It’s been a year since the concession in the Hannah Poling case was made public. I’ve been thinking that we would likely see some discussion on it again–especially since the Bailey Banks case didn’t turn into the media event that the autism-is-caused-by-vaccines groups would have liked.
OK, I’m not that good at predicting events, but I was thinking after a year it is time to write a couple of posts about some issues from the Hannah Poling case for a couple of weeks. So, I wasn’t totally surprised when Dr. Jon Poling came out with an op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “Blinders won’t reduce autism”.
When I read this last night, I thought “why blog this?” But, one line in there bugged me–it’s a common misconception but one that a doctor, heck a neurologist, should never make: the idea that genetic conditions aren’t treatable.
Here’s the quote:
We should be investing our research dollars into discovering environmental factors that we can change, not more poorly targeted genetic studies that offer no hope of early intervention
Wow. I guess we should tell Dr. Randi Hagerman at the UC Davis MIND Institute and everyone else working on fragile-X (a genetic condition that is on the verge of demonstrating valuable interventions) to stop their work?
And, why is it that people who claim to support “gene-environment” interactions seem to have disdain for the “gene” part? How are we supposed to separate the various autism subgroups without identifying the genes? And, if we identify genes, won’t their function give us some idea of what environmental causes might be worth studying?
OK… I’ve got that out of my system….
As long as we are here, we might as well look at some other fallacies. A good place to start is the Autism Street blog, who covered the poling op-ed. It’s well worth the read, as he covers some things I won’t.
One thing we do both cover–this statement by Dr. Poling:
Public school systems are drowning in the red ink of educating increasing numbers of special-needs students.
Autism Street has a nice graph (again, I encourage you to take a look), but here I’ll just point out that this assertion by Dr. Poling about the increasing numbers of special education students is just plain false. The percentage of the student population in Special Education has remained remarkably constant over the past 10 years or so. The cost of some of the autism therapies (ABA in particular) has likely driven costs up, but that isn’t what Dr. Poling said.
The main reason I was going to avoid discussing Dr. Poling’s Op-Ed is the fact that is is rather poorly disguised attempt to air his ongoing battle with Dr. Paul Offit.
Dr. Poling writes discusses how Dr. Andrew Zimmerman is a hero to the cause because of a recent book he edited. He then makes Dr. Offit the villain for Autism’s False Prophets:
On the other hand, Dr. Paul Offit, the vaccine inventor whose Rotateq royalty interests recently sold for a reported $182 million, has written a novel of perceived good and evil called “Autism’s False Prophets.”
Frankly, I think Dr. Poling should have listened to that little voice in his head (which I hope was there) saying, “Don’t take the cheap shots”. By which, I think that describing Dr. Offit’s book as a novel was rather silly and just points out that this is a personal attack by Dr. Poling. It doesn’t add, it just detracts.
If you think calling that a personal attack is a stretch, here’s a bit of telling imagery:
In the story, Offit takes no prisoners, smearing characters in the vaccine-autism controversy as effortlessly as a rich cream cheese.
Actually, I thought that Dr. Offit gave people like Andrew Wakefield a lot of respect, considering the low quality of their research and their public actions.
I was struck by the “cream cheese” allusion. Anyone recall this?
Paul Offit is the Philadelphia cream cheese of the autism debate — he smears so effortlessly
–Dan Olmsted, September 13, 2008
It stuck in my mind because it was so bad. Seriously, I had some people outside of the autism world read that bit by Dan Olmsted and asked them what they thought Dan Olmsted was trying to say. The readers didn’t come away with Mr. Olmsted’s message (that Dr. Offit smears others easily). Instead, they came away thinking Dan Olmsted was saying that it was easy to smear Paul Offit! S
My guess is that Mr. Olmsted wasn’t writing for anyone other than the Age of Autism regulars who would overlook his clumsy writing for a chance to poke fun at Dr. Offit, so he probably isn’t bothered.
I guess Dr. Poling thought it was a good analogy.
But, back to my own clumsy writing. Dr, Poling makes this statement:
As both parent and doctor, I cannot fathom turning my back on a child nor science, in order to avoid inconvenient questions about vaccine safety or any other reasonable environmental factor.
For my part, I wonder how a neurologist can turn his back on considering genetic conditions worthy of intervention. I wonder how a scientist who supports the idea of gene-environment interactions can turn his back on genetics.
Dr. Poling closes with this statement:
In the end, logic and reason will prevail over politics and profits.
God, I hope so. Unfortunately, Dr. Poling seems to have allied himself with groups who have abandoned logic. Generation Rescue and David Kirby come readily to mind.
Left Brain Right Brain 
I got some US-wide data from Prometheus (see his most recent post with IDEA graphs) and I calculated the prevalence of autism + MR + SLI + SLD + DD for 8 year olds. The prevalence of the group has actually declined a bit since 1993.
Doesn’t Poling knock Paul Offit at one point for not being an autism specialist? Is Poling an autism specialist?
Kev,
one could say that Dr. Poling is a step closer, being a neurologist. Then again, being a pediatric specialist, Dr. Offit has that going for him.
But, if one checks the website for Dr. Poling’s clinic, one sees that autism is not a specialty of the clinic
I think this is what they calling “Embracing the Dark Side”.
Frankly, with every further step Dr Poling takes into the welcoming arms of the Biomed Cure Brigade, his mainstream credibility as a doctor and a neurologist takes a further dive. But who knows, his practise may be able to sustain itself on anti-vaxxers and biomed groupies.
Poling wrote: “The collateral damage of “better diagnosis,” the idea that we are simply better at detecting autism, is the abandonment of families coping with autism by the medical establishment, government and private insurance companies.”
Unfortunately for Poling’s argument, the Hertz-Picciotto and Delwiche article that he mentions glosses over the most likely causes of what has been incorrectly considered to be a huge increase in the prevalence of autism. Here’s a better explanation from someone who understands this: “There is evidence that the broadening of the concept [of pervasive developmental disorders, including autism], the expansion of diagnostic criteria, the development of services, and improved awareness of the condition have played a major role in explaining this increase, although it cannot be ruled out that other factors might have also contributed to that trend. [Fombonne E. Epidemiology of pervasive developmental disorders. Pediatr Res. 2009 Feb 11.]
Poling prefers to cite Hertz-Picollo and Delwiche rather than to mention Fombonne because, apparently, exploring the true causes of autism will lead to the abandonment of families.
Sullivan,
Thanks for the post. It will be interesting to see Dr. Poling’s evolution over time.
Thanks for the note on the numbers and the consistency of the IDEA data. Based on the story currently in wide circulation about Oregon having 1 in 8 students in Special Education (IDEA, part B, ages 6-21), I wondered how it compared to reported numbers in the past, esp. given the tone of emergency in the story. When I did the math, it turned out that the numbers for each school year in the report, starting in 1998, has been very close to 1 in 8 with the year most closely approaching 1 in 7 being 2001. I did not necessarily expect it to be that consistent, but it was, with the majority of students in the specific learning disability category. According to the story, the most rapidly increasing category at this time is Other Health Impairment, attributed to increase in ADHD determinations.
The more I hear from Poling, the more I’m reminded of a certain AJ Wakefield. He’s another whos positive hes right in the face of all evidence against him. I think its desperately sad that here’s another once respected doctor cherry picking evidence in order to support his idea.
I though he knew for a fact that his daughter has a genetic trait that affects her mitochondria ?
An he wants to scale back genetic research ??!?
The more I hear from Poling, the more I’m reminded of a certain AJ Wakefield. He’s another whos positive hes right in the face of all evidence against him. I think its desperately sad that here’s another once respected doctor cherry picking evidence in order to support his idea.
Simply its, not a done deal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/uk-autism-doctor-launches_b_174711.html
Oh I _see_ – a complaint to the PCC is like scientific evidence to you guys? Good luck with that.
In fact, I’ll tell you what Fishy – seeing as you have such confidence in this not being a ‘done deal’…will you agree to renounce your belief in Wakefield if the PCC find in support of Brian?
Kev
may i just quote brian from outside the GMC
“have i ever said that mmr does or doesn’t cause autism, have I, show me one piece where i have said mmr doesn’t cause autism”
Brian really cannot commit, he is on the fence, maybe all autism parents share the “pathology” he descibes.
next time you talk to him ask him what else he said.
So he’s on the fence? Otherwise known as journalistic integrity? Not taking a side? Reporting the facts regardless of beliefs? Know what I mean?
How about you? If the PCC find in support of Brian will you renounce Wakefield?
Come on, surely you don’t lack belief in Andy so much you can’t back him for a price?
nice kev ,,
you are really fitting brians pathology
just ignore the tricky stuff. ask brian, go on ,or Evan better ask his mp friend or his employer.
I have no clue what your point is. Maybe if you tried making one instead of making what I’m sure you think are clever little digs…?
And you didn’t answer my question – if the PCC supports Brian’s position, will you renounce Wakefield?
if the PCC supports Brian’s position, will you renounce Wakefield?
as you have said Kev quite simply ,”this forum is not a democracy” neither is the PCC everyone knows that.. the right justice is hard to come by these days with all the political pressure asserted on such decisions.
Renouncing Dr Wakefield will not happen ever…amongst his supporters .
I applaud the fact that, the hunted has become the hunter, what a coup? It will force Mr Deer to relinquish some of his secretive, elite evidence such as the Judge Eady letters.. if he cant, maybe its time for Mr Deer to become a bird and fly..
Hi folks,
Just for the update, here’s my initial, personal, response to Wakefield’s “complaint” about me: not here relating to his allegations about my Sunday Times report, which will be dealt with separately.
http://briandeer.com/solved/wakefield-veracity.htm
Obviously, a full response will take some time, and will not be co-ordinated by me.
However, I’ll say this. Although I’ve repeatedly demonstrated that I’m not the complainant in his present GMC case, in due course I WILL complain to the GMC, on my own account, that Wakefield has published a dishonest statement, on matters affecting the safety of children, to parents and, apparently, to the UK Press Complaints Commission.
The GMC’s guidance is that dishonesty is grounds for a doctor to be struck off.
I refer not to the two matters covered in my comments of today, but to Wakefield’s substantive allegations in his “complaint”.
The only preventions of autism all come from changes in the environment. PKU autism is prevented by testing for the presence of PKU and immediate implementation of a phenylalinie free diet. The development of an effective ruballa vaccine has prevented the widespread rubella pandemics, the last one occuring in 1964 before the development of an effective vaccine andhas largely eliminated Rubella Autism. Thalidomide embropathy associated with autism is being prevented by simply banning thalidomide for the treatment of morning sickness in pregnant women.
90% of NIH autism research funding over the last two decades has produced no evidence for any gene that ’causes’ autism, why shouldn’t the NIH fund gene – environment studies since the only effective preventions have all come from environmental studies.
Sullivan, Fragile X is not an autism spectrum condition. It is a single-gene mental retardation syndrome with ever increasing numbers of mentally retarded Fragile X boys receiving a dual diagnosis of MR and ASD. The social problems seen in the boys are not a pervasive lack of responsiveness to people, including parents, but rather problems of social anxiety and shyness, and the parents do not show the presence of what Rutter has coined the ‘broader autism phenotype’.
Name one ‘gene’ that causes autism and I’ll be glad to explain why you are wrong. It’s a challenge that has been refused by the head in the sand neurodiversity crowd, who seem to be universally preoccupied by thevaccine wars, who believe that they have produced genetically defective children (couched in differently wired nonsense), and that they are all on the spectrum themselves.
RAJ,
I didn’t say it was. Pretty clear in the post. The question in my mind is did you really misinterpret that, or did you do it on purpose for effect?
You seem impressed with the idea that rubella causes autism and preventing rubella infections prevents autism. Could you provide a link to where you discuss this before it was brought up on the very blogs you seem to dislike (such as this one)? You probably did, you seem a bright person. But, it seems like it only recently (as in after people like me discussed it) have decided it was an important discussion point.
Nice straw man. It’s pretty clear that multiple genes are involved.
For at least some autism (in Amish country), CNTNAP2.
Ah, I suppose that a gene that causes a pervasive developmental disorder with features of autism wouldn’t satisfy you, but since that gene is often aberrantly expressed in autism, that would seem to be splitting hairs. Nonetheless, you might consider the regulatory gene MECP2, the cause of the Rett syndrome. In Rett syndrome, the first subtle signs of abnormal development (e.g., reduced eye contact before age 1 year) may be missed, but a rapid destructive stage begins between ages 1 and 4 years, with loss of language and motor skills and the onset of characteristic hand movements.
Animal models suggest that precise control of MeCP2 is critical for normal behavior and predict that human neurodevelopmental disorders will result from subtle reductions in MeCP2 expression. Although MECP2 mutations are rare (but have been identified) in idiopathic autism, reduced MeCP2 levels are common in the cortex of brains from individuals with autism. MeCP2 is involved in activity-dependent postnatal neurodevelopment; in particular, the MECP2 gene product MeCP2 interacts with the product of the activity-dependent early growth response gene 2 (which affects both prenatal and postnatal development) and which, like MECP2, is dysregulated in both Rett syndrome and autism.
Of course, if you follow the genetics of autism, you knew all that. Now perhaps you can explain why you believe that those regulatory genes which control the expression of myriad other genes, which regulate each other’s expression during neuronal maturation in postnatal brain development, and which are coordinately reduced in both Rett syndrome and autism are not, in fact, involved in some cases of autism. In particular, please explain why the identified mutations affecting MECP2 expression in autistic individuals are unrelated to their condition.
Let’s test RAJ’s knowledge. Is autism more common in congenital rubella or Fragile X?
Gene Roddenberry? Sorry RAJ, its very hard to take such stupidity seriously.
Ah, I see Fishy. You’re happy to see the PCC as the Beacon of Truth as long as its being wielded by Wakefield but not if it finds against you.
Its all very familiar to how the US anti-vaxxers thought of the Omnibus hearings until they lost the first three.
Thanks Mr Deer I have just read on JABS as below.
Quite simply, it seems you have a lot of people who differ with your positioning on the Wakefield case and who simply are not going to go away…ever. Quite simply, if you were to publish the Judge Eady papers, providing they backed your side of the case this would nail the doubters..Must swim, bye!!
The full complaint can be read on ChildHealthSafety, ‘Sunday Times Lies Nailed At Last: Editor Witherow Should Resign’:
kev I have to keep my digs simple round here, as brian say us parents have got something wrong with out Brains. along with all the other pathology.
Since the purely genetic explanation of autism is a dead duck. what do you beleive?
“providing they backed your side of the case this would nail the doubters”
What stupidity!
As Kev has indicated, people on your side of the fence are more than happy to claim anything which could potentially help their arguement, yet will happily pour scorn on the same thing the minute it goes against them. The idea that you or Stone or Bennet will read the letters without bias is absurd.
The GMC has already given notice that Deer is not the complainant. The nearest thing you have to him being the complianant is judge Eady saying he wrote letters, which included some concerns of note. In order to be the complainant, one must state a complaint to the appropriate department, and the investigation must be launched in the name of the complainant. Moaning letters don’t count.
This has been hashed and rehashed on here endelessly. To continue in your current vein when the only relevant authourity has declared otherwise is arrogance, idiocy and nothing more than dicking about.
1. Ah, I see Fishy. You’re happy to see the PCC as the Beacon of Truth as long as its being wielded by Wakefield but not if it finds against you.
Its all very familiar to how the US anti-vaxxers thought of the Omnibus hearings until they lost the first three.
Kev quite simply ,your stating the obvious.
This is the case because the PCC and all Courts , are , government influenced show me the last case that went against the government from the PCC..there must be another thousand that went to the side of the government .This is the exact same scenario as happened with the Omnibus 4800 for the government 3 against ..Quite simply, how stupid do they think the public are , As you well know ,you can then say your not biased and that you run a fair democracy..
Dedj
Its of Mr Deers own making let him explain he seems silent on it ,simply ,it adds fuel to the fire to remain silent. absurd to think a High Court Judge of high standing, got it wrong?? have to ga pay the rent bye..
“Unfortunately for Poling’s argument, the Hertz-Picciotto and Delwiche article that he mentions glosses over the most likely causes of what has been incorrectly considered to be a huge increase in the prevalence of autism.”
It’s even worse than that. By accepting the legitimacy of the article, Poling has delivered a massive kick in the teeth to the anti-vaccine lobby.
In that one post, they’ve gone from “It’s the vaccines” to “About a third of it might not be better diagnosis or expandng criteria, but may be other factors potentially including vaccines”
Nothing must hurt more than having your own Golden Child chuck two thirds of your arguement out the window.
I wonder how long it’ll take them to notice……
So Fish, I’m guessing you also agree with Judge Eady when he basically said that Wakefield was using the court system to silence his opponents.
I liked this quote by John Stone too.
Clearly, John Stone was bullshitting left and right here at LB/RB.
“absurd to think a High Court Judge of high standing, got it wrong??”
Eady never said what Stone et al claim he did.
Quote where Eady said Deer “is the complainant”.
The nearest you have is Eady saying that Deer wrote several letters of complaint, an entirely subjective observation. This does not automatically make Deer the complainant, as that is a position with specific meaning within a complaints process.
It’s utterly irrelevant anyway – as has already been explained, the complainant is not obligated to refrain from normal activities, nor are they obligated to refrain from observing and commenting on the complaints process.
The last time you tried to ‘prove’ that they were, you didn’t get the right document, or even the right complaints process.
Given your history of utter failure to prove any point, I would suggest you withdraw and stop being so pedantic.
As has been pointed out, the only people who think there is even a fire to add fuel to turned out to be a very small group of people, with little influence or support, operating in a tight circle. So small and tight, the top google results included brian deer twice, a result from years ago and the same person three times.
Next to no-one outside the Wakefield-Deer saga either knows or cares.
Dedj
again unanswered by Mr Deer easily answered if the letters state the opposite of the Spectator article
Well, various people did think that Brian Deer’s complaint was the triggerfor the GMC inquiry. One of those people, it appears, was Brian Deer.Screenshots record that, on his website, Deer previously boasted that he hadinstigated the GMC hearing. In May 2007, his website noted: GMC inquiry: After submissions by Brian Deer to the UK General MedicalCouncil, the doctors’ regulatory body announced a public inquiry in to theaffair. Sunday Times December 12 2004. By last week, however, the wording had been changed to: GMC inquiry: After Brian Deer’s reports, the UK General Medical Council, thedoctors’ regulatory body, announced a public inquiry into the affair. TheSunday Times, December 12 2004. In May 2007, he wrote on his website: Pending a General Medical Council [GMC] fitness to practice panel hearing -arising from the investigation set out on this page… (my emphasis) Those highlighted words have now vanished from the website, which usesinstead this formulation: Following Brian Deer’s investigation, and charges laid against Wakefield,Walker-Smith and Murch by the General Medical Council… The perception that the GMC was investigating Deer’s complaints aboutWakefield was shared by no less a person than a High Court judge. In a libelruling in November 2006 arising from a Channel 4 Dispatches programme aboutthe Wakefield affair, Mr Justice Eady noted that: Well before the programme was broadcast [Mr Deer] had made a complaint tothe GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12March and 1 July 2004. In due course, on 27 August of the same year, the GMCsent the Claimant a letter notifying him of the information against him. Last week, Deer claimed that Eady was ‘mistaken’ and that he had not beenthe ‘complainant’ in the GMC hearing. In the current narrative of the affairposted on his website, after noting that on March 6 2004 some of the authorsof the original Lancet paper ‘retracted’ the interpretation that had beenplaced upon it, he goes on: Shortly before this retraction [for the retracted “interpretation” text,check the opening abstract of the Lancet paper ], the General Medical Councilannounced its own investigation into the affair, which itsaid raised questions over Wakefield’s fitness to practice medicine. GMCofficials then approached Brian Deer and asked if, in the public interest,he would pass them his findings, and later requested him to supply hisresearch materials – including pivotal documents – to thecouncil’s retained lawyers, at the firm of Field Fisher Waterhouse [FFW] inLondon. Deer, however, is not the complainant in thecase – which was brought on the GMC’s own initiative – and his informationhas been compounded with submissions, including complaints, from dozens ofother sources, including parents directly involved. To prove that he was not the complainant, he cites a latter written to himin May 2005 by the GMC’s lawyers, Field Fisher Waterhouse. This ran asfollows:
Hmmm.If your stuck ask perhaps Mr Deers auntie ethel for more advice bye
Sorry, but it’s clear you’re clutching at straws here.
Brian Deer stated :
“After submissions by Brian Deer to the UK General MedicalCouncil, the doctors’ regulatory body announced a public inquiry in to the affair.”
This is not equivilant to being the complainant, which is a specific role or identity within a complaints process. A complaint must be made to the appropriate department using the appropriate process. Again, letters of concern are not compliants.
Deer has the GMC (the only relevant authourity) stating that he is not the complainant.
Complaint and complainant have specific usages within this context. Please stop misusuing them.
Dedj
Simply read past the first few lines
“The perception that the GMC was investigating Deer’s complaints aboutWakefield was shared by no less a person than a High Court judge. In a libelruling in November 2006 arising from a Channel 4 Dispatches programme aboutthe Wakefield affair, Mr Justice Eady noted that: Well before the programme was broadcast [Mr Deer] had made a complaint tothe GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12March and 1 July 2004. In due course, on 27 August of the same year, the GMCsent the Claimant a letter notifying him of the information against him. ”
You see if someone is saying lies about you one would want to silence them ..Mr Deer dosent is that not “Funny as Folk” bye
OQF – quite frankly, if you can’t be bothered to use the correct terms then you can get to fuck.
It has been claimed the Deer is the complainant. Nothing you have presented suggests that he is, or was, the complainant.
Again, complainant is a term that has a set useage within a set process, use it properly or don’t use it at all.
And no, if someone was saying lies about me, I wouldn’t always want to silence them. Some people are just not worth the bother, or just can’t be reasoned with, yourself included.
Again I repeat, very few people outside your very small circle are even bothered about this whole thing. Most of the media attention is derived from a small band of already involved individuals using their power to get coverage for a non-story.
Dedj
You are Funny as Folk aren’t you..
Simply on the one hand you state that I do not use the correct terms when in fact I am using Judge Eady`s terms Judge Eady wrong again the standards these days?what..
On the one hand the term (“ant –vacinators etc) is thrown at anyone who disagrees with “vaccine land” on here .A term used wrong which implies a massive dynamic group and the use of Anti to the negative… Yet your next terms refers to me and the imaginary group as a “very small circle” How can the claims of any minority ,vocal or otherwise, threaten the effectiveness of Mr Deer and vaccine land?
Simply you do see how big the snowball is now reaching with the stance of no reply from Mr Deer and the Judge Eady complaint letters.. Mr Deer below 1 million pounds of tax payers moneyt
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/times-journo-costs-gmc-1m/
The Sunday Times’ freelance journalist Brian Deer whilst Deer was reporting on the story with this undeclared significant and unethical conflict of interest: bye..must swim
“when in fact I am using Judge Eady`s terms ”
Which I did not dispute. Writing ‘a letter of compliant’ can mean anything from writing a letter of concern to writing a letter of submission of evidence of malpractice. You are taking a useage and then misapplying it to a context where it has a highly specific useage.
It’s irrelevant anyway, the GMC has confirmed Deer is not the complainant.
You clearly do not understand the distinction between the colliquial and proceedural terms.
Eady did not say Deer was the complainant.
Deal with it.
There is nothing left for you to add here that hasn’t been dealt with countless times before. I would suggest to Kev that he close this thread if you start your shennanigans again.
“Simply you do see how big the snowball is now reaching with the stance of no reply from Mr Deer and the Judge Eady complaint letters”
If it’s snowballing, it will be easy to pull a reference that is not CHS, JABS, OneClick or melanie phillips.
Surely if it’s snowballed that much you’d be able to find and quote someone of significant stature outside of your group.
It’s rather telling that you failed to do so in your attempt to show how ‘big’ it ‘has snowballed’.
“whilst Deer was reporting on the story with this undeclared significant ”
Undeclared….except on his self named and publically accessible website.
“Yet your next terms refers to me and the imaginary group as a “very small circle””
I was refereing to you and your small group of Deer hunters, as any reasonable person reading my words would have seen.
Fail, fail, fail. Hell, you even failed to put words into my mouth.
Go swim away and come back when you can read properly.
To Kev: I would sincerly suggest you close this thread if OQF tries it on again. We’ve dealt with its sh*t over and over, yet never get any novel responses to make it worth the effort.
Dedj
All very well,simply, the truth hurts on here..
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/03/andrew-wakefields-complaint-against-the-sunday-times-the-times-of-london-retreats.html#more
Quite simply i think,Mr Stone puts the nitty gritty bits warts and all, on Age Of Autism today bye..
March 17, 2009
Andrew Wakefield’s Complaint Against the Sunday Times – The Times of London Retreats
By John Stone
Following Andrew Wakefield’s powerful rebuttal of allegations by the Sunday Times and its journalist Brian Deer (HERE), its sister newspaper, The Times of London has been moved to retaliate with a defensive non-story by David Rose, ‘Case against Dr Andrew Wakefield, who linked MMR and autism, to cost over £1m’ (HERE.) The story does not mention Wakefield’s complaint.
After five years in which Times Newspapers have made all the running in trying to destroy Wakefield’s reputation they have suddenly become exercised that the cost of prosecuting Wakefield may have risen to more than £1m. It looks to me like this story was put together in a hurry – they cannot quote any real figures, and £1m is likely to be a fraction of the real cost. And what after all – in the great scheme of things – is £1m these days (when compared to a banker’s salary)? Indeed, how much have Times Newspapers themselves laid out trying to bring Wakefield down?
What conclusions can we draw from this? The Times of London has become disillusioned with the prosecution. The Times of London does not have any real information about how much the prosecution has cost but considers it to be too much. The Times of London does not really have any expectation of the GMC finding a serious malpractice case against Andrew Wakefield, and is trying to kick over the traces. Having strung the operation out for five years – because of thinness of the allegations – the British Establishment and its traditional organ, The Times, having finally uncovered the unpalatable answers it was trying to hide, is reduced to wondering whether justice is worth paying for at all.
As we know, early last month the proprietor of the two London newspapers, James Murdoch, was appointed to the board of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline with a brief “to help review “external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group’s business and reputation””. Of course, we cannot say that the latest non-story reflects the important commercial thinking of Mr Murdoch, but it does surely represent the latest down-beat phase in the careful stage-management of the Wakefield affair for public consumption.
in John Stone, UK, Vaccines | Permalink
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
John Stone is delusional, isn’t he? This is a good time to repost his quote:
Joseph simply put ,times have a moved on , anyway this is not about Mr Stone but the whole sorry corrupt “vaccine land” mess the world is in and certain players ,working for dubious employers , not providing evidence to dispute the allegations which are as plain as the hemorrhoids on my ass.
Mr Stone puts up the questions that just aren’t answered and supported with evidence by anyone, on here or anywhere ..simple as that. bye
Horton’s allegations were made in public to the BBC, Deer’s in private the GMC. Horton isn’t the complainant. I note inter alia that when Horton’s allegations unravelled Deer omitted to report it.
But now, risibly, we have Times Newspapers complaining that the prosecution is costing too much (but with no idea how much) when it was their own man who complained (thank you Mr Justice Eady and Melanie Phillips). On 25 February 2004 Deer wrote to the GMC:
“Following an extensive inquiry for the Sunday Times into the origins of the public panic over MMR, I write to ask your permission to lay before you an outline of evidence that you may consider worthy of evaluation with respect of the possibility of serious professional misconduct on the part of the above named registered medical practitioners…”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3362116/a-deer-in-the-headlights.thtml
What elegant manners, eh?
Hey, Mr. Stone — have you heard about the “radioactive paedophile”?
Oh, right… though you didn’t bother to read up on him (there was a link to follow):
http://jabsloonies.blogspot.com/2009/03/john-stone-paranoid-doesnt-even-come.html
HCN
Surely you can do better than that?
Hi Dedj,
I think maybe you are being too optimistic about the human condition. These are people who come here, as they go elsewhere, not to debate or raise issues. They are not people who have any interest in autism, or even in vaccines. You will have noticed that when the subject changed to issues that concerns the parents of autistic children they went away. That’s not their point at all.
The burbling little professor and his semiliterate chum want to upset. They have a deep need, or compulsion, to cause distress: both to themselves, but more particularly to others. They have been locked into this thing for years. It’s their life.
I’m aware that there are schools of thought which seek to diagnose such behaviours, on the edges of the spectrum – PDA syndrome etc – but just as likely it’s an insatiable displaced revenge.
IMO, to engage with them is to feed their illness.
I suppose I ought to feel compassion, and I try. But all I feel is pity.
HCN
Simply if Mr Deer had published his Judge Eady letters most of the unexplained issues Mr Stone refers to could have now been doused if indeed Mr Deer’s correlation of what happened is correct. No evidence equals no truth in it.. It would seem Mr Deer is making it up..Bye
Brian Deer strains credibility – when confronted with the most difficult questions of his career he starts to waffle about the human condition and make spurious, unfounded allegations about people’s personalities and motives.
He has previously cited my remark about Horton as evidence that he, Deer, is not the complainant, but this is just a red herring, and has no bearing on the issue. And he won’t produce the documents.
Exactly Mr Stone it seems simple and logical to the entire English speaking /reading world that, Mr Deer needs to publish his evidence but cant so that gives cart blanche to write what they want until they are stopped , simply ,only possible by producing the letters of complaint which will come out sooner or later from somewhere I read..Bye
Fishy: Pot meet kettle.
Stone: You have no credibility.