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 
If he was an employee of Royal Free Hospital, and the children were patients of the Royal free, then it is my understanding that the patient records are property of the hospital. It would seem to me most unorthodox for Drs, even under the guise of a study, to take patient records out of the hospital.
Sharon, that is what I was about to write.
What I wonder personally is where the original histology records have gone. Was it hospital policy to throw them away? It seems extraordinarily cavalier when they were part of a “research study”
Where do I get a transcript of the GMC hearing? I know I have to pay for it.
autiemum, even if there was a policy to turf the records you would imagine it would be after quite some years. 7 at least. And as you point out given the ‘special’ nature of these files, it would be cavalier at best to dispose of them soon after the ‘study’.
Sullivan:
With regard to Wakefield’s statement about “new documents”, which, as you say, were disclosed and debated 2.5 years ago, and known to me when I wrote a BMJ piece last April on the altered histopathology, such statements have to be expected.
Close observers may remember a statement he issued – widely taken up by his followers – alleging that my histopathology report didn’t reveal his (abandoned) complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. The report not only mentioned it, but referenced and linked to it.
Also a statement he issued after my TV show, in which he denied plans for a single vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles, when the document plainly states that it is such a product, and other documents I revealed last month give detailed business plans for the purported “replacement of attenuated viral vaccines”.
Also a statement in which he claimed to have donated his legal money to the medical school, when most of it went into his pocket after they had fired him, and no such receipt was ever made.
Also a statement when he denied receiving personal payments, when he received £435,643, plus expenses.
Also a statement he made denying any conflict of interest, when he plainly had the grossest conceivable conflict in that if he said MMR was unfit for marketing he would continue to receive £150 an hour from the lawyer, and if he didn’t, he wouldn’t.
There have now been so many of these statements that the bigger question is not about his honesty, but about the role of the people around him. They certainly have been in a position to note these statements, be aware of the true position, and come to a view about his integrity.
The question is not so much his honesty as his sanity.
About those around him too, I guess. Thoughtful House took the obvious step — read the verdict. Act on it.
He must be very charming.
Brian your not a Sunday Times reporter, and never have been, so who the heck is paying your bills for the past 7 years?
There is something I’m not clear on here:
Are we talking about GP records or Royal Free hospital records?
Edit: OK. I guess it is clear we are talking about Royal Free records… I thought all the controversy was about a discrepancy from the GP records?
Also, from what I’ve read from Wakefield supporter arguments, their initial concern was that of how Deer obtained the records, but then once they realized he obtained them legally through the litigation; their next question is whether it was legal or ethical of Deer to use those records outside of the court-room, and to publish details of those records. Apparently, the details of those records were only legally available for the purpose of the court proceedings; and that it would be an offense to use them for any purpose, or to share them outside of those proceedings.
This all sounds like a rather weak deflection argument to me.
“Also a statement in which he claimed to have donated his legal money to the medical school, when most of it went into his pocket after they had fired him”
This is interesting. How did you determine this? Did you confirm this with the medical school?
Brian Deer
This would look altogether more academically respectable if the BMJ were allowing discussion of your and their claims on their own pages.
@Aaron. Brian Deer has explained this before. Because he was only allowed to use the medical records for the libel case he was indeed not allowed to publish the info that they contained. He therefore attended the GMC hearing at which they were gone into in enormous detail and regained the information in a second, publishable form.
One parent was called to give evidence for the prosecution. The defence did not call any parents to give evidence.
Instead of blowing smoke with rhetorical questions like
How did Andrew Wakefield produce the patient records for Brian Deer?
Was it even legal?
Perhaps some evidence of what “records” we are talking about ? In whose possession they were actually in and whether there is any illegality in the whole proceedings.
@autiemum
Yes, I am aware of it. It makes no difference to me whether Brian Deer breached legalities or ethics. I would just like to understand the historical facts.
I’m a bit unclear now of what information came from what records… GP records, Royal Free records… Wakefield consistently insists that he had no GP records, and these fraud claims were all about discrepancies with GP records. I didn’t realize that the Royal Free records were the primary focus here.
Also, I’m interested in this argument coming from Wakefield supporters:
“Wakefield could not possibly be proven of fraud unless you compared the data for which the team compiled with the data that was included in the report.”
I am aware that some of the coauthors were tested for their knowledge of the children in the report, and had somewhat forgotten by then the details… which doesn’t really seem to prove much. It does make sense to me that we can’t really be certain of what the team agreed on at the time. So I’m just interested, how are we so certain that these GP record discrepancies are the fault of Wakefield and not other team members?
Also, the argument surrounding this particular phrase:
So what are “prospective developmental records” anyway? Are they GP records, Red Book, or what? It would be nice if someone could illuminate some of the confusion for me. Thanks.
It would be interesting to also know what discrepancies exist between GP records, GP referral letters, Red Book, and Royal Free hospital records. If there are discrepancies, which ones take precedence? And ya, which ones did the team primarily rely on, and what exactly are these “prospective developmental records”.
Thanks.
Aaron,
They didn’t go into what “prospective developmental records” meant at the GMC. When I did a google search for the phrase “prospective developmental records”, I got 285 hits. When I did the same search, but for sites not mentioning wakefield (“prospective developmental records” -wakefield), I got no hits.
Frankly, the editor or a referee should have pulled that phrase. “Prospective”, looking forwards. Going forward. Prospective records would be records starting at some point in time and going forwards. Quite obviously, Mr. Wakefield’s team needed and used retrospective records. The red books would be retrospective. Any materials forwarded by the GP’s would be retrospective.
Here’s an exchange with Mr. Wakefield from the GMC hearings:
Three items.
1) the full clinical record. I bet we will hear pushback on what that means, but it is very clear to this reader.
2) contemporaneous clinical record. I.e. the records of the time of the Lancet study. Likely this means the records from the RFH
3) early developmental record. i.e. the much discussed red books.
But, this doesn’t jive with Age of Autism exculpation of Mr. Wakefield: they say he mistakenly claimed that the first symptoms appeared within 15 days after the “jab”, because that whats the parents told the RF hospital, and >>Wakefield didn’t have access to their medical records<<
Now, if Wakefield had stolen or otherwise diverted the kids medical records, then this "defense" doesn't hold.
The GMC
——–
I think you’re leaving the GMC out of the equation.
In 2004, Brain Deer published his articles in the Sunday Times. Within a day,the GMC called up Deer for his information. On the same Monday, Wakefield called for the GMC to investigate.
The GMC started investigating. Under their powers, they were able to obtain the medical records for the children. To help Wakefield to prepare for his defense, they gave copies of the records to Wakefield (probably his lawyers).
Wakefield sues Brian Deer for libel. As part of the lawsuit, Wakefield’s lawyers are required to tell Deer about documents they have. Because of privacy concerns, eventually a judge’s order is needed for Brian Deer to look at the records, under supervision. What the interview adds is that the same day Deer got to look at the records, Wakefield’s lawyers dismissed the libel lawsuit, paying Deer’s legal costs.
So Wakefield did have the records legally from the GMC.
sheldon101,
thanks for that. I’ve edited the above post to include that information.
@ autiemum, “very charming”? Walker-Smith described Wakefield as “seductive”! But what about the ladies? GMC transcripts are free from Jason Day @ GMC.
@ sharon, quite so, why were the records not at the RFH? See below.
@ Sheldon, you keep hitting the nail but try a heavier hammer. Note this sequence:
GMC told the MMR litigation court it was applying for the Medical records.
GMC obtained records from University College London! and other material from the Legal Services Commission.
In both cases the hand over of material was illegal.
Wakefield sued Deer, Justice Eady ordered Wakefield to hand over the records to Deer’s team.
Wakefield’s team obtained the records from the GMC, handed them to Deer’s team. Deer read them under invigilation.
The handover of material to the GMC was illegal but there was no illegality by Deer.
But why were the records at UCL?
Bing
If Deer based his case on material from the GMC hearing that is one thing, but if he is saying he subsequently made use of his sight of material through Mr Justice Eady perhaps he ought to explain that to Mr Justice Eady – I am not at all sure he has done nothing illegal, and he might have been better off saying nothing.
John Stone,
well, we can say with certainty that Andrew Wakefield would have been better off if Brian Deer had said nothing…
@sheldon
Thanks for the GMC transcript link
the Royal Free and UCL
@sheldon thanks for the GMC transcript link
re UCL — the Royal Free and UCL were in the process of merging (are now merged) and so the matter of whom the records came from may be nomenclature ie the same place but a different name. I think the whole lot is called UCL.
“seductive” — poor old Walker-smith. To lose his heart at his age to such a two-faced strumpet.
Once more into the breach
The GMC is organized under an English law and the regulations passed under the law.
That’s pretty straight forward.
Patients have a privacy interest in their medical records.
The law governing the GMC allows the GMC to require they be given medical records, despite the patients privacy concerns.
Wakefield is entitled to understand and defend himself against the allegations made against him. So the GMC gives (copies) of the records to him. They may require Wakefield and his lawyer to sign some privacy agreement, but that’s it for Wakefield. He has the records legally.
Separately, Wakefield sues Deer for libel. In a civil lawsuit, you aren’t allowed to hide the information you have. So Wakefield’s lawyers had to tell Deer that they had copies of the Medical records. However, there are still privacy concerns, so a hearing is held and judge rules Deer can see the records under supervision. A few hours after Deer sees the records, Wakfield dismisses the libel case. So the records aren’t needed for the defense and we are back to privacy issues having priority.
So Deer can’t use the records. But the GMC enters the record and reads into the hearing the records. At which point, Deer can use them.
So nobody had the records illegally.
sheldon
You move very fast..this quote from a parent of the 12 ,and I have seen that e-mail…
“He told me in an e?mail that he managed to prise confidential documents from the Royal Free Hospital. ”
You Sheldon say..
“So Deer can’t use the records. But the GMC enters the record and reads into the hearing the records. At which point, Deer can use them.
So nobody had the records illegally.”
Brian Deer had the names of the Lancet Children and dates they entered the Royal Free hospital on his web?site for all to see long before the GMC hearing. His view was that some of us parent were in the media. The problem with that is that I did not tell the media that my boy was part of the Lancet study until Brian Deer let it be known. I have e?mailed him on numerous occasions asking him how he got hold of my child’s medical notes without my permission. He has never interviewed me or my family and has not replied to this question.
I believe Brian Deer got hold of confidential information on our children and want to know how this can happen. He told me in an e?mail that he managed to prise confidential documents from the Royal Free Hospital. This question below has not been answered by Brian Deer: Could Brian Deer also please let the BMJ know the means by which UK legislation allows free lance (or any other) journalists, to view original research files, and compare them with Royal Free (or any other hospital or private practice) medical files of children with full identities available, all test results available, without parental consent; the studies’ authors consent; privacy restraints or hospital ethics committee approval?”
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e20148c77c0852970c
AWOL,
if you are not Isabella Thomas, please use quotes when citing the email by her.
Brian Deer has answered how he got information. We’ve been around this a lot. If people feel that he has broken the law, they should pursue legal action.
“If people feel that he has broken the law, they should pursue legal action.”
I think you are confusing what role the private citizen has in the UK legal system.
Sullivans point is actually pretty simple.
Any person concerned that any Act or Information Governance has been breached can report that breach to the relevant authourity.
That the person themselves will not be the one to technically bring the legal action is immaterial in determining whether or not they have the right to make thier concerns known through the appropriate channels.
That the complaints against Deer have not resulted in any identifiable action indicates the following:
either A) people have considered complaints but have dropped them after consultation,
or B) complaints have been made and been found to not merit further action,
or C) Deer’s opponents are so ham-fisted they aren’t even sure how or why it’s illegal/in breach, they ‘just know he’s up to something’.
Sadly, C is the most likely option.
Once again there’s seems to be further confusion …
Sullivan said and I quote again
“… they should pursue legal action.”
Your whole answer is directed at making a complaint …
But let’s take sullivans point of view on Wakefield and medical records.
either A) people have considered complaints but have dropped them after consultation,
or B) complaints have been made and been found to not merit further action,
or C) Wakefield’s opponents are so ham-fisted they aren’t even sure how or why it’s illegal/in breach, they ‘just know he’s up to something’.
Sadly, C is the most likely option.
————————
Touche
@AWOL
I gather you are one of the parents of the 12 and have confidentiality concerns. Why did the defence not call you at the GMC tribunal where you could have made these complaints and been questioned under oath? You have rights to complain to the Data Information Commissioner about breaches of privacy in data held in digital form. Was all this paper information carefully photocopied to circumvent this? You have a right to complain to the Press Complaints Commission about unauthorised publicity given to a child which is not in the public interest. Have you done this?
“Your whole answer is directed at making a complaint …”
Yes, that was the point. Do you know of any way a person can be held accountable under an Act of law without the resultant action taken against them constituting what would generally be considered as legal action?
The confusion appears to be entirely yours. If you wish to stick to a pedantic definition, then it is up to you to tell other people – so that we can at least know what you’re going on about – rather than simply state people are wrong and expect them to believe you.
If you can’t be bothered to make more than a half-hearted attempt, then don’t expect to be taken seriously.
Now, are you capable of explaining why Sullivan is pragmatically wrong? Are you aware of where Deer/Justice Eady/UCL/LRF have breached the DPA or any other relevant Act of law?
“Touche”
?!? How so? Sullivan had already edited the post to indicate that he was aware of a legitimate explanation, and he had done this by the time I made my post yesterday. You are therefore aware that Sullivans point had been updated, yet you chose to use a rather slanted interpretation of the original point.
Round these parts, stating or implying that someone holds a view that you know they do not hold would be considered dishonest.
You are reading the same thread as everyone else – aren’t you?
The idea that Dr’s are held to patient confidentiality is not a novel or difficult concept. If Wakefield had illegitimate access to patient records, he , or the agency that allowed him access, would be likely to be in breach of:
The Data Protection Act 1998
The GMC Guidance on Confidentiality, and Conditions of Regulation
The Protection and Use of Patient Information 1996 and Confidentiality NHS Code of Practice 2003
as well as any institutional agreement in force at the time.
Stop assuming other people are as ignorant as you are.
Dedj
You say..
“If Wakefield had illegitimate access to patient records, he , or the agency that allowed him access, would be likely to be in breach of:”
Your main blocks of your argument are built on the above premise as is Sullivans ,and Deers but one small i-t-s-y b-i-t-s-y teen·y-ween·y ,problem..
you say Dedj..
Do you know of any way a person can be held accountable under an Act of law without the resultant action taken against them constituting what would generally be considered as legal action?
Deer already held Wakefield JWS et-al accountable and he is currently after Horton ,Gold acre et-al with no parent from the RF 12 complaining??
In the real world it would be a problem if no parent from the RF 12 complained but not when were defending the sacred golden cow of vaccines the multi trillion earner for Pharma
Wake up Dedj your nodding off…
Whether Deer broke the law or not is a rather uninteresting point. In doing what he did (illegal or not) did he uncover the truth or detract from it? That is what I’m still trying to figure out.
Aaron, in considering your question I got stuck on the idea of Deer possibly detracting from the truth. Can you elaborate for me what you mean by that? And what you have read to date that might allow you to consider that as an option?
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.
1. Further to that I had previously posted for some clarification on …
a) Which particular medical records ?
b) Did Wakefield or the Royal Free have custody ?
c) Whether there was any illegality of a doctor having access / copies of medical records.
When my ASD son visits a specialist his medical records are able to be accessed at the touch of a button.
———————–
If you take sheldons response and my three questions I think we can all be rest assured the matter is closed until clear objective evidence is put forward.
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. The focus is on Wakefield.
@sharon
My intention is not to say that Deer is intentionally detracting from the truth. I simply mean to say that Deer’s selection of evidence and interpretation of the evidence may not reflect the actual historical events.
“And what you have read to date that might allow you to consider that as an option?”
Well firstly, I refrain from holding convictions. I take every effort to remain open to doubting my understanding of any issue. In this particular case, there are still many considerations that keep me open to a range of possible interpretations of the evidence.
Even if Deer had those exact “prospective developmental records” that the Lancet report refers to, and could prove that those were the exact records used in the report, I would still hold doubt as to whether a discrepancy between such records and the report could be blamed on Dr. Wakefield alone or whether it could be blamed on any of the other 12 members of their team. Not that I don’t think this elaborate story of Dr. Wakefield’s deceptive ploy isn’t grand; but the whole idea that he duped 12 other researches into overlooking these details sounds far fetched to me. How could he even expect to get away with such an act? How could he be sure that not one of the 12 co-authors would not notice? Surely, many of these clinicians would have had access to “prospective developmental records” themselves over the course of time when they were treating and researching these children.
But of course, Deer has no way of even knowing what those specific “prospective developmental records” referred to in the Lancet report are.
Why, over all those years, did not one author even go back to check whether Dr. Wakefield had misrepresented these records? None of the 12 other authors have confirmed such claims. None of the authors ever took their names “off” the report. I would expect them (at least some of them) to be outraged if Dr. Wakefield had misrepresented their coauthored paper in such a way. But that doesn’t appear to be the case at all. All the evidence is coming from Deer alone and it is all being leveled against Dr. Wakefield alone. Why should this one doctor take all the blame for a report that 13 people signed their names to?
Another area that leaves me rather skeptical is this whole focus on whether these children developed autism before or after the MMR. The issue seems rather overblown to me… why is it so important? We all know that correlation doesn’t prove causation here, so what is the big deal? Why would this doctor go through such an extreme amount of risk, only to falsify some data that would show an unconvincing correlation between a small handful of children? It would seem more plausible to me if he actually falsified data that was somehow damning.
Looking at the big picture here, why would it even matter if the doctor *did* falsify records to make it look like all 12 children regressed after MMR? (besides what it would tell us about the doctor’s character). Surely any researcher who really wanted 12 children who regressed after an MMR shot could find them without difficulty. I’m sure there are many children who “coincidentally” regress after MMR.
Taking that into account, isn’t it a rather moot point? So what if Dr. Wakefield *did* find 12 children who regressed after MMR? So what if he *did not*? What difference does it make really in the whole scheme of things? The only difference it really makes is in our opinion of Dr. Wakefield. But it make little difference in our opinions regarding autism-MMR link. And it makes no significant difference to the report itself. So… why did this ever get published in the BMJ? Why is it at the forefront of the media?
That’s another thing I don’t quite understand.
No, it is not a “moot point” at all. Mr. Wakefield added this to his already ongoing public relations effort against the MMR vaccination. He used his own incorrect and fraudulent research to bolster this notion, starting with the press conference he held at his hospital with the publication of his paper.
The recent Harris poll shows that people who have heard of the fraudulent nature of the research are much more likely to disbelieve the vaccine-autism notion.
To say that the MMR-autism link makes no significant difference to the Lancet paper is just plain wrong. That paper and the MMR link within it was a major focus of Mr. Wakefield, it was used–and is still used by–multiple groups to promote the vaccine-causation link.
If the link in that paper had no significant difference, why are the vaccines-cause-autism groups jumping to support Andrew Wakefield? Aside from the fact that they are currently funding him (a little COI those groups tend to ignore).
@ Aaron, so what are your thoughts about the fact 10 authors retracted their support for the paper?
I think the point about the childrens ASD status is important in terms of looking at the overall claims of the authors and the paper. And any credibility it may have had.
Perhaps some of your difficulty in understanding Wakefield’s motivation is that you are looking through the eyes of reason, rather than narcissism and self interest? Just a thought.
Aaron:
Speaking of historical events, have you ever discovered what evidence Wakefield was using when he announced in the 1998 press release video parents should reject the MMR vaccine (the same one that had been used in the USA for over twenty years)?
It was not in his Lancet paper, and his previous studies were mostly just on measles. Like this one, Perinatal measles infection and subsequent Crohn’s disease, which makes it clear that the measles was from getting the actual disease (unfortunately, he left out the bit that between 1945 and 1955 almost every person used to get measles before age 15, since there was no vaccine).
@sharon,
You could be right. Maybe I have trouble understanding Dr. Wakefield because I have a hard time believing that he could be so irrational. But regardless, speculating on his possible motivation for malice is unconvincing. Maybe he had every reason thinkable to falsify records… it doesn’t mean he did.
For the same reason I don’t buy all these anti-vax arguments against Big Pharma… sure, Big Pharma has every reason to want to suppress research in order to protect their bottom-line… but it doesn’t mean that they would. It is fallacious reasoning, and fruitless, to use possible motives as proof of malice.
As for the “retracted their support”… are you referring to the “statement of retraction of interpretation”? I read that. It is hardly a “retraction of support”. They just say they don’t support the idea that MMR can lead to autism.
@Chris
Ya, I have read some of his previous studies, such as that one you linked to. Yes, clearly he was suspicious of measles prior to this report. His beliefs may have affected his reasoning (also possibly his emotional connection to those autistic children).
Another thing I’m a little unclear of is why, if he suspected measles was dangerous, did he think the single vaccine would be any better? Anyway, I can’t say I understand where he is coming from.
As for his reasoning, his words from this interview (http://www.thedailybell.com/1089/Dr-Andrew-Wakefield-on-the-AutismVaccine-Controversy-and-His-Ongoing-Professional-Persecution.html):
“I put together a 250-page report on these safety studies and they were appalling, they were totally unsatisfactory….They did not look at the outcomes of the vaccine beyond the short-term. To put this in context, we are dealing with viruses that can cause disease many years later. Thus, you do not confine your safety studies to 3 – 6 weeks. As a result of this understanding, it became my clear conviction that parents deserved access to the option to access single vaccines – the way it was done before, which was perfectly effective.”
I have still not managed to find that 250 page report in order to dissect his reasoning. It would be interesting to see what he says, but I think the above quote gives the gist of it… he thinks the previous studies were too short. Maybe if I contact his supporters, someone can provide it to me. It doesn’t appear to be published anywhere.
It still have a hard time blaming the guy for all this vaccine-related controversy. One doctor, one opinion, one insignificant report… and suddenly everybody thinks autism is linked to MMR? Should he be held responsible for the media diefying him and blowing is report out of proportion? Can’t a guy even “begin” a little bit of vaccine safety research without the whole world going nutso? Now the media has turned 180 on him and his blaming him for everything they started.
“I have still not managed to find that 250 page report in order to dissect his reasoning. ”
I don’t think that report was ever made public. I’d love to see it if so. From what I have been able to gather, it is a 250 page report to support his idea that measles vaccination was causing Crohn’s disease. Mr. Wakefield was fond of correlation implying causation arguments, and he was trying at that time (and very likely in this report) to argue that there was an increase in Crohn’s coincident with introduction of measles vacinnation.
Aaron, I do find it intriguing that the only author of said paper who is still milking it, depsite it being thoroughly criticized, is Wakefield. I agree there should be accountability for all those involved. Perhaps, for good reason, the other 12 have slid intentionally into obscurity. I certainly have not heard any of the others cone out in defense of Wakefield recently. That does not mean they have not of course, just that I am not aware of it happening. I find that curious.
Sullivan said
“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””
Whilst it may not be “new” it is a very clear evidentiary rebuttal.
“It didn’t clear them then.”
Well apparently it does clear him of “wrong doing/ fraud” as the GMC made no findings of guilt in relation to “data manipulation”. Nor did it bring those charges to John Walker-Smith or indeed Simon Murch.
It would seem obvious then if John Walker-Smith an eminent medical professional of very high standing and with a long and illustrious career produced independently that seminar paper and presented it to a meeting attended by some of the UK’s finest medical minds that on the real balance of probabilities there is no “conspiracy to defraud”.
For the “conspiracy” to move any further forward rather than being dismissed (my opinion) then a credible and evidentiary supported new scenario must be made that is inclusive of dishonesty by John Walker-Smith and have the full participation of John Walker-Smith as a key player.
“Whilst it may not be “new” it is a very clear evidentiary rebuttal.”
It is, at best, a weak response. It doesn’t even attempt to address many of the specific issues raised in the BMJ articles. It also raises more questions, such as why a child listed as having behavioral symptoms at 2-2.5 years in that presentation was listed as having onset at 18 months in the paper. That’s just the one inconsistency I spotted right away.
If Mr. Wakefield wishes to “rebut” the BMJ articles, he should submit said rebuttal to the BMJ. Asking readers of AoA to send emails in his place (as he has done) is not a rebuttal either, it is public relations.
Sullivan you only believe what Deer has written .A letter below from JWS to the Lancet(now removed)
Autism, bowel inflammation, and measles
Sir–I was the senior clinician in the preliminary study of ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder reported in 1998.1 Apart from one letter after our report,(2) I have remained silent, except for coauthorship on several articles on this topic.(3,4)
He ends
Am I too naive to ask all people of goodwill on both sides of this debate to speedily agree on an independent research agenda that will finally resolve this matter? Such an agenda must involve non-epidemiological research, focusing on the bowels of these children. It is self-evident that this whole question is going on far too long and is causing so much heart-ache in parents. Although the original observation has been extended and refined with additional evidence, resolution of this matter seems as far off as it did then. Studies reported lately provide evidence that measles virus might have a role. There is now a case to be answered. This study finding needs urgent confirmation and elaboration of its importance.
http://www.whale.to/v/walkersmith.html
What makes you think you can read my mind?
I like to refer to original sources as much as possible. I’ve read the GMC transcripts. Brian Deer didn’t testify there, did he?
Would it be accurate for me to say, “you only believe what whale.to” has to say, given your recent link to that site? You claim that the letter from Prof. John Walker-Smith is “now removed”. What, then , is this
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2802%2907783-8/fulltext#
Quote: “Well apparently it does clear him of “wrong doing/ fraud” as the GMC made no findings of guilt in relation to “data manipulation”. Nor did it bring those charges to John Walker-Smith or indeed Simon Murch.”
That’s because they were not in the allegations against the doctors.
However, in the course of calling evidence to prove the allegations that were chosen, the evidence of the data manipulation was laid out.
“Asking readers of AoA to send emails in his place (as he has done) is not a rebuttal either, it is public relations.”
It’s certainly a form of Public Relations, but is there any evidence that Dr Wakefield initiated this? The letter that AoA linked to on the their web-page was actually authored on 2/2/2011 by Kim Stagliano though of course she might have received it in an email and reformatted it.
I’m waiting to hear of any actual approach by Dr Wakefield himself to the Press Complaints Commission or the BMJ editor. He didn’t pursue his High Court appeal against the GMC de-registration.
Brian Morgan
February 6th, 2011
17:42:23
“I’m waiting to hear of any actual approach by Dr Wakefield himself to the Press Complaints Commission or the BMJ editor.”
Dr Wakefield wrote to the BMJ as follows
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE BMJ SHOULD BE QUESTIONED
As for Dr. Godlee and the BMJ, I have made enquires that have bearing on whether, in their enthusiasm to condemn, they acted with due diligence and caution in coming to their damning determinations. Here is that correspondence starting with my email to
Dr. Godlee on 13.1.2011:
Dear Dr Godlee,
In the light of your many allegations, may I ask first, whether you weremade aware by Mr. Deer of the precise 10 substance of the active complaint against him and the Sunday Times that is before the UK Press Complaints Commission, and second, whether you read my book Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines – The Truth Behind a Tragedy, prior to publishing these allegations? This book deals comprehensively with Mr.Deer’s allegations, including all of the matters that you have labeled as“fraud”.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Andrew J Wakefield
Dr. Godlee responded on 14.1.2011:
Dear Dr Wakefield,
Mr Deer did make us aware of the substance of your complaint against him and the Sunday Times to the PCC. Your complaint is specifically referred to and summarised in the article headed “How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed”. Footnote 119 also cross-refers (and in the online version of the article is hyperlinked) to a copy of the complaint itself, enabling readers, if they so wish, to consider it for themselves. As
stated in footnote 119, we understand that the complaint was suspended by the PCC in February 2010.
As regards your book, my understanding is that in your book you make the sam points concerning Mr Deer’s allegations as you made in your suspended complaint to the PCC. As I have indicated, those points are summarised and cross-referenced in the article.
Yours sincerely,
Fiona Godlee
I responded the same day, 14.1.2011:
Dear Dr Godlee,
Thank you for your response. I am reassured that Mr Deer made you
aware of the substance of the complaint against him – a complaint which is still active and which is being pursued. I take it from your response that you have not actually read the complaint or the relevant chapters in my book. Please could you confirm this.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Andrew Wakefield
Answer, came there none. I wrote again on 18.1.11
Dear Dr Godlee,
Last week I made a simple request: that you confirm whether or not you have actually read the PCC complaint against Mr Deer and/or the relevant chapters in my book. Clearly my question was with reference to whether you had read these documents before publishing, not after. The question requires a simple yes or no answer and I would be grateful if you could respond by return.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Andrew Wakefield
Reply from Godlee1.21.2011
Dear Dr Wakefield,
Thank you for your further emails. I can confirm that I have read your complaintto the Press Complaints Commission and that we took appropriate account of it in preparing our coverage in the BMJ. Indeed it was essential to the publication of our reports, for which we did not approach you for further specific comment,
that your various detailed claims and counter-allegations were available in this form to the BMJ editors and reviewers and to our readers.
As for your book, I have not read it. My understanding, as I have said, is that the relevant chapters, particularly chapter 12 (“Deer”), cover the same ground as your PCC complaint.
If as you say, you now intend to pursue your complaint to the PCC of March 2009, which we understand to have been suspended almost a year ago, we will follow that development with interest.
Best wishes, Fiona Godlee
Reply: 1.21.2011
Dear Dr Godlee,
If, by your response you are seeking to reassure me that you read the relevant Press Complaints Commission documents in advance of
publishing Mr Deer’s articles and your accompanying editorials, you have failed to do so. Please, for the record, could you state explicitly and candidly whether you had read these articles in advance of publication.Either way, your journal finds itself in some difficulty. I refer you to Professor Walker-Smith’s evidence to the GMC on Wednesday 16th July 2008 where he describes the meticulous detail that was applied to resolving the correct histological diagnosis in each of the biopsy samples from seven of The Lancet children over 14 months prior to publication – a
process that was completely independent of me but for which I am
accused of “fraud”.
Your reference to not asking me for “further specific comment” is not relevant to my previous question. It now becomes so in the light of the aforementioned facts. It goes without saying that you should put these facts before your lawyers at the earliest opportunity.
You will be hearing from me.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Andrew Wakefield
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 originalemail.
In allowing itself to become the vehicle for Brian Deer’s particular brand of journalism;in circumventing the process of due diligence in its enthusiasm to “kill the beast”, the
BMJ has taken a huge risk. As the document presented above shows, this was a mistake.
Medicine, presented with the possibility of aniatrogenic catastrophe, has boarded a dissonant bandwagon and has gone after those who have concerns- genuine concerns- that childhood vaccines may be responsible, at least in part, for the autism epidemic.
The relevant science has been grossly misrepresented, crushed beneath the wheels of a Public Relations 16-wheeler that is out of control.
In the meantime a relentless tsunami of damaged children claims this land.
LEVEL 4. Walker-Smith’s sworn testimony (attached)
DEER MISREPRESENTED HIMSELF TO LANCET CASE SERIES FAMILY
It has been revealed in a letter to THE SUNDAY TIMES that Brian Deer lied to a parent whose child was in THE LANCET case series in order to obtain information from her about her child and his health records. Mr. Deer “entered her home under a false
name” and “claimed to be a health correspondent of THE SUNDAY TIMES.” Mr. Deer was
not on the staff of THE SUNDAY TIMES.
http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com/Home.html
We should be grateful to AWOL, your anonymised contributor, for the copied and pasted text said to be of the correspondence between AJW and the BMJ posted here. What I was actually interested in was evidence of a complaint by AJW to the Press Complaints Commission about what had been published in the BMJ this year.
The PCC complaint against the Sunday Times http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NTgyNA== was temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the GMC hearing, and one must assume in addition the outcome of any appeal – which didn’t happen. The PCC has yet to say that this complaint is now proceeding.
I’m very interested in knowing what the BMJ is currently saying about the complaint directly to them and what they have heard subsequently from Dr AJW or his lawyers.
I’m puzzled by the copied header “Subject: Re: failure to respond
From: FGodlee@bmj.com
To: wakersaj@live.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:34:42 +0000″
Which isn’t accompanied by what should be text of an email from Godlee to Wakefield.
Just for the record I’ve put in a press question to the PCC about the status of the Dr AJW complaint about the Sunday Times article. Just as a point of procedure – complaints about articles in the press are never considered by the PCC to be against the writer, only against the publisher.
Am I going mad (always possible) or does Fiona Godlee say (mail 21/Jan)”I can confirm that I have read your complaint to the PCC and we took appropriate account of it….etc” and does AW reply “If by your response you are seeking to reassure me (that you read the PCC complaint before publication) you have failed to do so”. Rotund and weighty phrases signifying nothing. Reassuring AW was presumably not part of the plan.
I can’t actually see that she is under an obligation to read the complaint to the PCC or that WS evidence in 2008 on the detailed histology proceedings for 7 of the 12 can be a defence against an accusation of fraud (which is based on much wider accusations). If the accusation is libellous a defence that one had read the PCC complaint wouldn’t be much to hide behind.
Brian Morgan
You write
“I’m puzzled by the copied header “Subject: Re: failure to respond
From: FGodlee@bmj.com
To: wakersaj@live.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:34:42 +0000”
Which isn’t accompanied by what should be text of an email from Godlee to Wakefield.”
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
You write
“complaints about articles in the press are never considered by the PCC to be against the writer, only against the publisher.”
aware of that ,only twist is it was also published by two writers Harry Marcovitch ,and Godlee?
Look forward to your reply from the PCC..
Right, from what I can gather from AWOL’s bizzare and highly fragmented post:
“Deer already held Wakefield JWS et-al accountable and he is currently after Horton ,Gold acre et-al with no parent from the RF 12 complaining??
In the real world it would be a problem if no parent from the RF 12 complained but not when were defending the sacred golden cow of vaccines the multi trillion earner for Pharma”
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. Patients often have to rely on the clinician to determine what is required, and are often in a posistion of vulnerability and malleability.
This is especially true if there is evidence that all or some of the parents were precommited to having a positive (i.e. supporting litigation) outcome of the , as we know several of the parents were.
If you think the lack of RF12 complaint is a problem for Deer, and not further evidence that Wakefield is unethical and manipulative, you have a very serious problem indeed. It’s certainly a very serious problem that none of them have supported the action against Wakefield, in terms of what it implies about their ability to view this rationally. If the parents were willfully complicit in the ethical breaches, it’s much worse for them.
It’s part of why we have things such as the GMC and ethical codes in the first place. Consent does not confer ethicality.
Deal with it.