to be heard in court about claims against vaccine manufacturers; judge Davis’ brother is an executive board member of Elsevier (publishers of the Lancet which removed Wakefield’s 1998 paper on the discovery of the new bowel disease) and is also on the Board of GSK; the Chairman of the General Medical Council Fitness to Practice Panel who ruled against Wakefield, Dr Kumar, refused to answer questions about his shareholdings in GSK.

    As well as the Sunday Times and the London Times which both carried Deer’s malevolent reports, Reuters and the Daily Mirror joined the character assassination; the head of Reuters serves on the Board of Merck, the other manufacturer of MMR; Daily Mirror writer, Miriam Stoppard is wife to Sir Christopher Hogg, 2004 Chairman of GSK.

    This, is incestuous relations between the Pharma Co’s and Government also involving Journals and reporters.

  41. TLPG April 2, 2012 at 22:38 #

    Joe, if your son is having severe gut issues get an expert to check out his gut and pronto. Forget about Autism – this problem has nothing to do with Autism. But the gut issue IS causing a sensory overload in your son and he will regress to the lower end of the Spectrum (if he hasn’t already) if you don’t get off your rear end and get his gut checked out. There’s a chance the gut is heavy metal poisoned (I can give you a example of this, but I don’t want to upset Kev or Sullivan by naming the source) and if so chelation will clear it.

    No excuses. Do it – for your son’s sake.

  42. TLPG April 2, 2012 at 22:43 #

    Your assuming the Ethyl mercury is less toxic than methyl.

    Since when was pure mercury methyl mercury? I never mentioned methyl mercury at all.

    You are assuming wrong, Because you know by now the Ethyl crosses the BBB easier than does the methyl version. And the there’s little Hannah standing in the way of your argument, with a Mitochondria Disorder.

    And she was already on the Spectrum so there was no Autism causation. There was a regression – and the cause was NINE vaccines in the one visit leading to another example of a sensory overload.

    Besides, ethyl mercury is still less toxic that PURE mercury. That’s a fact that you can never get around.

  43. MikeMa April 2, 2012 at 23:48 #

    Why do you assume the mercury came from vaccines?

    Lots of more obvious sources of heavy metals are possible. Lead paint. Eating coins.

  44. orquesta aragon October 9, 2013 at 08:14 #

    It’s going to be end of mine day, however before end I am
    reading this great piece of writing to increase my know-how.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Autism Blog – BMJ, Brian Deer file anti-SLAPP suit against Andrew … | My Autism Site | All About Autism - March 12, 2012

    [...] See the article here: Autism Blog – BMJ, Brian Deer file anti-SLAPP suit against Andrew … [...]

  2. Science-Based Medicine » An antivaccine tale of two legal actions - March 12, 2012

    [...] Sullivan points out, one has to wonder whether Andrew Wakefield’s lawyer was aware just how shaky the basis of [...]

  3. An antivaccine tale of two legal actions – - HealthNewsX - Health News AggregatorHealthNewsX – Health News Aggregator - March 12, 2012

    [...] Sullivan points out, one has to wonder whether Andrew Wakefield’s lawyer was aware just how shaky the basis of his [...]

  4. BMJ, Brian Deer file anti-SLAPP motion against Andrew Wakefield | Public Participation Project - March 21, 2012

    [...] Read the full post here – http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/03/bmj-brian-deer-file-anti-slapp-suit-against-andrew-wakefie… [...]

  5. Anti-SLAPP cases to watch « Slapped In Texas - April 8, 2012

    [...] of the study) Wakefield’s fall from grace and Deer’s expose, there is a good deal of attention swirling around this lawsuit and the anti-SLAPP [...]

  6. Anti-SLAPP motion moves forward in Wakefield v. BMJ et al. « Left Brain Right Brain - July 13, 2012

    [...] Journal), Brian Deer (journalist) and Fiona Godlee (editor BMJ). This was followed in March by a response from the BMJ team, including an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. (SLAPP = strategic lawsuit against public [...]

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 1,148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: