Wakefield

10 Feb

The name alone conjures up strong images for many in the autism communities. If you think vaccines cause autism, he is a hero. For many others, he has brought shame to the greater autism community.

In addition, I know many who think that Andrew Wakefield’s time has come and gone and we should just ignore him now. To those, I apologize, but the recent information is just too important to ignore.

Kev would be able to show the annoyance that Dr. Wakefield’s research has caused many of us in the autism community. It would be a better read than this–a post written by someone who finds the entire affair sad. Too much harm has been caused by what even before today was already pretty obviously bad science. It’s just a sad story that has just gotten sadder.

For those who may not know, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was the lead author on the papers which attempted to link autism to the MMR vaccine. The story is so long and tortuous that it is difficult to know what to include and what to leave out. You know what, if you don’t already know the story–count yourself lucky and skip this post! How’s that for an introduction?

Brian Deer took a closer look than most (all?) journalists at Dr. Wakefield’s story. He exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield’s patients were litigants claiming MMR caused autism. He also exposed the fact that Dr. Wakefield and some on his team were well paid for their efforts.

It is very likely that Mr. Deer’s investigation is what prompted the General Medical Council (GMC) to investigate Dr. Wakefield’s actions in this research. As part of that investigation, the GMC has collected medical histories of the subjects of Dr. Wakefield’s study. And, Brian Deer has had access to these data, and they don’t match what was presented by Dr. Wakefield’s team.

Before we look at what was said in the papers and what the medical histories actually indicated, let’s look at the introduction from the original Lancet paper:

We saw several children who, after a period of apparent normality, lost acquired skills, including communication. They all had gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and bloating and, in some cases, food intolerance. We describe the clinical findings, and gastrointestinal features of these children.

Compare that to what’s here’s Brian Deer’s article, MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

Ouch.

Here’s a more thorough article, again by Mr. Deer:

Hidden records show MMR truth
A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination

As a short sidetrack, Mr. Deer isn’t the only one suggesting that there were problems with the Wakefield studies.

Wakefield claimed (in a separate paper from the original Lancet article) that his team found evidence of persistent measles virus in gut biopsies from the autistic children he saw. In the Omnibus hearing, a member of Wakefield’s team told the story of how the data which clearly disagreed with Wakefield’s conclusions was ignored.

Or, to put it another way, Dr. Chadwick [note correction] told Dr. Wakefield that he (Bustin) had data which directly contradicted the results Wakefield was going to publish. This should have quashed the paper, and, yet, not mention is even made of it by Wakefield et al.

But, back to the Brian Deer report.

Let’s look at a few examples from Mr. Deer’s story. There were 12 children in the original study. Mr. Deer refers to them as child 1 through child 12. Mr. Deer looks at them individually..

Child 11 had a “positive” test for measles RNA by Wakefield’s team. The father had 3–yes 3!–other labs test the same biopsy samples. Result? No sign of measles.

Here’s a bit about child one from Mr. Deer’s story:

In the paper this claim would be adopted, with Wakefield and his team reporting that Child One’s parents said “behavioural symptoms” started “one week” after he received the MMR.

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

It’s very tempting to quote example after example, but I’ll just end up copying the entire story. I encourage you to read the story, there are numerous examples of how many of the 12 subjects of Wakefield’s study were not previously normal.

Rather than pick all the examples of discrepancies about development of Wakefield’s subjects, how about the second part of the question: did these kids all show GI problems? Again, there are numerous examples in Mr. Deer’s story. Here’s an excerpt.

The most striking change of opinion came in the case of Child Three, a six-year-old from Huyton, Merseyside. He was reported in the journal to be suffering from regressive autism and bowel disease: specifically “acute and chronic nonspecific colitis”. The boy’s hospital discharge summary, however, said there was nothing untoward in his biopsy.

A Royal Free consultant pathologist questioned a draft text of the paper. “I was somewhat concerned with the use of the word ‘colitis’,” Susan Davies, a co-author, told the ongoing GMC inquiry into the ethics of how the children were treated, in September 2007.

“I was concerned that what we had seen in these children was relatively minor.”

Not only are there problems in the reported information and the records, one of the co-authors is indicating that the paper overplayed the data they had.

Sorry, but this all just makes me more sad. Sometimes bad science can be, well a little funny. Sometimes just annoying. This is just really sad.

“A Sunday Times investigation has found that altered data was behind the decade-long scare over vaccination”

What more can be said?

(note: I edited this shortly after publishing it. The substance was not changed)

Advertisements

395 Responses to “Wakefield”

  1. Dedj February 14, 2009 at 19:44 #

    “Dedj
    Your point below Mr Deer had I remeber at one time had the first names ,surnames and Legal Aid certificates on his site for over two years “Lancet children””

    If he has ever had such data on his website, and such data can be shown to be enough for a reasonable member of the public to individually identify the children, then Mr Deer and whoever supplied the data should have been reported to the relevant authourities.

    So, where is this report?
    Any Waybackesque copy of the webpage? The 2005 archive indicates first name only.
    Any document saved to a hard-drive?
    The record of Mr Deer being sued?

    These are pretty serious allegations against Brian Deer, yet they seem unsupported by anything (and contradicted by the evidence publically available, including a webpage they may have been on). If we have to accept them as true because ‘I remember’ then that just adds support to Deer, not detracts from it.

  2. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 19:51 #

    No I dont have a copy of any of Mr Deers sites Im just reflecting on this as one point raised by yourself concerning libel law where you state the law and Mr Deer has clearly infringed it but fails to admit it to you if you know him sell which you seem to do going by your postings ,maybe he forgot i dont know .

  3. Brian Deer February 14, 2009 at 20:02 #

    The only children ever named on my website were (some of) those whose parents had repeatedly flaunted them in the media, giving all manner of clinical information and photographs, as part of the campaign against MMR. Those parents had already waived any claim to confidentiality by exploiting children in this manner.

    Parents who had respected their children’s privacy have always been respected by me.

    The mother who I referred to above in this thread, who had two children in the Lancet series, both of whom were not normal before their MMRs and neither of whom had regressive autism, came to court during Wakefield’s gagging efforts against me, and complained to the judge. It was another of her efforts to conceal facts which have assumed great public importance. The judge said I was entirely entitled to publish the information, and ruled in my favour.

    I never published dates of birth, as falsely alleged above. I published legal aid numbers, showing that these children had been issued with legal aid certificates in 1996: up to two years before the Lancet paper. This was the reason: to bring out the truth.

    The cranks and malicious liars need to beware. Medical confidentiality is not absolute. There is a balancing that needs to be performed. Confidentiality needs to be balanced against the public interest. If the overriding public interest requires that confidentiality be broken, it will be broken.

  4. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 20:10 #

    Clay

    Do you feel taller now?

  5. Kev February 14, 2009 at 20:12 #

    OQF: no ones asking you for a back up of Brian’s site – just this report you ascribed to Brian. Where is it? Did it ever actually exist? Apart from in your head?

    Harold: I realise that you’re not used to being on blogs that are read by more than 3 people but try and drop the concern trolling. If you seriously can’t tell the difference between handing someone a list of facts and editorialising in a paper than I suggest you get back to the real world sonny.

    Yellowriver: I thought you’d made a Grand Haughty Exit? Allow me to help you with that.

    “No consequential aspect of anything I have written on the MMR/Wakefield topic in the last five years has been shown to be in error in any way.” Priceless. Next you’ll be crying out, I singly put an end to the MMR anti-vaccine lobby all around the world. It was you wot done that and its sad.
    I’m away to get a tetanus

    So your retort is that its Priceless? Is that it? How about some _evidence_ of why its priceless?

    I’d suggest that along with your tetanus, you get some anti-stupid pills too.

    And welcome to John ‘I have never read your blog Kev’ Stone. I look forward to your point, assuming you ever find one.

  6. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 20:17 #

    Kev

    The “sonny” talk if intended to sound tough is counterproductive.

    And if you don’t want me to post here just say so and I won’t. I will respect your need for conformity. There is no need to make up silly “concern trolling” allegations.

  7. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 20:21 #

    Dedj

    I don’t engage in hero, or heroine, worship as you apparently do. I have disagreed with Kristina Chew and Michelle Dawson and will undoubtedly continue to do so, whether here on real discussion forums.

    Hard as it may be to believe parents of autistic children who do not subscribe to neurodiversity ideology have a legitimate right to speak on behalf of our autistic children. Even if it offends you for us to do so.

  8. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 20:24 #

    Mr Deer is right I think no dates of births were put up just the legal aid certificate numbers.

    Then why take them down if it was legal in the first place?

  9. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 20:25 #

    Mr Deer

    If you are uncomfortable in answering this question I understand but did even though, as you have clarified, you were not the complainant before the GMC, did you provide the information to the GMC from your investigation before a complaint was initiated or afterward?

    And if it was afterward did you do so on your intiative or at the initiative of the GMC or parties involved in the proceeding?

    Again, if these questions are too sensitive to answer at this time I understand.

    Thank you.

  10. Kev February 14, 2009 at 20:26 #

    Harold,

    No, not tough, merely to illustrate how childish and ridiculous you are. As a person I mean.

    I have no need for conformity sonny. Just a need not to be bothered by idiots. How many times by the way has anyone from ‘my side’ ever had a comment approved on your blog? Once? Never? Your so hypocritical its hilarious. Sonny.

    What offends us about you is your tiresome never ending concern trolling. I understand you don’t know what that is but believe me, you are one. You have your own blog to attack women on sonny. Go off and do that if thats what turns you on.

  11. Kev February 14, 2009 at 20:32 #

    Harold,

    This isn’t a court of law sonny. Stop badgering people. The answer to your question is here:

    (a) They didn’t use my material. Under the 1983 medical act, they acquired all their own material, key portions of which I had previously and separately acquired. They also acquired material from dozens of other sources, including parents, one of whom gave evidence for the GMC.

    Have you got a question that moves the debate forward or are you still being a concern troll? Sonny.

  12. Kev February 14, 2009 at 20:36 #

    OQF:

    Mr Deer is right I think no dates of births were put up just the legal aid certificate numbers. Then why take them down if it was legal in the first place?

    So he’s right, but still wrong by implication? Jesus you people are stupid.

    Listen: Ive put stuff up on here that later I found upset people so I took it down. Its called ‘decency’ you should look it up and send a copy of the definition to the asshats at JABS.

  13. John Stone February 14, 2009 at 20:44 #

    Mr Deer,

    It does not seem to help you to have a letter from Field Fisher Waterhouse stating you are not the complainant: they would surely not need to write a letter stating you are not complainant-of-record if you were not the complainant-in-fact.

    In GMC cases it is common for the complainaint-in-fact not to be the complainant-of-record. The GMC frequently brings cases where the complainant-in-fact is not named, granting them anonymity, and the defending doctor may never learn the identity of the true complainant.

    Accordingly, it is likely the letter from Field Fisher Waterhouse serves further to confirm your role as complainant, albeit unnamed. Therefore I repeat my request for you to publish all of your letters of complaint cited by Judge Eady in his High Court judgement, as well as your letter from Field Fisher Waterhouse stating that you would not be cited as complainant, and place a link to them in this forum so that we know where to look.

    Can you also please publish your extensive correspondence as you cited on your website that you were still corresponding with the GMC over a three year period, quoting your own letter of 6 March 2007 in which you describe Dr Wakefield as a “charlatan”.

    John Stone

  14. One Queer Fish February 14, 2009 at 20:44 #

    But surely Mr Deer partly put the part identities up for the purpose of humiliation as you can’t make out where the children come form, so it cant be said its for transparency?

    JABS well if you go on there you take your chances ,…some wild ones over on JABS..

  15. Dedj February 14, 2009 at 21:34 #

    Harold : We we’re not talking about your right to disagree or agree, but about the style with which you present your disgreements. Opening up with a implied ad hominem and then going off on a tangent does not help your case.

    You can disagree with Chew and the Gang all you want, but if you can’t even be bothered to go to the trouble of quoting their work that you disagree with – even when it’s on the same page – then there isn’t really any reason for them to put in the effort when you don’t.

    Kev: Is there any evidence that Harold is popular enough to recieve such comments? Again, I must reiterate that I have never heard of any mention of Harold outide the ND-blog community, yet others – Larry, Kristina, Alexis, Dinah, yourself, David Andrews, Roger off the top of my head – have been mentioned to me in clinical, academic and practice settings.

    OQF : I’m sorry, but I work with people with english as a second language, who don’t speak any english, and people who cannot/do not speak, and I can’t make out what you’re trying to say with your response to me.

    Your question to Kev can be resolved by looking at the context of the page the names were on. That is, the information was to inform us of the involvement of the parents in litigation.

    Of course, Brian could have put them up for the reasons you claim, but it appears unlikely.

  16. Dedj February 14, 2009 at 21:37 #

    Harold : We we’re not talking about your right to disagree or agree, but about the style with which you present your disgreements. Opening up with a implied ad hominem and then going off on a tangent does not help your case.

    You can disagree with Chew and the Gang all you want, but if you can’t even be bothered to go to the trouble of quoting their work that you disagree with – even when it’s on the same page – then there isn’t really any reason for them to put in the effort when you don’t.

    Kev: Is there any evidence that Harold is popular enough to recieve such comments? Again, I must reiterate that I have never heard of any mention of Harold outide the ND-blog community, yet others – Larry, Kristina, Alexis, Dinah, yourself, David Andrews, Roger off the top of my head – have been mentioned to me in clinical, academic and practice settings.

    OQF : I’m sorry, but I work with people with english as a second language, who don’t speak english, and people who cannot speak, I can’t make out your response to me.

    Your question to Kev can be resolved by looking at the context of the page the names were on. That is, the information was to inform us of the involvement of the parents in litigation.

    Of course, Brian could have put them up for the reasons you claim, but it appears unlikely.

  17. Clay February 14, 2009 at 21:38 #

    Harold said:

    Clay, Do you feel taller now?

    No, that never even occurred to me.
    Why, do you feel shorter?

    The thing is, Harold, you’re just a pain in the ass. It’s just a waste of time for anyone to try to argue with you, because you refuse to see their points.

    The other day, you said:
    “Until a conviction is entered we will not know if Dr. Wakefield fraudulently fixed data as you seem to want desperately to believe. Just out of curiosity, what will you do if Dr. Wakefield is NOT convicted?”

    Well, what will you do when he is? This man was trying to give the competition a black eye so he could promote his own vaccine. In the process, he initiated a vaccine scare that caused thousands, maybe millions, of parents to choose not to vaccinate their children, and many children got the diseases that would have been prevented.

    What do you think of that – as a parent?

    He’s the godfather of the whole “vaccines cause autism” mania, which has resulted in millions upon millions of wasted research dollars which could have been better spent. He’s given false hope to thousands of parents, that they could get a “pay-out” from the pharmaceutical companies, that they might be able to recover their children, by chelation, clay baths, HBOT, all those snake oil cures they’ve wasted their own money on, he’s caused a huge rift in the “autism community” that will take years to heal, if ever.

    And YOU want to know if he’s been convicted yet. Not yet, but soon enough. I suspect they’ll take his license, will that prove to you that he fraudulently fixed his data?

    Or will you scream “Conspiracy!” like the anti-vaxers are doing now?

  18. Clay February 14, 2009 at 21:50 #

    PITA said:

    “And if you don’t want me to post here just say so and I won’t. I will respect your need for conformity. There is no need to make up silly “concern trolling” allegations.”

    Here’s an idea, Harold, meet us halfway.
    Prove that you’re not trying to get traffic to your blog by getting folks to click on your name, by signing with a simple, unclickable “Harold” instead of the link.
    Oh, we’ll know it’s you, there’s no other Harold around here.

  19. Harold L Doherty February 14, 2009 at 22:06 #

    Kev

    You are falling apart. Try to keep it together there popeye.

    You and your buddies sling lots of mud and act tough but when someone disputes your silly ideas you fall apart and start screaming personal insults.

    I will continue to advocate for autistic children and adults and challenge Neurodiversity ideology on my site and leave you to your members only party. You can slap each other on the back and pretend you really are tough guys after all.

  20. Joseph February 14, 2009 at 22:17 #

    It does not seem to help you to have a letter from Field Fisher Waterhouse stating you are not the complainant: they would surely not need to write a letter stating you are not complainant-of-record if you were not the complainant-in-fact.

    Perhaps Brian will come here yet one more time to read all the idiotic stuff and clarify this.

    For now I can only say that Brian Deer stated he has ample correspondence that proves he’s not the complainant of the GMC hearings, not that it was necessary for someone to write a letter in order to prove that he’s not. The question of whether he’s the complainant or not has never been controversial up to this point. And for God’s sake, isn’t it clear already that the GMC hearings started out at the request of John Reid, and that Wakefield said he welcomed the hearings?

    @All the trolls: What exactly are you accusing Brian Deer of and what is your evidence of this? Let’s see it.

  21. Socrates February 14, 2009 at 22:24 #

    It doesn’t matter.

    We’re examining Wakefield’s gusset here.

    Deer’s a hack. He won’t be wearing knickers.

  22. Chris February 14, 2009 at 22:56 #

    More on Wakefield (and not written by Brian Deer):
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5728998.ece

  23. Roger February 14, 2009 at 23:48 #

    One Queer Fish on February 14th, 2009 12:35:37

    So is Mr Deer along with the Federal Courts an Autism denialist .If my memory serves me correctly the Anna Polling Vaccine Autism link admitted in the US courts..strange?

    I mean the vaccine neurodevelopmental damage is well documented despite the blanking of evidence by Mr Deer..Dr Wakefield has just said this

    He said the Thoughtful House sees more than 2,000 children a year “and is thriving.” The ruling “won’t influence our research program,” he said, holding steadfast to his theories.

    I think its all a last ditch panic to get as many of these Vccine cases finalised before Obama and the Kennedys kick in and sort out the Pharma Cartel for good..borrowed time everyone on here its a past era.

    I would suggest you go and read what Hannah Poling’s father said himself about the case,rather than some blogger with an antivaccine agenda,or some news story,put out by some corporate source too lazy to provide details.Dr. Poling was saying that his daughter’s vaccine damage was due to underlying mitochondrial disease,of which autism was the initial manifestation.

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

    Emerging evidence suggests that mitochondrial dysfunction may not be rare at all among children with autism. In the only population-based study of its kind, Portuguese researchers confirmed that at least 7.2 percent, and perhaps as many as 20 percent, of autistic children exhibit mitochondrial dysfunction. While we do not yet know a precise U.S. rate, 7.2 percent to 20 percent of children does not qualify as “rare.” In fact, mitochondrial dysfunction may be the most common medical condition associated with autism…Autism researchers do not currently understand whether mitochondrial dysfunction causes autism or is simply a secondary biological marker. Autism clearly has many different causes, and should really be separated into multiple autism(s). I propose that we clearly identify and research the subpopulation term of “mitochondrial autism,” which is distinguished by its unique biological, but not genetic, markers.

    Based on what we know now, it is time to follow the prestigious Institute of Medicine 2004 report regarding autism and vaccines:

    “Determining a specific cause (for autism) in the individual is impossible unless the etiology is known and there is a biological marker. Determining causality with population-based methods requires either a well-defined at-risk population or a large effect in the general population.”

    This is an all-important piece of the Hannah Poling/vaccine story,that far too few of the anti-vax fearmongers in the blogosphere chose to ignore.There is ample evidence out there,that certain vaccines,and especially combined vaccines are not safe for children with mitochondrial disease.

    A few months later,we saw the incredible Cleveland Clinic study that was completely twisted by anti-vaxers in the blogosphere,with little knowledge,or understanding of science.The notion that there is something in vaccines,that can somehow mutate,or damage mitochondria,is even nuttier than the thimerosol theory.

    Personally.I was very find this study.I am an autistic adult,who has many serious lifelong medical problems,in addition to autism,that nobody could ever find a cause for.

    I have had multiple regressions,my entire life.

    I am also too old to have gotten the MMR shot.It looks like I have mito.I could never have been diagnosed,without The Cleveland Clinic study being published on the web.

    Autism,like mental retardation,is not a monolithic thing,with one single cause,in spite of what the antivaxers say.The sooner they realize this,the better.

    I would suggest all of those parents who claim vaccines gave their kids autism,get these children tested for mitochondrial disease.

    Mr.Deer has done an incredible piece of investigative journalism.If he were an American,I would say he deserves a Pulitzer. I was on Hugh Fundenberg’s mailing list back in the 90s.I thought he was a crackpot then.I just never realized how big a crackpot he was.Dr.Fundenberg,Thoughtful House,and their ilk are nothing but profiteering con artists.The fact that they see so many people,is only proof of the ignorance,and gullibilty of the parents who take their kids there.I find a lot of fault with the neurodiversity movement,but I applaud them,for their role in exposing these frauds,and charlatans,too.

  24. John Stone February 15, 2009 at 00:01 #

    Mr Deer,

    I do not think we ought to be distracted by these people. Where are the letters? Please publish them, as you have published so much else, so we can understand you role in this affair.

    A High Court judge has said in a judgement that you wrote three letters of complaint about Andrew Wakefield in 2004 to the GMC (the first immediately after your very first article in the Sunday Times) and in the absence of further evidence we must assume that he was right.

    John Stone

  25. Socrates February 15, 2009 at 00:18 #

    John,

    Nobody really cares if Deer’s in league with the devil.

    78% of the British public think journalists can’t be trusted.

    You don’t have to prove to us he eats virgins.

    We don’t care.

    Wakefield – now, we do care about him…

  26. Joseph February 15, 2009 at 00:49 #

    This is OT in relation to the post, but I found an old post by Amanda that nicely illustrates Harold’s hypocrisy regarding what he said of Kev:

    He is used to posters who agree with him, praise him and prop him up. He is not used to posters who disagree with his ideological perspective.

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

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

    I even wrote a comment there that I’d forgotten about.

    Jypsy also has some things to say in regards to Harold’s comment policy. He’s never stated what his policy is, that I know of, but we can infer the policy is that he only accepts comments he can easily answer or agrees with.

  27. Chris February 15, 2009 at 01:52 #

    Here is some more information on the way Wakefield handled data in a questionable manner. This is testimony in the US Court of Federal Claims:
    ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/cedillo/transcripts/day10.pdf

    It starts on the fifth page (about 2280, of all the testimony). On page 8 of the pdf file is this bit (hand transcribed because it does not let you cut and paste):

    Q: What results did you receive from the gut biopsy materials for measles RNA?

    A: They were all negative.

    Then on to page 10 of the pdf:

    Q: Did you inform Dr. Wakefield of the negative results?

    A: Yes. Yes.

    ….. continuing on the next page…

    Q: Did you tell Dr. Wakefield about the problems with Dr. Kawshima’s results?

    A: Yes, I did.

    …. More stuff… then on pages 13 -14

    Q: You also state in your affidavit that you believe DR. Wakefield was aware of all of your negative results when he submitted his paper, “Ilieal Lymphonodular Hyperplasia, Nonspecific Colitis and Persuasive Developmental Disorder,” which was published in 1988 to the Lancet.

    A: Yes, that’s correct.

    Q: You were working at the lab at that time and you had published some articles with Dr. Wakefield other subjects, hadn’t you?

    A: Yes. Yes.

    Q: Why isn’t your name one the paper I just referenced?

    A: Well, my name isn’t on that because non of my data went into the paper. There was a manuscript witch did use some of the PCR data I think from Dr. Kawashima’s lab, and I asked for my name to be taken off anything that was related to PCR data because I wasn’t comfortable with the quality of the data.

    Q: You specifically asked that your name not be on that paper because of your reservations about the data?

    A: Yes, that’s right.

  28. JosephS February 15, 2009 at 07:45 #

    Kev – Am I using Yellowriver’s IP address (sorry Yellowriver have removed and wish you no harm, one night only). What’s the chance’s of that happening? 1 in a 100, 1 in 80? I must say, your ability to decipher my meaning and direction is quite astounding. Please excuse my frippery as I appreciate your trying to help even if it is conceited.

    Are there any adverse reactions or side effects to these anti-stupid pills or are they considered 99.9% safe?

    As for priceless, yes, that is it, no additional material to be concealed or rebuked. Now that would be stupid.

  29. JosephS February 15, 2009 at 07:58 #

    Kev – Am I using Yellowriver’s IP address (sorry Yellowriver have removed and wish you no harm, one night only). What’s the chance’s of that happening? 1 in a 100, 1 in 80? Please excuse my frippery as I appreciate your trying to help even if it is conceited.
    Are there any adverse reactions or side effects to these anti-stupid pills or are they considered 99.9% safe?
    As for priceless, yes, that is it, no additional material to be concealed or rebuked. Now that would be stupid.

  30. JosephS February 15, 2009 at 08:04 #

    Kev – Am I using Yellowriver’s IP address (sorry Yellowriver have removed and wish you no harm, one night only). What’s the chance’s of that happening? 1 in a 100, 1 in 80? I must say, your ability to decipher my meaning and direction is quite astounding. Please excuse my frippery as I appreciate your trying to help even if it is conceited.
    Are there any adverse reactions or side effects to these anti-stupid pills or are they considered 99.9% safe? As for priceless, yes, that is it, no additional material to be concealed or rebuked. Now that would be stupid.

  31. Brian Deer February 15, 2009 at 10:25 #

    Hi Kev,

    As promised, here is my status in the GMC proceedings.

    http://briandeer.com/wakefield/deer-ffw-letter.pdf

    If the cranks had been paying attention, the fact that the proceedings were brought on the GMC’s initiative was declared in open session.

    The fact that Wakefield himself called for a GMC inquiry was plastered all over cranksites some time ago.

  32. One Queer Fish February 15, 2009 at 11:55 #

    Thanks Mr Deer ,but the way in which i read the wording is that, Informant or Complainant is playing with words, the letter here says your more technically an informant .It would seem that no one complained? the crucial point here i think, is whether Mr Deer approached the GMC, or whether the GMC approached Mr Deer.

    This letter states the GMC approached Mr Deer first. They didn’t so far as i can see in this letter Mr Deer approached the GMC and Judge Eady said that as well ,as Mr Stone said above

    “A High Court judge has said in a judgement that you wrote three letters of complaint about Andrew Wakefield in 2004 to the GMC (the first immediately after your very first article in the Sunday Times) and in the absence of further evidence we must assume that he was right.”

    Its all very ambivalent as to intent and just a typical “I never said that letter from a lawyer.” all deniable and open to interpretation..

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

  33. Socrates February 15, 2009 at 12:01 #

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

    Deer’s not up before the GMC on charges of misconduct.

  34. Isabella Thomas February 15, 2009 at 12:14 #

    Brian Deer,

    Answer these questions please.

    ‘Ms Thomas, of course, is one of the individuals who KNOWS FOR A CERTAIN FACT that data on children was changed and misreported in the Lancet’

    ‘came to court during Wakefield’s gagging efforts against me, and complained to the judge. It was another of her efforts to conceal facts which have assumed great public importance. The judge said I was entirely entitled to publish the information, and ruled in my favour’

    If I remember it, this ‘mother’ handed a letter to the judge which Brian Deer wrote to her MP attacking her personally and when Brian shouted he was told to be quite! This mother wanted her children’s medical records and that of other parents back from Brian Deer and not sent to the USA government. This mother has e-mail correspondence from Brian Deer which he states he ‘prised confidential documents from the Royal Free Hospital’ Which doctor is allowed to give confidential letters to journalists from the Royal Free Hospital? Brian Deer has no experience in Autism and cannot say which children have autism and which do have not. He has no understanding of their conditions and the way they suffer. Most GP’s have no understanding of Autism and mostly blame the parents. Parents have to fight their way through the system to get recognition for their very sick children to get any type of help. Vaccine damage Autism is very different from other types of Autism as these children are in a great deal of pain without popper medical treatment. Parents have to watch their children suffering but I am so proud of the way parents are fighting back and no matter what you throw at us, Brian Deer or the brave professionals who help us and our children we will all stand tall and continue the fight for justice because we are so very proud of the way our children are also doing the same.
    He cannot say in public outside the GMC that my children do not have bowel disease or Autism and then say months later they were brained damaged. Who gives the right Brian Deer the right to be judge and jury in a case he does not understand.

  35. One Queer Fish February 15, 2009 at 12:27 #

    That’s right Socrates Mr Deer isn’t up in front of the GMC , in person .The point here its all deniable Mr Deer denies trumping up the charges ,Judge Eady(High Court Judge) is seemingly in the dark? And a dodgy letter from the lawyers ,Hey Presto and Dr Wakefield is up in front of the GMC..

    Grabbing at straws comes to mind, seems to me they could put any interpretation whatsoever onto that letter ,I have just given you one scenario there are worse that you cold stretch with a nano if imagination. I think Mr Deer is on the brink of being stitched up, not that I like anyone being stitched up by the government(you just don’t see it coming)

  36. One Queer Fish February 15, 2009 at 12:39 #

    I found this about a Brent Taylor it just shows you how these things come about..Try googling medical records + mmr for more.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1321029/Parents-fury-over-betrayal-of-autistic-boy.html

    They are demanding that the Royal Free Hospital in north London explains why the notes, which contain confidential information on the boy and several members of his family and are crucial to their legal case, were used by the doctor without their consent. The incident raises new concerns about NHS researchers accessing information on patients without permission.

    Thomas is one of 170 children who, as revealed by The Telegraph, have been diagnosed with a new combination of bowel disease and autism by Dr Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues at the department of paediatric gastro-enterology at the Royal Free Hospital, where Professor Taylor also works as head of the Department of Child Health.

  37. John Stone February 15, 2009 at 13:19 #

    Mr Deer,

    There is a legally binding High Court judgement, previously uncontested by anyone, that you are the complainant in the GMC hearing against Andrew Wakefield.

    As a journalist you must now publish all the correspondence between you and the GMC and it lawyers to explain the nature your relationship with them. It is inexplicable that they should say you are not the complainant when you plainly are.

    John Stone

  38. century February 15, 2009 at 13:42 #

    Letter to Brian Deer states:

    “As stated in Peter Swain’s letter to you dated 16 December 2004, your role in this matter is that of
    ‘informant’rather than ‘complainant’.This is due to the fact that the conduct of the practitioners in
    question has not affected you directly..”

    Semantics.
    If you had had a child seen at RFH gasto dept (and passed info to the GMC) then you would have been called a compainant.

    Role of Brian Deer -> informant = COMPLAINANT

  39. Joseph February 15, 2009 at 15:09 #

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

    Why is it crucial? Let’s say Brian Deer offered his work product to the GMC in order to make their job easier. How does this matter at all in relation to whether Wakefield committed fraud or not?

    Why is it relevant if a judge was confused about Brian’s role?

    You should also read the part of the letter that says the following:

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

    Really, Brian has proven his position beyond doubt. The historical record supports him too. Can you guys admit to being wrong for once in your life?

    Or do you think he fabricated the letter too? If you think that, be a man and say it.

  40. John Stone February 15, 2009 at 15:44 #

    I am sure that Mr Deer can answer for himself.

  41. One Queer Fish February 15, 2009 at 15:56 #

    I think one of the reasons this point is crucial is because the GMC are feeding the case ,partly from Mr Deer’s Newspaper stories.

    mis-leading or supplying false facts knowingly and not correcting the Judge , a High Court Judge is no matter to be laughed at especially when the only defence you have is a letter that could mean anything you wanted to suit the way the reader is going to read it which Mr Deer’s letter supplied on here today is designed to do…maybe I miss something? I found this article in the Spectator ..they obviously think crucial it is..

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3346281/the-witchhunt-against-andrew-wakefield.thtml

    What the Sunday Times did not report was that the GMC investigation into Wakefield was triggered by a complaint from… Brian Deer, who furnished the allegations against him four years ago. He has thus been reporting upon the hearing into his own complaint. Since when has a reputable paper published a story by a reporter who is actually part of that story himself — without saying so – and who uses information arising from the disciplinary hearing which he himself has instigated and which is investigating allegations he himself made in the first place?

  42. daedalus2u February 15, 2009 at 16:15 #

    Newspaper articles are not evidence that is admissible in court. Investigators may start with newspaper articles and then in the course of their investigation go to the same source material that the journalist used. If the investigators reach the same conclusions as the journalist, what that means is that the journalist was careful and got his/her facts correct.

    Evidence that is admissible in court requires a known “chain of custody”. That a newspaper reporter said it is not good enough.

  43. Joseph February 15, 2009 at 18:07 #

    What the Sunday Times did not report was that the GMC investigation into Wakefield was triggered by a complaint from… Brian Deer, who furnished the allegations against him four years ago.

    It’s like talking to a wall. What part of “this is clearly false” did you guys not get? The GMC investigation started at the request of John Reid, not Brian Deer.

    But I think that’s irrelevant ultimately.

    Reporters who supply information to investigative committees do not lose credibility from that point forward, nor are they required to provide a disclaimer every time they write about the case. That’s just nonsense.

    Again, take Woodward and Bernstein. Take any reporter who provided information to the 9/11 commission.

  44. Brian Deer February 15, 2009 at 18:11 #

    Correct daedalus,

    The GMC has sourced all of its evidence for itself. As you say, when they checked my facts (and facts from something like three dozen other sources), they filed charges of serious professional misconduct. That’s up to them, and their lawyers’ decision did not involve me.

    The fact that they would lay charges against Wakefield et al, with an aim to prove these to a criminal standard, as required in a body with a long history of protecting doctors, says it all, as far as I’m concerned. I think most lawyers would accept that my chances of proving them to the civil standard, required in journalism, would be rather promising. In this context, I would offer Dr Wakefield a Japanese word I picked up recently: “Sosueme”.

    That said, no GMC charges relate to the repeated changing and misreporting of diagnoses, clinical histories and so forth, which is a wholly new question which I am perfectly entitled to investigate and report. This I have done, in the public interest, and entirely professionally.

    Mad Melanie’s rantings are no more than that. Laughable.

    Mike Fitzpatrick makes the interesting point that it may be that the doctors have been charged with the wrong offences, and that the GMC should have gone straight for charges of dishonesty in the Lancet paper data.

    The trouble with that is that they would either have had to abandon the very serious ethical issues they have taken up, or the hearing would have gone on for the rest of the panel’s natural lives.

  45. Isabella Thomas February 15, 2009 at 18:20 #

    Brian,

    Are you saying that the children in the Lancet Study do not have any type of bowel disease and that Dr. Andrew Wakefield made this all up along with Simon Murch and Walker-Smith?

  46. John Stone February 15, 2009 at 18:22 #

    Mr Justice Eady, in a UK High Court judgement, previously uncontested, stated that Brian Deer was the complainant against Andrew Wakefield, and listed three separate letters of complaint written by Deer in 2004. As a journalist Brian Deer now needs to publish all his correspondence with the GMC and its lawyers in order to clarify his relationship with them.

    So, let us see them.

  47. One Queer Fish February 15, 2009 at 19:06 #

    daedalus,
    I suppose this is why Dr Wakefield feels that the case against him is a fraud and a deception,.So far nobody is party to the evidence of Mr Deers reports except it seems the GMC whom it seems, have the “chain of custody”, The trail to Judge Eady it would seem today , has been subject to fraudulent mis- information and uncontested by Mr Deer , which if transpired to be true ,one would suppose that even if Dr Wakefield was found guilty it would compromise the prosecution case against him and towards acquittal or overturn a guilty verdict on appeal because it would seem the trail going to Judge Eady was not correct .

    Seems a few twists of the cats’ tail still to materialise

  48. Brian Deer February 15, 2009 at 19:39 #

    And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains.

  49. One Queer Fish February 15, 2009 at 19:48 #

    Mr Deer the chain seems not to be correct and no evidence to suggest diffrently?

    Im suprised Dr Wakefields defence havent come on this before?

  50. Isabella Thomas February 15, 2009 at 19:57 #

    Brian,

    Are you saying that the children in the Lancet Study do not have any type of bowel disease and that Dr. Andrew Wakefield made this all up along with Simon Murch and Walker-Smith?

    Answer the question instead of attacking the parents.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: