The Big Lie – what Andrew Wakefield did was possible and fraudulent

10 Jan

Earlier this week, the blog Child Health Safety published a piece claiming it was impossible for Andrew Wakefield to have acted fraudulently. Earlier today, JB Handley of Age of Autism published a similar piece:

“It was not possible for Wakefield or anyone else to falsify the prior clinical records of the children because no one at the Royal Free Hospital London had them nor is it normal practice for them to have had them. So there could be no fraud over ‘altering’ those histories. It just was not possible.”

Plain English: In Britain, when you are referred from a local doctor to a major hospital, like the one where Andy worked, your previous doctor’s records DO NOT travel with you.

Hmmm. Lets look at the definition of the claim of fraud from the editorial in the BMJ.

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

This quite clear – but don’t CHS blog and JB Handley have a point? If Andrew Wakefield couldn’t see the NHS records, how could he have falsified data? He might have been wrong, but fraud? No. If Wakefield couldn’t have seen those NHS records he could not have altered data from them to enhance his Lancet piece.

Except he _did_ see these children’s NHS records. From the very paper itself, we can glean the following:

12 children (mean age 6 years [range 3–10], 11 boys) were referred to a paediatric gastroenterology unit
with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Children underwent gastroenterological, neurological, and developmental assessment and review of developmental records.
Ileocolonoscopy and biopsy sampling, magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and lumbar puncture were done under sedation. Barium follow-through radiography was done where possible. Biochemical, haematological, and immunological profiles were examined.

Developmental histories included a review of prospective developmental records from parents, health visitors, and general practitioners.

This is quite clear. Wakefield saw the NHS records of the Lancet 12. The claim that he didn’t is incorrect at best.

33 Responses to “The Big Lie – what Andrew Wakefield did was possible and fraudulent”

  1. ChildHealthSafety January 10, 2011 at 22:48 #

    This is not correct. The Royal Free team did not have any child’s medical records. They had whatever records parents could provide, a history from the parent and the GP referral letter.

    For prospective developmental records all that was available was the Red Book issued to every parent for developmental milestones. It is not part of the NHS medical notes created and held by the family doctors or any other NHS medical record held anywhere else.

  2. jackson madden January 10, 2011 at 22:49 #

    you spelt Fraudulent wrongly.

    idiot.

  3. ChildHealthSafety January 10, 2011 at 23:01 #

    For the avoidance of any doubt the Red Book is the “prospective developmental records from parents, health visitors, and general practitioners.”

  4. Kev January 10, 2011 at 23:26 #

    CHS – you of course have something other than your opinion to back that up, right?

  5. brian January 10, 2011 at 23:33 #

    ChildHealthSafety tries to conjure a smoke screen. However, the BMJ editors must have been concerned with the clear evidence that Wakefield had creatively and dishonestly edited the paper so as to shore up support for his preconceived conclusion. The editors wrote:

    A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.

    Brian Deer gave an example:

    Moreover, through the omission from the paper of some parents’ beliefs that the vaccine was to blame, the time link for the lawsuit sharpened. With concerns logged from 11 of 12 families, the maximum time given to the onset of alleged symptoms was a (forensically unhelpful) four months. But, in a version of the paper circulated at the Royal Free six months before publication, reported concerns fell to nine of 12 families but with a still unhelpful maximum of 56 days. Finally, Wakefield settled on 8 of 12 families, with a maximum interval to alleged symptoms of 14 days.

    If Deer misrepresented the fact that Wakefield willfully neglected to mention parental concerns that coincidentally raised the timing of onset of symptoms to “forensically unhelpful” levels, it is clear that, as Deer has noted, Wakefield can avail himself of a legal remedy.

  6. daedalus2u January 11, 2011 at 00:44 #

    Wow, just wow. Don’t they realize that the fraud is in what was put into the Lancet paper? If you just make stuff up because you don’t have the records, that is fraud too. The fraud is in putting something that is not correct into the paper, pretending it is correct and then not correcting it when there was the opportunity.

    Whether Wakefield had the records and reported them incorrectly or didn’t have the records and just made stuff up, they are both cases of scientific fraud.

    Open and shut cases. Not a shred of gray. Clear cut, unambiguous fraud. Go directly to jail.

  7. ChildHealthSafety` January 11, 2011 at 01:02 #

    The Red Book is still the Red Book and that is what they had.

    Funny thing that. Brian Deer not knowing that “prospective developmental records from parents, health visitors, and general practitioners” means the Red Book.

    After all he is an expert isn’t he. [Or isn’t he?]

    And the CHS story has been up three days and this is the best you and Brian Deer could come up with in three days Kev?

  8. Sullivan January 11, 2011 at 03:07 #

    So, ChildHealthSafety’s defense of Andrew Wakefield is that his paper is inaccurate? That what he reported at the time–a review of developmental records–was less than true? Is that the defense?

    It wouldn’t be new. Mr. Wakefield’s defense for his “birthday party” story was that it was just a tall tale, meant to amuse his audience at the MIND Institute. It isn’t particularly reassuring.

    One thing ChildHealthSafety is ignoring is the fact that Andrew Wakefield also had referral letters from the children’s physicians.

    ChildHealthSafety is ignoring this fact. I am not. Post goes up shortly.

  9. Sullivan January 11, 2011 at 03:13 #

    I should have written that ChildHealthSafety is ignoring the importance of the referral letters. They are not merely “here’s a kid, his name is X.” They include information, such as the suspicion that in many cases the child’s problems precede the administration of MMR.

  10. ebohlman January 11, 2011 at 04:18 #

    CHS is attacking a straw man. Nobody is claiming that Wakefield tampered with his subjects’ official records. What’s claimed is that the reports in Wakefield’s paper are inconsistent with his subjects’ official records.

  11. Dedj January 11, 2011 at 05:00 #

    If it’s written or undersigned by any medical, nursing or allied professional, in a clinical capacity, then it constitutes an official document, covered by applicable standards of record keeping and professional conduct. The Red Book is supposed to act as a health record to be kept by the parents. The clue is in the formal name.

    Refferals often include details about:

    the history of relevant contact with the client
    the history of the client as relevant to the refferal
    the justification for the refferal in the context of the refferal criteria
    the expected outcome of the referral
    the outcome (and sometimes copies of) previous relevant tests and assessments
    details of other consultants working on the case and the outcome of sessions

    Referrals should come with enough medical information to make a referral assessment. I’ve seen clients come in with thick folders and some with single basic personal data sheets. Referral letters can be simple one page affairs, or multiple pages. Once the referral is accepted, additional information can be sought.

    ‘Referral letter’ can apply to both a single letter and the covering letter for a referral package. At least one child was known to have been referred with several supporting documents.

    Blanket referrals are different, as their purpose and nature is to discover underlying problems in a vulnerable or supceptible population. This is not the sort of referral we are talking about, however.

    It is highly doubtful that the Wakefield team had no access to medical records of any type (ignoring for now that formal referral letters are usually entered into the medical record) and it would be unlikely for them to have not made requests for further records to the GP’s. Even so, the referral is supposed to form the basis of the initial assessment, which is supposed to be connected to the issues laid out in the refferal.

    Indeed, in at least one – if not more – cases, it was precisely the disparity of the content of the referrals and Wakefields presentation of them, and that the referrals were not all sufficient to warrent any further action, that was the basis of several of the charges. This is a repeated feature of the GMC findings.

    Of course, no-one has yet answered any of Deers observations about the discrepancies within documents generated during the study itself.

    Discrepancies are the norm (and bane) of clinical work, but a pattern of discrepancies that just happens to be in the same direction, amongst a group of clients with pre-existing connections, in a way that would benefit the researcher who apparently has career and financial interest that would benefit from the discrepancies, when that researcher was known to have been unduly involved in encouraging the referrals, and when those discrepancies cannot be answered by inexperience or different working terms?

    Any reasonable person would want to know what’s going on there.

  12. Visitor January 11, 2011 at 05:48 #

    Why is Clifford Miller hiding behind this name “childhealthsafety”? Is this not deceit itself? He is nothing to do with child health safety. He is just a fat drunk skulking in his bedroom spitting poison at Brian Deer.

    The paper clearly states that Wakefield had the records. You think the Lancet would have published such a paper if the authors hadn’t said they went back to the GPs and local hospitals for the records.

    Or is Miller saying that claim was fraudulent too?

    • Sullivan January 11, 2011 at 06:22 #

      Clifford Miller has been open about his involvement with the CHS blog, or I would remove the last comment.

      JB Handley keeps asking if reporters have read the lancet study. We have to put the question to him. Has he read it?

      I also wonder at how he can take un named sources for information he could easily check himself directly. The claim tha Brian Deer was paid by a pharma group to begin his investigation is not factual.

  13. Kev January 11, 2011 at 09:25 #

    And the CHS story has been up three days and this is the best you and Brian Deer could come up with in three days Kev?

    It may amaze you to know that I don’t regularly read AoA and I’ve read CHS about twice.

    Look Clifford, the simple truth is this: according to Wakefields own paper he read and reviewed the Lancet 12’s records, including GP reports. According to you, he didn’t. Is he lying about this or are you wrong?

  14. ChildHealthSafety January 11, 2011 at 09:37 #

    If you are going to cry “fraud” then you better have strong evidence and you had better be right. The BMJ were not and they did not check the facts.

    On Deer’s say so the BMJ editors claimed in their editorial that “Dr Wakefield “altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome“.

    The BMJ Editors published a detailed table prepared by Deer comparing the prior medical records of the 12 children with the information in the Lancet paper.

    Those records were not available to Wakefield and the 13 strong team of medical professionals so they could not have altered them. The GMC know that, the Royal Free team knows that and so do the parents. But Deer waits until after the proceedings are over to make these claims when they are not true.

    And Wakefield also did not produce the results. They were the work of a team of 12 other specialists at the Royal Free Hospital, London.

    This it seems is one reason why The Press Association are not developing the BMJ story further and nor it seems is the rest of the English media. It defames the entire team of specialists at The Royal Free.

    It was not possible for Wakefield or anyone else to falsify the prior clinical records of the children because no one at the Royal Free Hospital London had them nor is it normal practice for them to have had them. So there could be no fraud over “altering” those histories. It just was not possible.

    That is the main point. BMJ published fraud allegations which do not stand up on the basis of the very evidence they published in their own journal.

    Want to pick at the edges – go ahead. The Red Book point is dealt with.

    And then you get to the question of how come Deer had confidential records of the childrens’ treatment before he published in February 2004 in The Sunday Times. That was before any involvement of the GMC and it was before any documents disclosed in the libel proceedings with Channel 4 and Deer.

    So exactly who was it in The Royal Free was passing Deer documents from the files. Not Walker-Smith – he left years earlier.

    And exactly how is any of that legal?

  15. Kev January 11, 2011 at 09:54 #

    Those records were not available to Wakefield and the 13 strong team of medical professionals so they could not have altered them.

    Except they were and they did. Look Clifford, I understand how badly you want to be right but look at what was in the paper man!

    Developmental histories included a review of prospective developmental records from parents, health visitors, and general practitioners.

    The only people claiming this is Red Book material is you and AoA I’m afraid. Until you have some _evidence_ that you’re right (which you clearly don’t) I’m going to go with whats in the paper itself.

    As for you trying to spread the blame amongst all the authors, thats laughable. Wakefield was the lead author. Are you suggesting the lead author

    a) Had no control over his own paper
    b) Wasn’t aware of what was going in it?

    Wake up Clifford.

  16. Kev January 11, 2011 at 10:30 #

    Clifford, for more detail on what Wakefield knew and when he knew it, please read this post.

  17. ChildHealthSafety January 11, 2011 at 13:02 #

    What Wakefield knew read and dealt with here:
    https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/01/7246/#comment-125510

    Back to this:-

    “prospective developmental records from parents, health visitors, and general practitioners” means the Red Book.

    If that was the prior clinical records the Lancet paper would say so. Instead it specifically refers to the “prospective developmental records” – The Red Book.

    Denying it gets you nowhere. Got anything other than denials? Thought not. Case closed.

