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.


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)

395 Responses to “Wakefield”

  1. K February 20, 2009 at 00:43 #

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

    He didn’t dismiss them as cranks. He dismissed them by saying they had the same “broken” brains as their children.

  2. One Queer Fish February 20, 2009 at 00:53 #

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

    what’s the problem with the Judge Eady letter’s? as Mr Deer wont publish them??

  3. Sullivan February 20, 2009 at 01:36 #

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

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

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

    I don’t think many people outside of your closed circle of friends have even heard of the Judge Eady letters, much less care.

  4. Matrk February 20, 2009 at 12:39 #

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

  5. Isabella Thomas February 20, 2009 at 16:15 #

    K on February 16th, 2009 20:13:53

    The fact is, none of these characters gives a damn about autistic people, either the gut perforator Wakefield and his cult followers or Brian Deer as evidence from his comments. Brian Deer, go F yourself. Kelli Ann go F yourself too. See Sullivan, they don’t give a rat’s A.s.s, none of them.


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

    This is labous

  6. Isabella Thomas February 20, 2009 at 16:42 #

    The word in the last paragraph to K dated February 20th is wrong and should say libelous not labous.
    Typing too fast.

  7. Isabella Thomas February 20, 2009 at 16:43 #

    The word in the last paragraph to K dated February 20th is wrong and should say libellous not labous.
    Typing too fast.

  8. Joseph February 20, 2009 at 17:04 #

    The gut perforator is actually Simon Murch, Wakefield’s colleague.

  9. brian February 20, 2009 at 17:17 #

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

  10. John Stone February 20, 2009 at 17:42 #


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


    The report states:

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

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

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

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

    I wonder, was there a GMC hearing into that? The real story here is not told. But the innuendo is obvious.

  11. Joseph February 20, 2009 at 17:51 #

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

  12. John Stone February 20, 2009 at 18:30 #


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    The tragic Jack Piper story suggests the reverse conclusion to the one that you jump to. Thanks to the prosecution of the Royal Free doctors autistic children with bowel problems are not getting investigation or treatment. They are being discriminated against.

  13. Sullivan February 20, 2009 at 18:55 #

    Mr. Stone,

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

    Do you have evidence that autistic children at the RFH are being discriminated against? That those with genuine indications of bowel problems are not getting investigation or treatment? Or is this just another in a long line of unsupported assertions?

  14. John Stone February 20, 2009 at 19:05 #

    Sullivan, I quoted an NAS statement which was not specific to the Royal Free but related to the situation in the country as a whole. Are you suggesting that they made it up?

  15. Yellowriver February 20, 2009 at 19:08 #

    Mr Deer

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

  16. Joseph February 20, 2009 at 19:38 #

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

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

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

  17. Sullivan February 20, 2009 at 19:39 #

    Mr. Stone,

    Since you are back, will you address the issue of whether Dr. Wakefield’s studies will have any validity if Mr. Deer’s story is true?

  18. Sullivan February 20, 2009 at 19:42 #

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

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

    Argument 2) Doctors won’t treat bowel disease in children with autism, since they think it is just a part of the autism.

  19. Dedj February 20, 2009 at 20:09 #

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

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

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

    They are talking about autism and gut problems, but in terms of attitudes, not correlation.

  20. alyric February 20, 2009 at 20:28 #

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

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

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

  21. daedalus2u February 20, 2009 at 21:01 #

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

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

    don’t you understand?

    Colonoscopies entail risks. They are only justified when the posible medical benefits outweigh the very real and very well known risks.

  22. One Queer Fish February 20, 2009 at 21:08 #

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

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

    the Eady letters of complaint please you’re the laughing stock of the Autism www

  23. Dedj February 20, 2009 at 21:31 #

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

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

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

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

    No one else seems to give a damn.


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

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

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

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

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

    No one has yet explained how it would harm Deers case, apart from contrived negative publicity, if it were true.

  24. Dedj February 20, 2009 at 21:39 #

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

    I think the term is ‘burned out’ , not ‘set on fire’.

  25. One Queer Fish February 20, 2009 at 21:45 #

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

  26. Brian Deer February 20, 2009 at 22:15 #

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

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

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

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

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

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


  27. One Queer Fish February 20, 2009 at 22:39 #

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

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

  28. Matrk February 20, 2009 at 22:59 #

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

  29. Sullivan February 20, 2009 at 23:04 #

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

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

    Here is one of the articles I linked to above.

    And, here is the other.

    Both come up quite readily.

    Is there a different article that you are referring to that has been “banned”. Could your provide a link?

  30. Sullivan February 20, 2009 at 23:15 #

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

    Why make such childish statements?

    Mr. Deer claimed it is “a highlight” of his career. Not the pinnacle, not the highlight, but a highlight.

  31. One Queer Fish February 20, 2009 at 23:41 #

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

    ” This article is the subject of a legal complaint”
    No further movement on the Eady letters that’s what im really looking for so that the debate can move forward on here and elsewhere ..

  32. Sullivan February 21, 2009 at 00:51 #

    The letters are not holding up any debate or discussion.

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

    Would you like to take that discussion forward, One Queer Fish? Please, what is your opinion of Wakefield’s studies if Mr. Deer’s information is correct?

  33. Dedj February 21, 2009 at 01:13 #

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

    Depends how tightly you define ‘original data’

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

    I would doubt you’d be the first, but you’re undoubtedly amongst the few that have been so villified, when you’d otherwise be cheered if you were a parent investigating say, Dr Offit.

  34. Dedj February 21, 2009 at 01:20 #

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

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

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

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

  35. alyric February 21, 2009 at 02:08 #

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

    Careful Fish you’re in danger of showing you do know what a complainant is. Now just a wee bit further and you’ll admit it.

  36. One Queer Fish February 21, 2009 at 10:03 #

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

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

  37. Dedj February 21, 2009 at 13:35 #

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

    Really? Page and paragraph please.

  38. One Queer Fish February 21, 2009 at 14:50 #

    Quite simply for instance …


    c. Must not act maliciously or make false allegations.

    d. Must not seek personal gain.

  39. Sullivan February 21, 2009 at 16:39 #

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

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

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

    If this were the only indication that Wakefield is wrong it be one thing. But, there are multiple studies trying to confirm Wakefield et al., and no confirmation.

  40. One Queer Fish February 21, 2009 at 17:15 #

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

    Click to access Deer%20response.pdf

  41. K February 21, 2009 at 17:38 #

    Queer Fish

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

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

  42. Dedj February 21, 2009 at 18:04 #

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

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

    Others obviously cut and paste without thinking.

  43. One Queer Fish February 21, 2009 at 18:50 #

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

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



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


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

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

    a. The right to be heard.

    b. A reasonable opportunity to persuade.

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

    d. The right not to be taken by surprise.

    e. The right to see documents relied upon.

    4. A person using this procedure should:

    a. Disclose information in good faith.

    b. Believe it to be substantially true.

    c. Must not act maliciously or make false allegations.

    d. Must not seek personal gain.


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

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

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

  44. Dedj February 21, 2009 at 19:19 #

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

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

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

    I would advise you to inform your source as to thier error of reading.

  45. Isabella Thomas February 21, 2009 at 20:46 #

    # Joseph on February 20th, 2009 17:04:13

    The gut perforator is actually Simon Murch, Wakefield’s colleague.


    A very serious statement to make .
    Is this just your opinion or have you got proof?

  46. One Queer Fish February 21, 2009 at 21:12 #

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


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

    Christina England

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

  47. Isabella Thomas February 21, 2009 at 21:13 #


    See link above from America stating,

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

  48. Matrk February 21, 2009 at 21:19 #

    It’s clear to me who set the initial complaint in this case, Deer ignoring this issue will not make it go away.

  49. alyric February 21, 2009 at 21:30 #

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

  50. Joseph February 21, 2009 at 22:33 #

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

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

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: