Autism Blog - Wakefield, distortion and the Sunday Times

03 Jul 2009

Author: Mike Stanton
Comments: 16

Wakefield, distortion and the Sunday Times

The journalist Brian Deer has done as much as anyone to investigate the background to what Ben Goldacre describes as the MMR Hoax. In the course of his investigations he discovered undisclosed conflicts of interest by Andrew Wakefield that led to most of the authors of the original paper in the Lancet withdrawing their names and the editor publishing a retraction.

Then in February this year Deer published his latest investigation. The Lancet paper had already been dismissed as bad science. Now, if Deer’s findings were correct, it would seem that some of the data had been deliberately falsified. Wakefield responded by complaining about the article to the Press Complaints Commission. The Times stood by its story and also forwarded all details to the General Medical Council who are still investigating Wakefield over allegations of misconduct.

And that was it until this week, when Thoughtful House, the clinic that Wakefield has established in Texas, issued a press release announcing

Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR journalist’s Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper’s Web Site

It goes on to suggest that this “interim order”

appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories.

Of course it does no such thing. Thoughtful House even quote Stephen Abell of the PCC as saying that

Given the ongoing nature of the dispute the articles should be removed from the newspaper’s website until this matter has been concluded. This would not be an admission of any liability on the part of the newspaper.

The wording reveals what actually happened. The Sunday Times has not been ordered to take down the articles. The PCC decided to postpone its investigation until after the GMC reaches a decision on the allegations of misconduct. This makes sense. If Wakefield is found guilty the complaint will fail. Meanwhile the PCC has asked the Sunday Times to remove the article from its website until matters can be resolved and the Sunday Times has agreed. That tallies with the email I received from the PCC

The PCC has considered the matter initially and has elected to stay its investigation until the conclusion of the GMC inquiry. It has reached no formal decision on the substance of the complaint and there is no published ruling on our website.

The Commission has asked that the paper remove the articles temporarily until the conclusion of the PCC investigation. This is without any admission of liability on the paper’s part.

So no order was issued, no judgement was made and there is no suggestion of impropriety by Deer or the Sunday Times. All the suggestions come from one source, Wakefield himself. His friends on the web may try to pretend that this is further proof of the brave maverick doctor’s innocence in the face of a vicious campaign against him. I think they are clutching at straws.

14 people like this post.

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/?p=2542">Wakefield, distortion and the Sunday Times</a>

Comments

16 Responses to “Wakefield, distortion and the Sunday Times”

autismjabberwocky
July 3rd, 2009
03:51:13

I find it very strange that four months after the complaint was filed with the PCC that it has not been resolved. It really doesn’t matter what the outcome of the GMC case is – if you are going to publish something making serious charges of fraud and professional misconduct you really have to the facts to back it up. So either Brian Deer had the facts to back up his claims when the story was published or he didn’t.

If he does have the facts then you would think that the complaint would have been resolved by now or would be resolved without waiting for some unrelated event. If he didn’t then the story was, by definition, fabricated and should be retracted.
Chris
July 3rd, 2009
07:09:19

Did you read the article above your comment? It quoted the PCC saying they were going to wait until AFTER the ruling of the GMC in August to make a decision.

Why do you say it is unrelated? It is on the same data and information.

Essentially, they are waiting for the official ruling so they do not have to do one of their own. Since it is only about a month away, why do the extra work?
Mike Stanton
July 3rd, 2009
19:30:14

Autismjabberwocky,
have you read Wakefield’s complaint to the PCC? It is 56 pages long. One week later Wakefield issued a 16 page addendum with fresh accusations against Deer! Little wonder that the Times spent a month taking legal advice before issuing a response.

Wakefield’s complaint against Deer is threefold
1. That he has published unfounded allegations against Wakefield, unsupported by the evidence.
2. That he has breached journalistic ethics by handing over his evidence to the GMC. This is the same evidence that is not supposed to exist according to point 1.
3. That Deer lied when he said he did not initiate the GMC complaint against Wakefield. Therefore he has an undeclared conflict of interest and canot be trusted to be impartial in his reporting.

It was Wakefield who included the GMC hearings in his complaint and the PCC has wisely decided to defer judgement until those hearings are over.

On your blog you accurately report that the PCC requested that the Times remove those articles that are the subject of the complaint until such time as the issue could be decided. The Times was under no obligation to remove them but agreed out of common courtesy. Do you have any suggestions as to why Wakfield would lie about this and claim in his latest press release that the Times was ordered to remove the stories?
autismjabberwocky
July 4th, 2009
02:58:43

Mike,

Actually I think the Times took three months to respond, not one, at least according to the information that I have seen. Regardless, if Brian Deer had the facts to back up his story it should not have even taken a single month to get them ready to submit to the PCC.

If he had the facts then there would be no need to wait for the GMC hearing to complete (if it ever does).

If he has the facts then the articles would not have been taken down from the Times web site.

Given the fact that both of these have come to pass it seems like Brian Deer did not have the facts to back up his articles.

As for the matter of “requested” vs “ordered” and Wakefile “lying” about it I don’t think there is enough information available to make that statement. I have not seen any official correspondance from the PCC so it would be premature at best to say that they “requested” rather than “ordered”. If you have any reference to material directly from the PCC, please provide a link.
Mike Stanton
July 4th, 2009
08:33:19

Jabberwocky,
there is no link because there is no order. There is the email I received from the PCC that I quoted in full in my article above stating that the PCC, “has asked that the paper remove the articles temporarily until the conclusion of the PCC investigation.” Wakefield’s press release which I link to in the article above is headlined

Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR journalist’s Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper’s Web Site

If lying is too strong a word allow me to rephrase. Why would Wakefield misrepresent a request as an order? And why pretend that a goodwill gesture by the paper is evidence of liability? There are two statements from PCC representatives (the email to me and the correspondence quoted in Wakefield’s press release) stating that no liability is implied by this action.
Another Voice
July 4th, 2009
19:01:54

Are we expecting too much from the GMC hearings regarding Dr. Wakefield? These are fitness to practice hearings not trial procedures. If the GMC allows Dr. Wakefield to continue practicing does that mean that his study numbers were honest; that he didn’t collect blood samples from small children at a birthday party, or that they don’t view the those things as reasons to stop him from practicing medicine?
Mike Stanton
July 4th, 2009
21:30:55

Another Voice

You are right to express caution about the GMC hearings.

As I understand it the GMC will establish matters of fact before deciding whether these constitute professional misconduct. Only then will they decide what, if any, sanctions are appropriate. So he could still be free to practise medicine even if the GMC finds against him.

Although the charges against Wakefield all relate to his research into possible links between MMR, bowel disease and autism the GMC will not adjudicate on the merits of his theory. That has already been thoroughly dismissed by subsequent independent research. Even if the GMC exonerates him completely this will not affect the fact that there is no credible scientific evidence for a link between MMR and autism.
dr treg
July 4th, 2009
23:01:57

It is interesting that autism and journalism seem to result in a black and white perception of problems and solutions. Hopefully after evaluating the evidence, the GMC will adopt a more sober view and some form of justice will prevail. It is anticipated that the journalists involved are ready to write profit making articles to decimate Dr Wakefield whatever the outcome. Their quills are ready. One does wonder how much profit these journalists are making from the case and if they will then go on to write books about the case in order to enhance their profits. One man`s misfortune is another man`s fortune. That is journalism. The best outcome to sell their papers is Dr Wakefield`s erasure and professional ruination.
Mike Stanton
July 5th, 2009
00:46:53

Dr Treg

in my world most journalists are paid a salary to write for their employers. They do not profit from increased newspaper sales. In fact the current situation is one of declining profits, salary cuts and redundancies. As to writing books, you have to shift at least 10000 copies a year to realize any sort of living wage.

Regarding media coverage of Wakefield, the tide has only recently turned against him. He has enjoyed a free ride from papers like the Mail and the Telegraph for years. Melanie Philips continues to defend him in the Spectator. Even the Observer gave him an easy ride a couple of years ago.

Wakefield has managed to orchestrate his own professional ruination. The GMC will judge him on the evidence of his own actions, not those of the press.
Joseph
July 5th, 2009
04:15:00

One does wonder how much profit these journalists are making from the case and if they will then go on to write books about the case in order to enhance their profits. One man`s misfortune is another man`s fortune.

That concern is a bit baffling, considering that Wakefield made about $800,000 from vaccine injury litigation.

The part about journalists trying to make money off of books about the controversy is kind of funny too.
dr treg
July 5th, 2009
14:53:40

You seem to be saying that Wakefield needs to have his claret tapped or nose bloodied to teach him a good lesson. Thank goodness the biased journalists who built him up are not judging him.
Will you also be seeking
1. To ask Tony Blair why he didnt come clean about which jabs Leo had. As you will see in the MMR hoax reference by Ben Goldacre most of the articles related to Leo.
2. To investigate the irresponsible reporting by journalists to sell their papers as described in the MMR hoax article.

“In my world most journalists are paid a salary to write for their employers. They do not profit from increased newspaper sales. In fact the current situation is one of declining profits, salary cuts and redundancies. As to writing books, you have to shift at least 10000 copies a year to realize any sort of living wage.” – this may explain the resentment of many journalists and why they need scapegoats to write about in order to achieve promotion in their system. Books are quite profitable.
Mike Stanton
July 6th, 2009
07:31:10

Dr Treg
I am not investigating Wakefield, I am responding to his press release which makes false claims about the actions of the PCC. I have no wish to teach him a lesson. I do wish that the public could learn the lesson that there is no connection between MMR and autism and that MMR is a safe and effective vaccine. Wakefield is promoting the opposite message. That makes him a danger to public health.

Regarding the media, If you visit my personal blog you will find a history of posts by me taking the media to task for misreporting every aspect of autism, including MMR. Try this selection for starters.
Wakefield med et (mindre) selvskudd – nok en gang « Skepsis blog
July 7th, 2009
12:18:56

[...] anmodning om å ikke la teksten ligge ute mens granskningen pågikk, ikke noe pålegg. Hvilket Left Brain/Right Brain kommenterte tidligere i uken. Med behørig påtale av det ikke helt etterettelige i tolkningen [...]
Wakefield’s false claims backfire « Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day
July 8th, 2009
16:13:15

[...] As I reported previously, the PCC is waiting on the final outcome of the GMC disciplinary hearing against Wakefield before conducting its own inquiry over the articles and felt it would be fairer all round if the material was temporarily removed from the Times website. The Times agreed and removed the articles as a courtesy to the PCC. The Times was not impressed by Wakefield’s ungracious response and as a result the material is now back on their website. [...]
laura James
September 1st, 2009
01:30:48

How can Wakefield’s insistence on using single does spaced out vaccines be a danger to the public? The drop in vaccinations were due to the fact that single dose vaccines were no longer made available to the public.
Sullivan
September 1st, 2009
01:50:17

How can Wakefield’s insistence on using single does spaced out vaccines be a danger to the public? The drop in vaccinations were due to the fact that single dose vaccines were no longer made available to the public.

That’s a nice bit of blameshifting.

Dr. Wakefield claimed that the MMR vaccine was causing autism. Not only that, he made it appear that this was not a rare event, but happened to a large fraction of children. He incited fear in the vaccine, and he was wrong.

Dr. Wakefield is reported to have stated in an interview on the US program, 60 Minutes:

I would have enormous regrets if [my theories] were wrong and there were complications or fatalities from measles.

He was wrong, there have been deaths.