  18. Kev January 11, 2011 at 13:19 #

    Clifford, Clifford, Clifford…you may well desperately want the case to be closed but it simply isn’t. The Red Book is actually called a Personal Child Health Record. If _that_ was what was being referred to, the Lancet would have said so.

    I’ll ask you again Clifford. What _evidence_ do you have that

    prospective developmental records from parents, health visitors, and general practitioners

    refers to the PCHR (red book)?

    Got anything other than your personal opinion? Thought not. Case closed.

  19. Science Mom January 11, 2011 at 15:32 #

    JB Handley keeps asking if reporters have
    read the lancet study. We have to put the question to him. Has he
    read it?

    I have no doubt that he kind
    of
    read it, for a limited value of read. He looked at the
    conclusion, and that was pretty much it. Those sciency methods and
    results sections are just nuisance filler for people like Handley.

    If you are going to cry “fraud” then you better
    have strong evidence and you had better be right. The BMJ were not
    and they did not check the facts.

    @ CHS, this is
    not a cry of fraud, it’s outright, verifiable fraud. The only ones
    crying are your lot over how Mr. Deer obtained records (which he
    has explained and BMJ has verified). If you refuse to address the
    actual content of his feature, then you simply have nothing to
    contribute.

  20. Dedj January 11, 2011 at 15:48 #

    “Those records were not available to Wakefield and the 13 strong team of medical professionals so they could not have altered them.”

    Thankfully, this wasn’t the claim.

    As pointed out by Deer, the claims of Wakefield do not tally with the records he did have, or even some of those that were generated during the study.

  21. AWOL January 16, 2011 at 00:42 #

    Yes ,point is that we only have Deers word…nothing else does not stack up one bit with any of the parents reports ,why arent the Lancet 12 on Deers side if he is so right??

    • Sullivan January 16, 2011 at 01:46 #

      We have much more than Mr. Deer’s word. We have the fact that the editors of the BMJ have also written definitive condemnation of the fraud. We have the fact checking of those editors and whoever refereed the Deer Articles.

  22. AWOL January 16, 2011 at 01:21 #

    Surely if you were presenting libel you would call the parents in as witness,to what was written in the red book ,by who ,when, and where.As for our own red books for my children myself or my wife,or both were in attendance whenever anything was written in the “red book”.

    Mighty strange ..but the journo must be right and above all the expert Dr`s NOT!!

  23. Visitor January 16, 2011 at 06:03 #

    Prospective records simply means records written at the time of the matters they describe – to distinguish them from histories written retrospectively. So those from parents would mean things the parents may have written down, those from health visitors what they had written down, and those from general practitioners what they had written down.

    In other words, Wakefield was claiming that he was not simply relying on what parents said when they came to the hospital, but he had gone to the contemporaneous records.

    However, if you look at Deer’s report, in most cases he is comparing the Royal Free’s own records with the Lancet paper. So you will have a child with no developmental diagnosis reported by Wakefield with regressive autism. Or you will have question marks deleted from a Walker-Smith diagnosis (which is itself unquestionably fraud), or you will have a case where a GP tells Wakefield at referral that the child’s problems started before MMR, and that child is then reported as normal before vaccination.

    So Clifford Miller and John Stone are embarrassing themselves. If this is the best they have – to make up nonsense about “red books” – in the face of this devastating journalism with the most detailed footnoting and referencing I have ever seen, then I would think Brian Deer is laughing at them even now.

    What kind of people are these?

  24. AWOL January 16, 2011 at 14:12 #

    @Sulliavan
    No disrespect meant, I taste, a bit of blame shifting when you state (andI know your quoting Deer) , “fact checking of those editors and whoever refereed the Deer Articles” dammed if they didn’t publish on Deer’s say so, dammed if they did ,and everyone knows it’s the dregs from Deer ,the dregs .
    Lets see, you have Brian Deer, who is paid by Pharma ,the government is next door neighbours of Pharma ,the government promote vaccines etc and in turn Pharma sees that favours and, money, are not a problem to the politicians and respective parties who support them .The BMJ is ?(you got it) paid by Pharma, and isn’t it a coincidence that the GMC is funded by Pharma. Right now these are the only supporters of Deer (apart from a few pharma sites like this one) ,influential no doubt but, I have seen one mainstream Press in the UK printing Deers adventures in Wonderland …Alice time to wake up….

    @Visitor
    Parents are not allowed to write in the red book only the Health visitor and they are only as you say “contemporaneous records” based as I say above on Deers sensational Journalism ,paid by the GMC to find something big (his own words) .Pretty good that he wasn`t biased in anyway then(or was he?) of course, he is biased to the core … or Deer wont get paid…

    You say , “comparing the the Royal Free’s own records with the Lancet paper” was he how can you believe him when he has obviously broken his oath to Judge Eady ,for using the details of what Judge Eady gave him access to ,for his defence only in the libel case…blind faith superb got us through two world wars ,obviously works.

    So far as the content of the rest of your post, its all conjecture based on Deer maths.If all the different notes from all the different departments including the red books, were laser accurate exactly the same, that would be fraud, because everyone would know that if you were to take any other patient from any hospital, in the Uk who has attended a specialist Hospital such as the Royal Free (remember GP`s refer you to such hospitals so they must think something needs further investigation)the records in the Royal Free,from the Gp notes, to the red book would be as the Lancet 12 records and notes are ,self explanatory all different .There has to be varying reports, bits scored out here and bits added. For example last night I got one of my sons red book out , I noticed that the growth line had been adjusted higher, and I asked my wife why that was and the reason was that the Health visitor on her previous visit had got our sons age wrong at the time ,so she adjusted the line to where it should have been with a red pen and left the old line on the page and initialed it…suppose that’s fraud ??If I were one of the Lancet 12 Deer would be saying “LOOK IT WOZ WAKEFIELD WHO DID THAT” what a joke but it isn’t no laughing matter its sick children were talking about here who have been denied treatment thanks to DEER.

  25. ChildHealthSafety January 16, 2011 at 14:53 #

    Visitor – January 16th, 2011 – 06:03

    “if you look at Deer’s report, in most cases he is comparing the Royal Free’s own records with the Lancet paper”

    Mr Deer has done it a tad shoddily it seems. How that got past the “peer reviewers” raises questions about what “peer review” means at the BMJ.

    Unfortunately Mr Deer appears to have gone to ground and is not even answering basic questions put to him on his new Guardian blog.

    Instead his “big sis” ploy is to get the BMJ Deputy Editor to post instead – she says “if you don’t like what we say sue us”. Which is a remarkable position for a supposedly peer reviewed journal to take.

    “In most cases” takes on a new meaning regarding Child 11 – remember these are allegations of fraud being made – see below.

    And we see you, like the usual suspects on a Kev Leitch blog. engage in the usual personal attacks on people who are not around to defend themselves. Nice. The usual bully tactics.

    Regrettably “visitor” it is the answers from Mr Deer himself which are needed – the horse’s mouth so-to-speak and not the go-betweens on Kevin Leitch’s blog.

    Can we have answers from Mr Deer please or is he continuing to hide?

    __________________________________

    Examples Mr Deer refuses to answer. Perhaps he might step out of the shadows now and deal with them?:-

    Child 1, 8, 11

    In order to “go behind” the 1998 Lancet paper, Mr Deer needed the original data and records provided to Mr Andrew Wakefield by his 12 other professional specialist colleagues at The Royal Free Hospital, London.

    Does Mr Deer have exactly that data and those records? Or has Mr Deer instead relied on such of the NHS records of children either disclosed to him under Court rules [CPR 31.22] in the Wakefield v Channel 4 & Deer libel litigation and/or information contained in the transcripts of the General Medical Council proceedings.

    Child 11’s medical records were not available for the GMC hearings. Very little mention was made of Child 11. Can Mr Deer explain upon what particular medical records for Child 11 he relies?

    DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORIES

    This is what the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper said about all the Lancet 12 children:-

    they had “a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.

    That was a main issue the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper was reporting on scientifically and medically. It also states clearly it was an “early report” and called for further investigation.

    CHILD 8

    Mr Deer says about Child 8:-

    “But although the paper specified that all 12 children were “previously normal,” [Child 8] had developmental delays, and also facial dysmorphisms, noted before MMR vaccination.

    For Child 8 specifically the Lancet paper stated:-

    “Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow developer compared to her older sister.”

    Let us now compare what The General Medical Council hearing transcripts show regarding Child 8’s specialist developmental pediatrician’s opinions. This specialist was not any part of the Royal Free team and was part of the normal UK NHS health service.

    May 1994 age 10.5 months:

    “There were no neurological abnormalities and I felt that her development was within normal limits”

    23 December 1994 (approx 18 months) – developmental pediatrician wrote:

    “I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.”

    17 February 1995: The developmental pediatrician writes three weeks after MMR:

    “When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. …… General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.”

    As this is a scientific medical paper specifically focussed on developmental histories, can Mr Deer please explain where he believes the discrepancy is between what is reported in the Lancet paper and what the developmental pediatrician recorded in his clinical opinion.

    Can Mr Deer also please confirm that the appropriate opinion to rely on in such a case is that of the specialist developmental pediatrician and not the views of Child 8’s mother nor the view of the referring General Practitioner.

    Would Mr Deer like to confirm that in scientific terms in a scientific medical paper reporting on the history of development, Child 8’s clinical history was normal prior to MMR vaccination – or as the specialist developmental pediatrician stated within the “normal range”.

    CHILD 11

    Assuming Mr Deer did not have Child 11’s full medical records, on what basis can anyone make a serious allegation of fraud?

    CHILD 1

    Mr Deer implies [but does not say] that Child 1 may have had symptoms of an autistic condition aged 9 months – well before the MMR vaccination:

    “One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly — which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious.”

    The additional GP records disclosed in the GMC proceedings (but not available to the Royal Free team) contain an entry documenting in addition to his mother’s concerns about Child 1’s hearing, her additional concern was about a discharge from Child 1’s left ear. Is it not correct that this concern is not suggestive of an incipient developmental disorder but of an ear infection?

    BMJ FACT CHECKING

    In The Sunday Times last, 9th January, Mr Deer says he insisted the BMJ checked his facts. Did they do so? And if so, what did they do?

    INSPECTION OF DATA

    Perhaps Mr Deer would be kind enough to confirm where the data relied on in this article can be inspected please?

    Mr Deer claims to have gone behind the Royal Free’s 1998 Lancet paper to expose fundamental flaws.

    Would Mr Deer perhaps agree that it now seems from this BMJ paper by him that is not what he has done?

    It appears Mr Deer has compared the Lancet paper’s findings with the childrens’ GP records instead of with the data and results provided to Mr Andrew Wakefield’s other 12 authors on an interdisciplinary team of medical specialists.

    It would be helpful for Mr Deer to explain how on such a basis can an allegation of fraud be sustained?

    If Mr Deer wanted to “go behind” the paper then he needed to have the data and results provided for the preparation of the Lancet paper and compare it with the contents of that paper.

    The 1998 Lancet paper was written by Mr Andrew Wakefield based on the data and results provided to him by those other 12 specialists.

    If there was any falsification as is now being alleged in the British Medical Journal Mr Wakefield’s 12 other authors would have noticed immediately.

    Those other authors had the initial referral letter from the GP, the “Red Book” of developmental progress [held by the parents], fresh parental histories taken by Professor Walker-Smith [not Wakefield], test and clinical examination results and any further information in any ensuing correspondence with GPs.

    The Royal Free Team did their own examinations, took fresh histories and made their own specialist diagnoses afresh. They did not rely on family doctor [ie. non specialist] GP records. This is standard practice in British NHS hospitals.

    GP records are made by non specialists [General Practitioners], taken over years, by more than one person, omit information provided by parents and contain other information unknown to parents.

    It is also clear from the transcripts at the GMC that the GP records are riven with fundamental errors like incorrect dates of vaccinations [eg. Child 8 – 7th January instead of 27th January – “I think” said the GP in evidence] and incorrect types of vaccinations being recorded [eg. Child 4 – was it measles vaccine or was it MMR – the records say MMR – the GP said in evidence it was measles].

    Additionally the 1998 Lancet paper stated prominently on the first page “Early Report” and it called for further investigation.

    Does Mr Deer not agree that an “early report” is an alert to other medical practitioners of a potential problem and not a claim to have found and proven one?

  26. AWOL January 16, 2011 at 22:08 #

    The GMC and Deer know no chance of libel while Dr Wakefield has his appeal up in front of them…

  27. ChildHealthSafety January 17, 2011 at 02:26 #

    Sullivan January 16th, 2011 01:46:42

    “We have much more than Mr. Deer’s word. We have the fact that the editors of the BMJ have also written definitive condemnation of the fraud. We have the fact checking of those editors and whoever refereed the Deer Articles.”

    Ho hum. You want to trust peer reviewers, peer review and “top journals”? According to former BMJ Editor Richard Smith interview in the BMJ itself [“Richard Smith: Scrap peer review and beware of “top journals” 22 Mar, 10 | by julietwalker]:-

    “Prepublication peer review is faith based not evidence based, and Sudlow’s story shows how it failed badly at Science. Her anecdote joins a mountain of evidence of the failures of peer review: it is slow, expensive, largely a lottery, poor at detecting errors and fraud, anti-innovatory, biased, and prone to abuse. (6 7) As two Cochrane reviews have shown, the upside is hard to demonstrate. (8 9) Yet people like Sudlow who are devotees of evidence persist in belief in peer review. Why?”

    BMJ might need to bring back their former Editor Richard Smith who wrote little over a year ago:

    After 30 years of practicing peer review and 15 years of studying it experimentally, I’m unconvinced of its value. Its downside is much more obvious to me than its upside, and the evidence we have on peer review tends to support that jaundiced view. Yet peer review remains sacred, worshiped by scientists and central to the processes of science — awarding grants, publishing, and dishing out prizes.

    In Search Of an Optimal Peer Review System Richard W. Smith Journal of Participatory Medicine Vol. 1, 2009 | October 21, 2009.

    Still want to give peer review and the reviewers top billing?

    • Sullivan January 17, 2011 at 02:52 #

      I gave the editors “top billing” in this case. Given the stakes, yep I’m confident they did their homework.

      Of course since I’ve checked a lot of the claims, I’m actually putting my confidence in the facts.

      Given your failed attempt to defend Mr Wakefield, I’m pretty sure there isn’t a valid counter to the BMJ articles.

  28. AWOL January 17, 2011 at 14:23 #

    Given your failed attempt to defend Mr Wakefield, I’m pretty sure there isn’t a valid counter to the BMJ articles.

    Sullivan ,I think one of the counter arguments is Deer compared chalk with cheese and as usual was not liberal when telling everyone what notes he was comparing even the GMC ,,CHS says as follows
    “It appears Mr Deer has compared the Lancet paper’s findings with the children’s’ GP records instead of with the data and results provided to Mr Andrew Wakefield’s other 12 authors on an interdisciplinary team of medical specialists”.

    .

    And then you have the Lancet 12 and the parents I believe and rightly so are fuming that Deer has been mis representing the facts. How easy would it have been for the GMC to phone/e-mail, the parents of the children detailed by Deer for a report and explanation of how data was changed on the notes and records, red books or whatever??
    I can explain changes in my sons Red Book and GP medical notes,as can most parents but Deer not having kids wouldnt understand that.

    The GMC they never ,because the GMC know very well Deer writes CRAP and not one of the Lancet 12 parents support Deer and would have blown his reports away.

  29. AWOL January 21, 2011 at 00:57 #

    Gary Null Show brodcasted today 20/01/11 ,listen to Isabella Thomas,Jackie Fletcher and Clifford ..( a challenge for Deer)

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/

    Nobody is going away ..until we have the truth

    WHO, is going to start spilling the Beans Brian ,WHO?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Autism Blog - The Big Lie – what Andrew Wakefield did was possible and fradulent « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com - January 10, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kev. Kev said: The Big Lie – what Andrew Wakefield did was possible and fradulent: Earlier this week, the blog Chi… http://bit.ly/dMLF3K […]

Leave a Reply to brian Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: