As Kev recently wrote here on LeftBrainRightBrain, the main defense of Andrew Wakefield is not a defense at all, but an attack on Brian Deer. Rather than look at the facts laid out in the BMJ article, people are claiming that Andrew Wakefield couldn’t possibly have “fixed” the data (lead authors can and have do this, see our recent post). Also, that Andrew Wakefield didn’t have access to the full records of the children, so that he couldn’t have known that there were contradictory data in those records.
It is an odd argument in that it concedes that yes, indeed, the “facts” in the Lancet article do not match the children’s medical records.
It is also an odd argument because it ignores the citations that Brian Deer makes in his article. Mr. Deer cites where he gets the information that contradicts Andrew Wakefield’s reports. Many of which are not hidden in the child’s records but were available to Mr. Wakefield at the time he wrote his article for the Lancet.
Mr. Wakefield has reported in his Lancet article (now retracted) that “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers. ”
Emphasis added.
As Brian Deer has noted in his article in the BMJ, this is not the case. Many of the children reported upon were not “previously normal”. We here at LeftBrainRightBrain have the luxury of more space than did Mr. Deer, so let’s check a few of Mr. Deer’s statements, shall we? Let’s look at the children that Mr. Deer commented upon in his article.
Early on in his article, Mr. Deer refers to Child 8. Child 8 was noted as having facial dysmorphisms. Further, the doctors treating Child 8 “…had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination”.
Here is a letter sent to Andrew Wakefield on 3 October, 1996. The Lancet article wasn’t published until 1998:
“ Dear Dr Wakefield
[Child 8’s] mother has been into see me and said that you need a referral letter from me in order to accept Child 8 into your investigation programme. I gather this is a specific area of expertise relating to the possible effects of vaccine damage and her ongoing GI Tract symptoms. As far as I am concerned, if [Mrs 8] is happy to proceed with this and it gives her any further information and peace of mind, I am sure it would be beneficial for both her and for [Child 8]. I enclose photocopies of some recent correspondence which gives a fair idea of [Child 8’s] current state. I would simply reiterate Dr Houlsby’s recent comment that both the hospital and members of the Primary Care Team involved with [Child 8] had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination. I take Mum’s point that she has video evidence of [Child 8] saying a few words prior to this vaccination being given and her vocal abilities are now nil but I do not think we can be entirely convinced as yet that the vaccine is the central cause of her current difficulties. However, I am quite prepared to support [Mrs 8] in her quest for further information and I hope some useful results come from these tests.
Best wishes.”
emphasis added.
This was presented to the GMC on Day 29 of the hearing. Mr. Wakefield knew Child 8’s physicians questioned whether child 8 was “previously normal” when he wrote the article in the Lancet. It is unclear if Mr. Wakefield sought out those physicians, or if the “recent correspondence” also noted those early signs. But we do know that Andrew Wakefield had more than just the parent’s report on the child’s history and that the physicians disagreed with the parent’s impression. Given the contradiction between the two sources, at the very least, Mr. Wakefield should have sought out the child’s records.
As an aside here, Child 8 was already funded by legal aid at the time of referral. Mr. Wakefield has claimed that children were not already a part of litigation when they were seen by him at the Royal Free. This is also noted in an doctor’s note in the transcripts:
“Mum taking her to Dr Wakefield, Royal Free hospital for CT scan and gut biopsies.
? Crohn’s – will need a letter.
Dr Wakefield to phone me.
Funded through legal aid.”
Again, the child was “funded through legal aide” before referral to Mr. Wakefield.
Here is how Child 4 is reported in The Lancet paper:
One child (child four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, after which his development slowed (confirmed by professional assessors). No association was made with the vaccine at this time. He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation.
“Confirmed by professional assessors”. I find this interesting. One of the defenses of Mr. Wakefield is that “he was just reporting what parents told him”. But, there it is, “confirmed by professional assessors”. Andrew Wakfield had “professional assessors” check the validity of the claims. Have Andrew Wakefield’s supporters actually read the paper?
Was there anything in this child’s records that a “professional assessor” might flag as possibly showing signs of delay before vaccination? Here is the letter from Child 4’s doctor to Mr. Wakefield dated 1 July 1996.
“Following our recent telephone conversation I would be grateful if you could arrange an appropriate ECR appointment for [4] to undergo assessment regarding his possible autism and his bowel problems.
[Child 4] has had long standing difficulties and shows severe learning difficulties and also bowel disturbance and his mother has always found it difficult to accept that there was no known cause for [Child 4]’s disorder. A few years ago she was chasing the idea that he might have a metabolic disorder and I enclose a copy of a letter I wrote to Dr Wraith in Manchester at that time although his reply was he did not see any value in further tests along these lines. I’m aware that you are looking at the possible links between measles vaccine and various difficulties and [Child 4] certainly had MMR in 1988. In general [Child 4]’s mother thinks that he developed normally initially and then subsequently his problems worsened and he lost some of the milestones he had achieved but that he has subsequently improved on something of a restrictive exclusion diet. The professionals who have known [Child 4] since birth do not entirely agree with this however and there is a suggestion that some of [Child 4]’s problems may have started before vaccination.
Since 1994 4 has continued to have intermittent problems with his bowels and diarrhoea that [Mrs 4] relates to food intake; he has had a negative test for celiac disease and has on at least 2 occasions had giardia but he has had no further investigations regarding the cause of these symptoms.
As I say, [Mrs 4] is convinced that both [Child 4]’s behaviour and his diarrhoea are triggered by his diet and she has him on something of a restrictive exclusion diet. He has not gained weight and we have been very concerned about this and [Mrs 4] feels that this is despite him being on a more normal diet. We have therefore not made any assessment as to whether his failure to gain weight might be due to an inadequate diet or to possible malabsorption.
I would be grateful if you could arrange an appropriate appointment and would be very interested if you feel [Child 4] fits into the sort of category of patient that you are interested in looking at further”.
From Day 6 of the GMC hearing. Note that the “…had MMR in 1988” is likely incorrect and that it was the monovalent measles vaccine in 1988.
Again, Mr. Wakefield was alerted to a child having possible problems before MMR administration, but reported the child as “previously normal”. We are left with a question, did Mr. Wakefield just fail to follow up on this possibility or did he know the details and misreport them?
Here is a statement in the child’s records. Whether this was available to Mr. Wakefield at the time of writing the article in The Lancet is unclear:
A delayed development was acknowledged by the health visitor at 1 year of age but at this stage [Mrs 4] did not accept that [Child 4] was slow.
Here is a letter written to Child 4’s physician after his time with the Royal Free team:
“I will write to Dr Wakefield to see if I have any better luck at getting a summary of their investigations and conclusions. [Child 4] had a course of (I think) sulphasalazine after his investigation at the Royal Free Hospital. He became acutely distressed, apparently with abdominal pain and his autism and behaviour did not improve. It was therefore discontinued after a fortnight”.
Apparently, the therapies Mr. Wakefield’s team supplied were not always beneficial.
Let’s move on to Child 1. Mr. Deer reports in the BMJ:
The remaining five children served Wakefield’s claims no better. There was still no convincing MMR syndrome. Child 1, aged 3 years when he was referred to London, lived 100 miles from the Royal Free, and had an older brother who was diagnosed as autistic.76 Child 1’s recorded story began when he was aged 9 months, with a “new patient” note by general practitioner Andrea Barrow. 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. Indeed, a Royal Free history, by neurologist and coauthor Peter Harvey, noted “normal milestones” until “18 months or so.”
Child 1 was vaccinated at 12 months of age, however. Thus neither 9 nor 18 months helped Wakefield’s case. But in the Lancet, the “first behavioural symptom” was reported “1 week” after the injection, holding the evidence for the lawsuit on track.
Here’s the “new patient” note:
“New patient – recently posted from XXXX. Mum worried re hearing/wax in ears/? Discharge left ear … Reassured.” Then “(NB – older brother … ? behaviour probs and ? family dynamics ?)”.
Here’s the statement by Dr. Harvey (of the Royal Free): “after normal milestones a deterioration from 18 months or so”. The referral letter for this child, sent to the Royal Free, states that the child was normal until age 15 months.
Here is a statement from the records at the Royal Free (day 24 of the transcripts):
“Child 1 was admitted for further investigation of his autism and specifically to look into a possible association between his neurological condition and any gastrointestinal disorders. The main problems are a “classical” autism diagnosed a year ago and of diarrhoea.”
On page 50:
“His diarrhoea started approximately 18 months ago. He passes five watery stools a day which contain no blood or mucous. They do contain some undigested food. He appears to have no control over his bowel movements and frequency is increasing. His appetite has always been poor and there has been no obvious change in this. He has only very occasional episodes of vomiting.
He is up-to-date with his immunisations, including his MMR at 12 months of age. There is obvious parental concern that this has some bearing on his subsequent condition.”
Perhaps not consistent, but Andrew Wakefield knew that the child’s records did not place concern until much time had passed since the MMR vaccination.
The “onset of behavioral symptoms” reported in The Lancet does derive from parental report. But not a very strong report. A letter to Andrew Wakefield about child 1 put it like this:
“I saw this interesting child with autism which began some weeks following MMR although there was 7-10 days after the MMR at the age of 1 a brief illness during which he was pale, possibly had fever and his mother said he may have been delirious. [Mrs 1] was keen that you would have a look at a document that she got concerning homeopathic remedies and I am passing this on to you.”
So, Mr. Wakefield reported Child 1 as having first symptom 1 week after MMR. If you include “fever/delirium”. Not exactly an autism symptom. But developmentally the child was noted as being normal until 15 or 18 months? Is that “fixing” data or just something less than accurate?
The Wakefield 1998 Lancet article did not give an accurate picture of these children, based on the records available to Mr. Wakefield at the time. And that is the important fact: Mr. Wakefield had access to information that put his reported findings into question.
Left Brain Right Brain 
The treatments meted out to the children were wrong and the ethics were not worked out before except for carte blanche.
But why were they necessary? One reason is that evidence of harm is needed to get compensation for harm done.
More than ten million pounds were spent on an abortive process in law which resulted in not one penny going to any person with autism.
A result was successful last year to a person who has worked selflessly for 18 years and finally got a settlement less than the figure quoted as just a generation ago.
Not only are doctors giving these children a bad time but public money in the purse for those few damaged by our society are not getting where the money is needed and deserved except in rare cases.
In this instance Deer is already known for chasing up those in receipt of vaccine damages to denounce them as bad people.
With one first exception as mentioned he has changed direction by 180 degrees and has obtained the situation where he attacks mercilessly without any known sources of money but he does maintain his protection today of vaccine giants.
I don’t think the only complaints were from Mr Deer. I sincerely doubt that any of those disabled children happily underwent all the highly invasive procedures. I am certain that there was resistance, crying and pain inflicted. But you don’t count those kids as real do you CHS? They were unable to launch a formal complaint because (a) they were underage and (b) disabled. That’s the reason why this was so blatantly unethical, and why safeguards to prevent this happening are in place.
And there WAS a complaint by parents. Maybe not against Wakefield, but against his partner in all this, Simon Murch. The child, Jack, had his colonoscopy in 1998, while Wakefield was still at the Royal Free, and still working on the Unigenetics measles virus paper. Jack may not be part of the Lancet children, but probably was one of the O’Leary 91. The child had his bowel perforated in 12 places.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-500611/500-000-boy-left-fighting-life-used-MMR-guinea-pig.html
“High Court papers alleged that the colonoscopy procedure performed on Jack in 1998 was ‘not clinically indicated or justified’. They also claimed the ‘principal reason’ for the surgery was to further research into links between autism and bowel conditions rather than Jack’s clinical needs.
The documents also claimed that Jack’s parents were not warned of the risks of the procedure or the ‘controversial and uncertain’ link between autism and bowel conditions. This meant the surgery was performed ‘without lawful consent’ and was an ‘assault’ on Jack.”
Hi Broken Link,
I never made any complaints, and would have no standing to do so. I supplied information to the GMC, a statutory regulator, as a matter of public duty. Journalists do this all the time, on everything from defence contracting to snooker fixing.
The complainant was the GMC, which conducted the case on its own initiative. Various drunken buffoons have tried to confuse people, but that is the position. It is explained here:
http://briandeer.com/solved/story-highlights.htm#gmc
Broken Link January 20th, 2011 13:44:04
Interestingly, Mr Deer surfaced briefly elsewhere on LBRB last night.
Still no answers from him.
All else is argument and opinion. It is Mr Deer’s answers which are needed.
Lumber punctures, colonoscopy’s are only painful and invasive when they are given to Autistic children, that’s what your saying Broken Link isn’t it?
I have a friend who has a boy aged 9 years old(Neuro Typical) they took him in and done colonoscopy ,based on a low white blood count “just incase” The boy has no problems with his bowls, gut, turd`s etc but just in case they thought they might find something they gave him a colonoscopy (glad to say they found nothing).
The boy was given an, anaesthetic cream on the back of his hand and then an aesthetic injection on the back of his hand ,he says he never felt a thing ,just a bit funny in his stomach when they pulled the tube out.
Are you, thanks to lbrb going to ban colonoscopies and lumber punctures for the foreseeable future on all children..as they say , up your arse.
Hi Brian Deer,
Yes, I fully acknowledge that you were not the person making the formal complaint to the GMC. But, I do think that your articles were a complaint, in that you made an “utterance of pain, displeasure, annoyance, etc.” in your news articles. Just as I’m sure that the child victims also complained.
When CHS says that there were no “formal complaints” from the parents, many would read this as “the parents were all very happy with the whole thing”. Indeed, he makes that very implication in @January 20th, 2011 03:22:32.
Broken Link,
Child 11’s father seems a bit upset at this all. The child whose intestine was punctured in multiple places at the royal free certainly suffered and his patents sued and won. The child described in the discussion who reacted adversely to the anti inflammatory medication is, I think, an example of a story which should have been made public, rather than the usual stories about how everything wakefield’s team did worked out so well.
CHS,
Why do we need to know about what Brian Deer says about Jack and his perforated colon? I’d like you to acknowledge that there was a fully justified parental complaint, and more particularly a formal complaint, against the research program at the Royal Free.
And this nonsense about “nobody complained” has to stop. Jack’s parents complained. Those vulnerable children certainly complained, but their cries were not heard.
The above notwithstanding, whether or not Mr. Deer initiated the GMC investigation as
‘complainant’ in his letter dated Feb. 25, 2004, or acted as an ‘informant’ in an
investigation already begun by the GMC, he did not disclose his own direct participation
in the GMC investigation in his most recent accounts in the Sunday Times, intending to
give the public the misimpression that he was acting as a neutral and disinterested
reporter. By failing to disclose his dual role, Deer has breached the ethical standards of
professional journalism and has no place in further reporting on Dr Wakefield in this
matter. In breech of PCC rules and any ethical standard of journalistic conduct, it is
alleged that Mr Deer has sought to mislead, not only by his non-disclosure of matters
material to his conflict of interest, but in denying his role in these matters. Based upon the
available evidence, one can reasonably conclude that these allegations are true.
You say Brian ,cant hear you speak up???
Absent without leave,
The invasive procedures performed on those children were not medically necessary, based on the exhaustive investigation of the GMC. No one said that medically necessary invasive procedures should not be performed.
And it’s nice that your friend’s son did not suffer. But I’m sure that his parents explained it all carefully to him, and he was able to understand. A severely disabled child is not likely to understand why those things are happening.
And it wasn’t just colonoscopies, it was lumbar punctures, barium meals, blood draws. All fraudulently twisted to earn Wakefield a lot of money.
The invasive procedures performed on those children were not medically necessary, based on the exhaustive investigation of the GMC. No one said that medically necessary invasive procedures should not be performed.
And it’s nice that your friend’s son did not suffer. But I’m sure that his parents explained it all carefully to him, and he was able to understand. A severely disabled child is not likely to understand why those things are happening.
And it wasn’t just colonoscopies, it was lumbar punctures, barium meals, blood draws. All fraudulently twisted to earn Wakefield a lot of money.
Well you obviously never picked up that my friends son has a low blood count,they didnt get that through looking at his urine.The child was not toldwhat exactly,was going to happen all he felt was a funny feeling in his gut,he is was not aware of the tube entry
The only person who stands to make money from this is Mr. Deer had and continues to have an irreconcilable conflict of
interest in the reporting of the GMC hearing against Dr Wakefield and any and all matters arising from it, on the basis that, in the light of all of the available evidence, he was the person who made the original complaint against Dr Wakefield and his
colleagues.
His professional reputation was inevitably invested in the outcome of the charges against Dr Wakefield. Further, by willfully offering up his own research documents and source materials, Deer places himself in collusion with a regulatory
agency by acting as an ex officio investigative arm of the GMC. Any ‘public interest’ claim does not mitigate misleading readers of the Sunday Times and the editor denies he was an employee..
Just who do you think your talking to??
There is one set of documents, the transcripts and records made public at the GMC hearing. Brian Deer used them to write the BMJ articles. The BMJ used them to check the articles.
If Brian Deer spent a year here commenting, your answer would be to deny the accuracy of what he writes here.
So the real issue is whether you believe the BMJ has checked Deer’s articles against the transcripts? And since Wakefield hasn’t been silent and has the same transcipts, why he hasn’t pointed to factual errors in the articles. A factual error would be “the articles says a and refers to footnote 25. Footnote 25 says “dr. x, day 27, page 35”. This is wrong because day 27, page 35 is actually testimony by dr. y.
I know I should stay away, but there is something fascinating to read and comment on the delusions of people and their refusal to apply simple logic to one area, but are otherwise normal.
“The only person who stands to make money from this is Mr. Deer ”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wakefield not only stood to make, but did actually make a huge amount of money from this whole thing. He was planning to make a lot more. Those facts are a matter of record, not opinion.
Brian Deer’s professional reputation has been greatly enhanced by his work, and for very good reason. Wakefield’s has been sent spiraling downwards also for very good reason. Are you suggesting that Brian Deer is wrong because he is held in high regard by the BMJ and by many other thoughtful people who admire his work?
Broken Link,
Let’s see, Andrew Wakefield made something like $US750,000 just from his consulting fees to the Legal Aid Board. He landed a $270,000 job in the US. How does that salary compare to what an academic GI doc makes in the UK? He spelled out business plans to make millions of dollars.
Brian Deer January 20th, 2011 14:13:47
Judge Eady:-
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/eady-gmc.htm
And this says nothing about not making complaints:-
Another “hit and run” but no answers.
Please answer the issues posed here and on Dr Gorski’s ORAC blog and on your own blog in The Guardian and those put to the BMJ, including for example those here about Child 1, 8 and 11.
Can we see something approaching a professional response to serious issues instead of abuse and insults please?
Right ,Deer did it for the love of the children he was just an honest Joe the Journo doing his job with no conflicts of interest working for the Times..thats what he lied to the GMC , and you all endorse that .. what a pack of lies.
Brian Deer has been at the epicentre of this enormous whirlwind, of lies and deceit, from the out set before the GMC involved itself on the say of John Reid the Health Minister of course Deers strings being pulled by Medico Legal Investigations.
At the same time “super hero “(to you lot ) Honest Joe Deer The Journo,over the space of 7 years ,works his arse of ,its all go, and he is Complainant ,Investigator Journo, Health expert, solver, Lie teller, not just in the Uk but in the US as well, in-between taking copious notes of the GMC hearings going by the detail and length of his documents, even although he does not write shorthand, rushing home transcribing the notes into articles, updating his massive web blog, making further notes talking at Universities, blogging on lbrb and other sites ,in between con tricking the parents of disabled children in Ireland and the UK, attending court cases involving MMR vaccine damage etc…ALL ON IS JACK TODD..As Martin Walker writes today in AOA “The Great Pretender how apt …and all the time he does it for a square meal and a cup of coffee from the coffeE machine at the GMC…
Brian Deer AKA Son Of Krypton
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?
Clifford Miller must have been happy to be able to present his ideas where no one would challenge his facts. The presenter starts out with a number of straw man arguments, so it’s pretty clear where this is going.
It’s too bad David Kirby has moved on. He was much better at presenting the talking points.
The World Health Organisation? That’s the most sensible thing you have said so far Absent Without.
sheldon101 – January 20th, 2011 18:10:27
This is a problem with the way the transcripts have been released as MS .doc format and not as .pdfs following the page numbering of paper transcripts issued, used and quoted in the GMC proceedings.
The pagination of the .doc versions can often be different from one person’s computer to another.
CHS is a solicitor, but even a law school dropout knows that words depend on context. For the libel lawsuit, it was good enough to describe Deer’s emails as complaints. But morphing that to mean that Deer was the complainant in the GMC hearings is misleading at best. And as I’m sure he knows, the GMC have stated that there was no complainant.
Deer says the GMC called him on the Monday and he emailed them on the Wednesday. But perhaps Deer is lying. Is Deer lying when he says that on the Monday, Wakefield called upon the GMC to investigate him. Assuming that’s true, then Wakefield was the complainant. Eh?
If there was a problem with pagination, the solution is to provide enough context so everyone can agree.
sheldon101 January 21st, 2011 03:09:29
So tell us Sheldon101, are you a law school dropout? Just so we know whether you have the appropriate qualifications to advise, counsellor.
GMC proceedings can be brought in the name of the complainant, with the GMC providing the legal resources or by the GMC alone. In this case the GMC took it forward.
A finding of fact in a decision of the English High Court is legally binding on Mr Deer – he was a party to the proceedings and if he did not agree with the judgement – especially as a journalist seeking to write about the case – he could have appealed.
He did not.
From the transcripts, day 122. Ms. Smith, attorney for the GMC is summarizing the case:
Emphasis added.
More to the point: was the information he brought forward incorrect, counselor? Do words depend on context in a legal proceeding?
Interesting phrasing. Worthy of an attorney. It appears to address the issue without actually doing so. Yes, the GMC took it forward. They could have done so with or without Mr. Deer as complainant. The statement does not address the fact that Mr. Deer was not the complainant.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 03:28:17
Exactly as already noted. Mr Deer made the complaints and the GMC ran the case and was named as the complainant of record rather than being brought in the name of the complainant of fact, Mr Deer.
What’s your point exactly?
“Complainant of fact”. Is that a real term used by the GMC, or something you have created?
“Complainant of fact” is a search that returns only one hit on Google. There’s a name for such rare occurrences, but it escapes me at this point.
It strikes this reader that “Complainant of fact” is a way to get around the fact that the accusation that Brian Deer is the complainant was false. What evidence do you propose that Mr. Wakefield isn’t the “Complainant of fact”, as he actively called for a GMC hearing into his own actions?
Meanwhile ….
…… the silence from Mr Deer continues – no answers to questions put.
And, there is silence from ChildHealthSafety on his newly coined term, “complainant of fact”. Can you point to a blog post of yours where you use the term?
Isn’t this phrase just a way to avoid having to apologize to Mr. Deer for creating a controversy where none existed?
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 03:46:11
A legally binding decision on Mr Deer of the English High Court which went this way:-
Mr Deer could have appealed.
He did not.
Still no answers from Mr Deer on the questions put to him. Silence.
Can you point to a blog post of yours where you use the term?
Isn’t this phrase just a way to avoid having to apologize to Mr. Deer for creating a controversy where none existed?
You made the term up. You have “evidence” that he is the “complainant of fact” because, having created the term, you can define it as you wish.
Will you answer the questions above put to you? I know the answer to the first one: you can’t. There isn’t one. Search google for “complainant of fact” for your blog and there are zero hits.
I could just as easily claim that Mr. Wakefield is the “complainant of fact” as he did call for an investigation.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 03:48:07
Mr Deer created the controversy. He made complaints, not telling anyone he had done, and was reporting the case to make money for himself.
What is complicated about that?
What’s your point exactly?
Nothing is complicated about the question I have posed repeatedly now: didn’t you just make up the term “complainant of fact”?
Show me where you or anyone has used the term before.
“Mr Deer created the controversy. ”
I believe that honor goes to Andrew Wakefield. When you create fraudulent research, hide conflicts of interest, subject children to medical procedures that are not in their clinical interests….you can expect controversy.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:10:36
Still waiting for Mr Deer to provide the clarifications requested regarding his allegations of fraud.
Won’t answer = can’t answer.
A bit ironic you saying that just now, isn’t it? Can you answer on whether you made up the term “complainant of fact”?
Can you answer about whether Mr. Deer was the complainant. (you know, using the term in the actual definition used by the GMC)
Can you point to a blog post of yours where you use the term?
Isn’t this phrase just a way to avoid having to apologize to Mr. Deer for creating a controversy where none existed?
Won’t answer = can’t answer.
“Mr Deer could have appealed.
He did not.”
Because he’s not pedantic and the decision was overwhelmingly to his benefit. There is no reason to appeal a strongly posistive decision on the basis of a small error of fact.
Interstingly enough, the copies of the ‘complaint letters’ that were circulating the net some while back were neither written as complaints, not submitted under the complaints process, nor did they contain any actual complaint.
Irrelevancy aside, I note with interest that another discussion about what Deer should/should not (do) have done if he was (is) the complainant has devolved into yet more unsubstantiated personal hackage.
If Deer has unduly influenced the GMC hearing, or used information that would constitute insider knowledge, kindly provide a direct reference to his wrongdoings, including the PCC complaint and the libel or criminal prosecution that is being taken against him.
If Deer is known to have misrepresented the hearings, then provide a direct reference, including a correction.
Dedj,
following the logic recently put to us, Mr. Deer should have appealed. That way he would be able to report on the appeal and make more money.
All this is a smokescreen to avoid the real problems: Mr. Wakefield’s fraudulent research.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:09:08
Do you seriously disagree that as a matter of fact Mr Deer submitted the complaints he did?
Yawn. Its been fun.
But I have to go to work now.
I see you dodge the question again. Very much like a lawyer. Make it seem as though you have answered without actually doing so.
Won’t answer = can’t answer.
How about a question you can answer: how long do you suppose it will take before the Uhlman paper is retracted? Quite clearly it should be. The subject pool is contaminated by the same bias as the Lancet article. The team neglected to discuss their negative results from PCR tests.
“He made complaints, not telling anyone he had done so”
Who was he obligated to have told?
“and was reporting the case to make money for himself.”
Yes, journalists do tend to expect to be paid.
Have that knowledge for free.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:20:35
Done repeatedly. Describing someone as a complainant of fact describes someone who as a matter of fact lodged complaints.
Tortuous.
Got to go.
False. Complainant has a specific meaning withing the GMC context. Mr. Deer is not the Complainant, as the GMC has clearly stated, both in the transcripts and elsewhere.
You used the term in the specific meaning repeatedly for the past few years. You are now changing the definition. Moving goalposts.
Yes, this does get old. Lack of integrity in Mr. Wakefield is reflected by a lack of integrity of his supporters. You attempted to create a controversy where none existed, and you don’t have the guts to man up to it. Wakefield has repeatedly lied about his actions and he doesn’t have the guts to man up either. You are fortunate that your demonstrated lack of integrity is orders of magnitude smaller than Mr. Wakefield’s.
Just as obvious, though.
Sullivan – at lots of times above
And so on.
ChildHealthSafety,
please, you are embarrassing yourself. I would do you a service to delete your comments. However, with the great quantity of embarrassing work you have created, it would do no good.
Your lack of integrity, lack of honor, lack of adult behavior is a prime example of what the supporters of Andrew Wakefield have had to go through to create the image that a man with multiple, proved ethical lapses is somehow a hero. Out of politeness, I have let you get away with it unchallenged here, but, truly, I can not understand how a person who has looked at the facts in any detail can mislead others as you have.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:34:37
Precisely. That describes the complainant of record. That is why describing someone as a complainant of fact describes someone who as a matter of fact lodged complaints whether or not they are the complainant of record.
The controversy Mr Deer created is one of ethics in journalism. So will argue he has created the appearance – he will say unintentionally – of making complaints so he can report on the story.
So where is the difference from Wakefield who is accused of being hired as an expert witness in legal proceedings when he was writing up a paper relating to the subject matter of the proceedings?
I really must go now.
Can you really not see the difference? I somehow doubt it.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:37:43
Thank you for sharing your views.
CHS,
No problem. Can’t avoid the truth while pointing out your avoidance issues, right?
Since I was using the words law school drop out, it was fair to inquire about law school. Except that I’ve realized that I was way too generous. For “law school drop out”, read “high school drop out.” I was not a high school drop out.
But I do have questions about the UK legal training scheme where a graduate to repeatedly not understand a simple concept. The other explanation is that you do understand the concept but are pretending otherwise. Nah, behavior like that would be too much like hero’s behavior.
Sheldon101,
An attorney’s duty is to present his/her client’s case.
Scientists, however, should present facts.
I’ve assumed that CHS is not here as a solicitor acting on behalf of a real or imaginary client. Because in that case, who cares what he says.
Rather that (choke, gasp, laugh) that CHS is here as just another seeker after the truth.
It would be nice if CHS stated that he wasn’t here as a legal advocate or debater or solicitor.
Sheldon101,
It’s a safe assumption that CHS is not here representing Andrew Wakefield as anything other than s spokesman.
Ironic, that. CHS tried to create a story that Brian Deer isn’t responding when It’s Andrew Wakefield who is avoiding the questions. All Mr. Wakefield has done is throw mud. Not even convincingly.
Here’s a bit from Anderson Cooper
Wakefield claimed to have not read the BMJ article. Could be true, as Brian Deer opened it with an interview with a patent.
If that isn’t embarrassing enough, his own defenders claim that one of Brian Deer’s faults is using a false name when interviewing a parent.
The problem with elaborate lies in the Internet age is that one is too easily found out. This has been the case with Andrew Wakefield time and again.
I’ve assumed that CHS is here as just another person with a viewpoint based on the facts. If CHS is some formal or informal spokesperson, then CHS should say so. Aren’t we entitled to know who the shills for Wakefield are (paid or unpaid)?
I see this another way. Mr. Wakefield is currently supported by a coalition of organizations. Yet they do not make this clear when the make statements of support for the man. These are hardly independent as those orgs have a vested interest in Mr. Wakefield’s reputation.
I have no idea what connection CHS has to Mr. Wakefield. I doubt it is anything formal. It isn’t something I have spent any time pondering or intend to.
I probably should have written “self appointed” spokesman.
Sullivan,
I did indeed use my middle rather than last name when interviewing two individuals at the very beginning of my investigation. I did so after approval both from editorial and legal managers. The reason was to ascertain what these people would say to a reporter they didn’t know, know of, or be capable of researching on Google. In short, to obtain a forensically neutral account.
One of them told me that Wakefield’s research subjects were JABS members. The other gave a totally different account of her child’s history to the one she apparently told at the Royal Free. Over the years, the case against MMR had switched from being a sudden-onset syndrome to an insidiously emergent syndrome (obviously to rake in a lot more claimants). Her story had changed, in parallel, with the passage of time, such that it could not be reconciled with the paper.
I’m proud that standard investigative techniques, used routinely by proficient journalists, including the use of pseudonymns and the supply of findings to regulators for statutory inquiry, led to the nailing of the charlatan Wakefield and the unmasking of his research fraud.
I’m entirely satisfied that nobody has identified any material action or inaction on my part concerning the MMR investigation such that I have done what I should not have done, or failed to do what I should have done.
As Mr Deer has just admitted that …
“Sullivan,
“I did indeed use my middle rather than last name when interviewing two individuals at the very beginning of my investigation.”
So, Brian if you are prepared to use deception to get the story why should we believe the story??why?
Brian Deer January 21st, 2011 11:43:06
So Mr Deer seems to be saying merely that no one has identified any.
Would Mr Deer like to clarify that? Is he saying there has been none or just that none has been identified. It is what is sometimes described as a “pregnant negative”, so the question is a legitimate one to put to him.
Has Mr Deer any explanation for why the BMJ refuse to confirm or deny whether their “peer review” included checking the facts and references in the articles of his they published recently and fastidiously avoid answering questions about material discrepancies?
It would be appreciated if he could please answer the questions posed on LBRB and on Dr Gorski’s ORAC blog and on his own blog in The Guardian and those put to the BMJ, including for example those here about Child 1, 8 and 11.
The silence to date from a peer reviewed author and journalist and from editors of a peer reviewed journal is unhelpful and sows doubt which open responses might easily dispel.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 09:21:00
Hmmmm …. interesting thought. So what is your position and affiliations Sullivan? Are you completely anonymous or have you stated anything about who you are anywhere and what you do?
“I’m entirely satisfied that nobody has identified any material action or inaction on my part concerning the MMR investigation such that I have done what I should not have done, or failed to do what I should have done.”
I wonder if Brian Deer can shed any light on the removal of a sequence of posts in British Medical Journal last March. The letters followed his statement:
“I know the names and family backgrounds of all 12 of the children enrolled in the study, including the child enrolled from the United States.”
After the removal Sharon Davies, the letters editor, posted the opaque statement:
“Following a legal complaint several responses have been removed.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c644.full/reply
These included the removal of the remark by Dr F Edward Yazbak
“I must say that I am troubled that Mr. Deer was able to obtain the names and family backgrounds of the 12 original study patients.”
Which suggests that in the BMJ you are not even allowed to express concern (which goes beyond any normal legal objection). I wonder, since BMJ have been of no help over this whatsoever whether Deer can offer any explanation. Would he mind if I re-posted all the removed letters here? Would he be prepared to answer them?
I am also troubled by his preparedness and that of the Sunday Times to enter into deception (using his middle name rather than his surname) to get their story. What credence can be given to the result given that we have no means of authenticating what was said to him or the exact context?
I’m sorry to throw myself into the fray, but I have a question. In regards to the motives of the complainant, do they have any actual relevance if the complaint brought is proven true and valid?
I think others have made this clear here and elsewhere, but even if Mr. Deer was everything said or worse, charges against Wakefield were proven. To first identify (falsely) and single out the complainant and take issue with potential motive is to leap frog over questioning the validity of the charges brought, the evidence presented and the verdict rendered. There’s deliberate avoidance here. That means either two things: you’re dim or you have no valid issue with steps 1-3, and character assassination is much easier.
“What credence can be given to the result given that we have no means of authenticating what was said to him or the exact context?”
Are the individuals interviewed by Deer under the pseudonym claiming misrepresentation in his reporting? If not, then your question is irrelevant.
CHS’s, Stone’s and AWOL’s complaints are that Mr. Deer used some deception to catch a liar, not that the liar’s lying wasn’t proven. And you jokers wonder why you aren’t taken seriously. If Wakers hadn’t done anything wrong, no amount of deception on Mr. Deer’s part would have been fruitful.
As to knowing who the Lancet 12 were. They sued GSK and they self-identified.
Sullivan January 21st, 2011 08:31:15
No he did not. He claims here to have spoken to only two of them.
Any straw in the wind here it seems.
Gina January 21st, 2011 16:01:24
Gina January 21st, 2011 16:08:43
Science Mom January 21st, 2011 16:45:25
All argument and opinion.
The BMJ has made new allegations of fraud which Mr Deer cannot justify. He has been asked to answer numerous times and has failed.
Now he has come here to post – it is only his answers which are relevant.
Waiting to hear from Mr Deer.
Science Mom January 21st, 2011 16:45:25
Factually completely incorrect. Perfect example of why Mr Deer needs to answer for himself.
Since we are on the theme of deception and self interest, I would like to make the point that my son’s medical records, part of which are lawfully in my possession – are partly factually inaccurate. Either doctors, documenting his history, misheard the facts as supplied or they deliberately fabricated the records.
Why would they do that, do you think?
You shouldn’t have worn white shoes after labour day.
@ ChildHealthSafety & AWOL,
You accuse Brian Deer of being dishonest, yet you yourselves show dishonesty. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that Deer was given the children’s medical records as part of the discovery when Andrew Wakefield sued him for libel, yet you persist in claiming that he gained the records dishonestly, even illegally.
Probably because it’s none of your business. Having said that, the UK is known as being exceptionally plaintiff-friendly when it comes to libel lawsuits, and given that Wakefield has already brought one libel action against Deer, I find it very hard to believe that the BMJ editors did not go over Deer’s claims with a fine-tooth comb.