Brian Deer recently gave an interview on EconTalk. The transcript and recording are up on the site as “Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud.” I wrote about this recently for LeftBrainRightBrain and ever since I’ve had a nagging feeling that I missed something important. Something was wrong.
The sentence that was bugging me was this:
The next stage which was very unfortunate for him was that we got a court order against him requiring him to hand over to our lawyers the hospital medical records of the children.
Now I know why this bugs me. Mr. Wakefield should not have had access to the records. Take a look at the time line Brian Deer produced. The lawsuit was in 2005:
January 2005: Wakefield initiates libel lawsuits, funded by the Medical Protection Society, against the Sunday Times, Channel 4, and Brian Deer over Deer’s website, claiming that all allegations are false and defamatory
By this time, Andrew Wakefield had left the Royal Free Hospital. In fact, he had been gone for over 3 years:
October 2001: Wakefield is asked to leave the Royal Free after failing to mount a large scale controlled study to confirm or refute his claims about MMR
Which leaves me with the nagging question: How did Andrew Wakefield produce the patient records for Brian Deer?
Edited to add: Note, commenter sheldon101 in the discussion below puts forth the very plausible explanation that these records would have been available to Andrew Wakefield due to the GMC proceedings which had been initiated against him by this time.
One of the big talking points of late amongst the supporters of Andrew Wakefield is the charge that Brian Deer somehow illegally obtained copies of medical records for the children involved in the Wakefield research program. In a strange twist of fate, it appears that it is Mr. Wakefield who had them in his possession.
If true, we must ask whether this was appropriate for him to keep the records. Was it even legal? Andrew Wakefield was, at this time, not at the Royal Free Hospital. He was not the treating physician for the children at any time. Had he obtained permission from the Royal Free to take those records with him? Could the Royal Free have even granted such permission? Did he have written permission from the parents, all the parents, before taking the records?
It is a very interesting question. One which I hope Mr. Wakefield will address.
As an aside, Mr. Wakefield recently disclosed a “new” document which clears him of wrongdoing (“New document confirms that there was no fraud”. This new document was a handout from Prof. John Walker-Smith for a Wellcome Trust meeting, entitled “Enterocolitis and disintegrative disorder following MMR: a report of the first seven cases”.
Just a note. This “new” document was entered into the GMC record on Day 74 when Prof. Walker-Smith was on the stand. It didn’t clear them then.
Is this perhaps new to Mr. Wakefield? Did he miss that day at the GMC? Well, no. Andrew Wakefield refers to this document in his complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (although he gets the year wrong as ’06 instead of ’96), and he refers to it in his book, “Callous Disregard” (page 202. It’s citation 73 for that chapter).
I guess Mr. Wakefield’s definition of “new” and mine differ. As do our definitions of “ethical” and many other definitions.
Left Brain Right Brain 
“Dedj
I was going to reply more fully to your post but as you have rightly indicated sheldon and sullivan have contributed to closing down the whole matter of Wakefield et al having access to medical records.”
I said no such thing, nor can my post be reasonably read to imply such a thing. There is no suggestion nor indication that they have done any such thing, as your use of words implies an illegitimate forced stymieing of discussion. That you have nothing more to add is not evidence that you were disallowed from adding more discussion.
I will have to remind you of my earlier comments about honesty.
“As for the other matters you raised I believe other people are more concerned with those and they should be addressed directly to those persons.”
Which was you.
Respond to Sullivans arguemen properly and don’t forget to fully express your disagreement and reasoning.
I have a little hypothetical question as to whether either AJW or FG authorised the publication of their emails.
“The text if you look on the web page is self explaining ,it appears AW has copied the e-mail heading(Subject: Re: failure) that he still awaits a reply to and looks as below..
Subject: Re: failure to respond
From: FGodlee@bmj.com
To: wakersaj@live.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:34:42 +0000
In the absence of an appropriate response from Dr. Godlee I can reasonably assume
that she had not read either of the crucial pieces of evidence referred to in my original
email.
In allowing itself to become the vehicle for Br
”
What appears below the email header is not an email from FGodlee but a comment from – maybe – AJW.
What was the actual email content from FGodlee? It’s not “self explaining” at all – it’s third party explaining yes, but not what this comment thread is hoping to see.
I have now also emailed both AJW and FG for comments about this email exchange that has been published here.
Dedj
You say
“It’s only a problem to those that cannot comprehend that either the patient, or the parent or the patient, may be significantly invested in the outcome or may be relying on the clinician”
If, the patient were invested in the outcome why would you support Brian Deer bring down your vested interests which you would be doing if you complained about AW JWS RF etc??
You say,
“(i.e. supporting litigation) outcome of the , as we know several of the parents were.”
If this was the case when the litgation failed if this was the only concern why didnt they register a complaint, as you imply if they felt so let down, as night follows day they would have complaine,why has nobody complained in the whole world about the RF ,AW ,JWS,et-al and the only person to do so is as you state someone invested in the outcome Brian Deer the intigator of the complaint as Judge Eady clearly pointed out.
The tone of your last paragraph is bonkers,and threats of what ?
The problem for Deer is that he has pulled the whole situation in on himself and claimed every bit of ground as his(“woz me that did that”).
give someone enough rope??
Brian Morgan
“I have a little hypothetical question as to whether either AJW or FG authorised the publication of their emails.”
The link I gave you is from a site which I would presume only Dr Wakefield would be able to pass on that information.Also I do not see “in confidence” etc on any replies between the pair.
“What was the actual email content from FGodlee? It’s not “self explaining” at all – it’s third party explaining yes, but not what this comment thread is hoping to see.”
As I read it;it looks as if,AW is detailing the last response her,date and time from Godlee at the top of page then proceeds to summerise..
I look forward to the responses you receive but I cant see AW visiting this site…I think he would sooner spit in your eye,if he were that type of person which he isn`t.
The comments are getting stranger and stranger. The subject of this blog entry was whether or not Wakefield had illegal access to the medical records of the children.
On behalf of those who believe that Andrew Wakefield makes pond scum look good, I declare that whatever medical records of the children he had, going back to the time that he joined the Royal Free hospital, he had legally.
Next.
“If, the patient were invested in the outcome why would you support Brian Deer bring down your vested interests which you would be doing if you complained about AW JWS RF etc??”
If the patient is sufficiently invested in a particular outcome, they would not support opposition to that outcome.
This would include opposing the idea that the clinician has done anything wrong, when an objective observer would be able to tell otherwise.
You’re actually making a very good case for why the lack of complaints from the RF12 is not, in itself, very significant.
“You say,
“(i.e. supporting litigation) outcome of the , as we know several of the parents were.”
If this was the case when the litgation failed if this was the only concern why didnt they register a complaint,”
Why would they? As far as the RF12 are concerned, the litigation failed due to other forces.
“as you imply if they felt so let down, as night follows day they would have complained”
This would require that they felt let down by Wakefield, not by the system.
Indeed, being let down by the system seems to be a recurring theme amongst the identified RF12.
“,why has nobody complained in the whole world about the RF ,AW ,JWS,et-al and the only person to do so is”
Again, why would people who stood to benefit from the research, who may have been relying on Wakefield in regards to what was/was not ethical, and who had zero involvement with some of the ethical breaches, and who may be significantly invested in a positive outcome from and for Wakefield want to do anything to jepordise that?
I refer you to a poster who stated
“If, the patient were invested in the outcome why would you support Brian Deer bring down your vested interests which you would be doing if you complained about AW JWS RF etc??”
As you disagree with this poster, you can take it up with them.
Oh wait, that poster was you. You’re arguing with yourself.
“as you state”
I stated no such thing about Deer. That is pure dishonest invention by you.
“the intigator of the complaint as Judge Eady clearly pointed out.”
Eady did no such thing. He pointed out that Deer had written letters of complaint. As the GMC confirmed, Deer was not the complainant.
“The tone of your last paragraph is bonkers,and threats of what?”
What on earth are you going on about, you buffoon? No threats were made or implied and it is dishonest of you to imply they were.
If you cannot understand that clinical/research consent does not confer legality or ethicality, or that parents and patients may be invested in an outcome or manipulated by the clinican, then discontinue this conversation.
I never saw the wisdom of this blog entry. It seems a tit-for-tat response to the claims that Brian Deer obtained the medical records improperly.
Since the parents (with the known exception of the father of child 11) are probably still enthralled to Wakefield, presumably they would have no objection as to Wakefield’s ever having the records.
Can we close this one down?
@Dedj
I’m not quite sure where your animosity is coming from. I clearly acknowledged that the post had been edited (my oversight) and that new information had come to light that clears Andrew Wakefield of any improper behaviour in regards to patient medical records.
I would have though that would suffice, especially as I had the good grace to acknowledge a sensible post from a “Pro Vaccination” poster.
I also see just above that sheldon101 has requested it be closed down.
I am in complete agreement with him …. perhaps you have something to add but the case seems clear to me.
In regards to your statement …
“Which was you.
Respond to Sullivans arguemen properly and don’t forget to fully express your disagreement and reasoning.”
I’m not sure what you are alluding to … I have clearly made my support for sheldon101’s position.vis a vis the GMC.
If there is a specific statement I have made please quote it directly and I’ll do my best to answer any queries you have.
regards
@Sullivan
“It is, at best, a weak response. It doesn’t even attempt to address many of the specific issues raised in the BMJ articles.”
One thing at a time, there are many issues raised in the BMJ articles I agree.
As I said before for the ‘conspiracy’ to move forward then a new scenario must be proposed obviously backed by independent evidentiary material that John Walker-Smith participated in fraudently entering data.
I’m having a hard time balancing the probability of that event as John Walker-Smith was the UK’s most eminent gastroenterologist. With an impecabble record of care and professionalism.
“It also raises more questions …”
No disagreement on that point.
“If Mr. Wakefield wishes to “rebut” the BMJ articles, he should submit said rebuttal to the BMJ.”
I think he has already undertaken those steps.
“Asking readers of AoA to send emails in his place (as he has done) is not a rebuttal either, it is public relations.”
The court of public opinion …
We have no right to express an opinion until we know all of the answers.
Kurt Cobain
regards
@Dedj
You say,
“This would include opposing the idea that the clinician has done anything wrong, when an objective observer would be able to tell otherwise.”
Of course the objective observer in this case is Brian Deer who has no medical qualifications whatsoever, and can diagnose children without ever having seen any of the RF12 reminds me of Southall..Brian will fall as well,soon.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/england5april.html
You Say,
“As far as the RF12 are concerned, the litigation failed due to other forces.”
I assume you imply other forces and nothing to do with Deer ?
As you should know Brian Deer was apoplectic with rage , strange if it had nothing to do with ,Honest Joe The Journo Deer??
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/best-of-aofa-brian-deer-and-the-davis-brothers.html
..brother was also the proprietor of the medical journal who suddenly had a change of heart with regard to Dr Andrew Wakefield and this was timed to occur within a week of the decision made by the High Court judge.
This prompted the Prime Minister Bliar Blair to declare “There to be absolutely no evidence to support this link between MMR and autism” and the brother of the High Court judge was knighted four months after he tarnished Dr Wakefield.
You say..
“Oh wait, that poster was you. You’re arguing with yourself.”
Dedj you have the split personality, arguing with your own points as above..
You say..
“Eady did no such thing. He pointed out that Deer had written letters of complaint. As the GMC confirmed, Deer was not the complainant.”
Can you you supply proof that Brian Deer has informed Judge Eady that BD is not the complainer??
Brian Deer is not only the main complainant but the instigator of and actively planned from the outset to bring about the marathon UK General Medical Council proceedings against eminent gastroenterologists Drs Andrew Wakefield, Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith relating to research into autism, bowel disease and the safety of the MMR vaccine.
As you know Dedj were not going away until we receive justice ,however long it takes we will be here..
Brian Morgan
Godlee replies to AOA, read the comments ,for the truth sad but true for me and the people of this country forums are the only voice we have.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/02/fiona-godlee-of-bmj-responds-to-wakefield-questions.html#comments
“I clearly acknowledged that the post had been edited (my oversight”
I can find no such example of you doing this. State the exact post and line where you believe you have done so.
Your only response to that point so far was to imply that they were attempting to close the discussion down. I pointed out that your post misdescribes their behaviour.
You have not responded to these points properly as of yet.
“I’m not sure what you are alluding to … I have clearly made my support for sheldon101’s position.vis a vis the GMC.”
You are utterly and hopelessly confused – or dishonest. I clearly reference one user, yet you talk about another.
Sullivans point about was “If people feel that he has broken the law, they should pursue legal action.”
Your response was:
“I think you are confusing what role the private citizen has in the UK legal system.”
You failed to substantiate what was wrong with Sullivans point and why. You also failed to respond adequately to the follow up posts by myself.
Your constant misdirections are tiresome. Respond one last time and then refrain from responding to me again.
It would also be a very good idea to step up the quality and content of your posts. It is very hard to have a discussion with a person who appears to be deliberatly vague and intentionally obtuse. It generates both a sense of frustration and a sense of unease as well as a creepy sensation that one is being gamed.
To stress the point–this was by no means a flippant remark. If parents believe that Mr. Deer has broken the law, legal action is the appropriate response. Claiming that the action was illegal if it indeed is not, that is inappropriate.
Did Mr. Deer post the name of the children on his website when they were not publicly known? That would be highly inappropriate. Children’s privacy is something I feel very strongly about.
This would be completely different from Mr. Deer obtaining information in the pursuit of his journalism. Journalists often obtain information that “they shouldn’t have”. Ask Woodward and Bernstein. Ask any public figure who has had information about them leaked to the press. The public’s interest, or better the public’s well being, is considered a purpose which can over ride an individual’s right to privacy. With every right comes a responsibility, though, and a journalist has the responsibility to use whatever information he/she obtains in an appropriate manner.
@Dedj
I don’t particularly care what you state or what inferences you try to make.
Cheers.
@dedj
I think several posters have been “gaming” us if you read the thread through. I don’t think open-minded and frank discussion is a large mental factor in the Wakefield support.
“I don’t particularly care what you state or what inferences you try to make.”
I was aware of your lack of desire to stick to the discussion some time ago.
Your posts here and in other threads are clearly designed to elict a particular type of response , as they contain no substance content, are derogatory towards the person you are responding to, and completly fail to make any kind of arguement.
You may continue playing your own little game. The rest of us would like to get on with the discussion.
Cheery-bye.
AWOL, you really should make more of an effort to be coherant. Once I’ve removed the meaningless guff, there really isn’t much material to respond to.
“Of course the objective observer in this case is Brian Deer who has no medical qualifications whatsoever”
His lack of medical qualifications is irrelevant, and would also disqualify all of the parents (and most Wakefield supporters bar maybe a half-dozen) if applied. I was also not talking about Brian Deer, but was explaining that it’s possible for a patient/parent to be so invested in a particular outcome to the point where they may agree with behaviour that would otherwise be considered objectionable.
This was in clear response to your contention that the lack of complaint from a RF12 parent was somehow significant.
Please stop going off on tangents.
“Dedj you have the split personality, arguing with your own points as above..”
I am doing no such thing. I was responding to your implied contention that it doesn’t make any sense for a parent to support Deer in opposing Wakefield.
This was my point in regards the lack of complaint from the RF12. You have successfully defeated your own observation regarding the lack of complaint from the RF12. That you are not aware of having done so without any sort of entrapment from me is exactly why I call you confused.
“I assume you imply other forces and nothing to do with Deer?”
Yes, the failure of the litigation is well known to be due to the removal of funding.
“Can you you supply proof that Brian Deer has informed Judge Eady that BD is not the complainer??”
No, nor did I claim such a thing had happened. That Deer was/is not the complainant has been announced by the GMC is a number of places, including the hearing.
“As you know Dedj were not going away until we receive justice ,however long it takes we will be here..”
Who is ‘we’. Unless you’re one of the parents, there has been no injustice commited against you. If you are, then the main culprit in denying you justice (and preventing you from being taken seriously again, as well as wasting your time and money – that you likely have very little of – on an inadequate defence) has been caught and struck off.
Justice has been done. Deal with it.