People can’t change?

22 Apr

Today, JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue became the latest person at Age of Autism to abuse a man with a psychiatric disorder.

Shouldn’t we celebrate that Mr. Mnookin claims to be sober? Sure we should. Beating a heroin addiction is a laudable outcome. That being said, I sure wouldn’t hire Mr. Mnookin in one of my companies, let him watch my kids, or go to him for parenting advice. He was a garden-variety junkie who stole money from friends and family, sorry.

Give with one hand, take with the other.

I don;t ever seem to recall such vitriol for another former heroin addict. In fact, for _this_ former heroin addict, JB Handley said:

I wept when I read RFK Jr’s piece yesterday on the Huffington Post…

As far as I can tell, the only difference between Mnookin and Kennedy is that Mnookin is man enough to discuss his addiction up front and personal.

JB Handley and his ilk idolise Kennedy because he’s on their side. If Seth Mnookin had written a very different book, you can bet that his former addiction wouldn’t count for a damn thing. I wonder if JB would hire Kennedy, let him watch his kids or go to him for parenting advice? Because according to JB’s standards, Kennedy is just another garden variety junkie.

I believe both Mnookin and Kennedy deserve credit for fighting a fight that JB Handley can neither envisage nor learn from. What neither of these two men deserve is to be judged on their past. I look forward to reading an AoA article on Seth that describes what is wrong with his writings rather than what he used to do as a young man.

48 Responses to “People can’t change?”

  1. Sullivan April 22, 2011 at 18:36 #

    “That being said, I sure wouldn’t hire Mr. Mnookin in one of my companies, let him watch my kids, or go to him for parenting advice.”

    I wouldn’t hire JB Handley, let him watch my kids, and it should be clear that I don’t go to him for advice. What of it?

  2. Sniffer April 22, 2011 at 20:00 #

    Dear Sullivan,

    “He was a garden-variety junkie who stole money from friends and family, sorry.”

    Mnookin is still a “garden variety” ,only difference he is stealing friends, family and babies health and life through promoting dangerous vaccines and drugs.



    • Kev April 22, 2011 at 20:09 #

      Et tu Sniffer? Nothing to say about the _content_ so you attack the _person_ ? Not too clever Sniffer.

  3. Sniffer April 22, 2011 at 20:34 #

    Dear Kev,

    Sorry, slipping into the modus operandi on here.



    • Kev April 22, 2011 at 20:50 #

      Really Sniffer? We attack people not ideas? Where exactly?

  4. Sullivan April 22, 2011 at 21:39 #


    you just did it again. Being passive-aggressive doesn’t mean it isn’t obvious to the reader.

  5. Caroline April 22, 2011 at 23:17 #

    Kev, thanks for another great post- I have duly noted what you just said on the Age of Autism, after some independent fact checking. I know my post will be deleted, but I just couldn’t resist.

  6. Nightstorm April 23, 2011 at 04:31 #

    Ad homiems: when you can’t find a good counter-argument IE: most of AoA.

    Hendely needs to serious gain some rhetoric skills. Mud-slinging should be saved for the playground.

  7. Moderation April 23, 2011 at 08:19 #

    I have to say, I don’t see any reason to engage Mr. Handley anymore, no one need debate him. Debate, argument, discussion is not needed. One need only reference his most recent work to see clearly that he cannot win on the merits of his beliefs, so he resorts to personal attacks. This is to be expected in children, but in a grown man, an educated man … Mr. Handley is a small minded individual. It truly sad to see someone with so much to potentialy offer to the world (I understand he is quite successful in other areas of is life) slowly sucumbing to his own delusions. One could even describe Mr. Handley’s attachment to the “autism is caused by vaccines” myth as his own version of a heroin addiction. Like a heroin addict Mr. Handley does not just damage himself, but also those influenced by his anti-vaccination beliefs. Like a heroin addict Mr. Handley cannot see the damage he is doing to those around him, including those he loves. Like a heroin addict he has wasted his potential. It appears that Mr. Handley has a lot more in common with Mr. Mnookin’s past than he realizes. If only there was a 12 step program for anti-vaccinationist.

  8. Visitor April 23, 2011 at 10:48 #

    This discussion kind of presumes that AoA is something to do with debates over autism. Mookin is abused in this way because those who dominate AoA’s articles and responses are in large measure motivated by the need to be abusive. That’s what they do. That’s why they are there.

    There have always been people who need to be nasty towards others. Once they would have been contained within their family, village, or neigborhood. Nowadays they can find each other and be abusive to those they will never meet, even on different continents.

    It’s vaguely interesting the way particular posters focus their energies on various individuals. The troll John Stone is obsessed with being abusive towards Brian Deer. JB Handley is similarly obsessed with Paul Offit and now apparently Seth Mookin. But there’s nothing about autism there (except the spectrum issues of the individuals being abusive)or vaccines or children’s health, or really anything beyond that need to abuse.

    It’s not easy to feel compassion for these individuals, but we should try. I don’t think their behavior is a sign they are happy.

  9. Liz Ditz April 23, 2011 at 16:58 #

    Ginger Taylor went after René Najera because he rebuked her for her comment on her blog.

  10. Kev April 23, 2011 at 18:34 #

    Ginger is a prime example of the sort of person Visitor means I think. I used to value exchanging ideas and words with Ginger as she used to have an open mind to ideas. Sadly, these days that attitude is gone and has been replaced by a female version of JB Handley. Overly aggressive and desperately unhappy. Like Visitor I strive to feel compassion. I don’t always achieve that but I do feel sad that my one-time friend has ended up in such a dark, mean-spirited place.

  11. Sniffer April 23, 2011 at 20:01 #

    Dear Kev

    Some reminders of some of the abuse gone un questioned..

    “Really Sniffer? We attack people not ideas? Where exactly?”

    Brian Deer

    “And they wonder why their children have problems with their brains.”

    Brian Deer
    “Well, actually Joseph, I didn’t intend that observation as an insult. I made it as a shorthand way of raising an issue that I believe may reasonably be raised.
    “I genuinely think that the three individuals I was criticising – and I know who all three of them are – do need to question whether their personal behavioural issues are indicative of a better explanation for their children’s issues. Certainly a lot better explanation than MMR.
    “The festering nastiness, the creepy repetitiveness, the weasly, deceitful, obsessiveness, all signal pathology to me.”

    Me myself and I, had abuse of course..
    1. 237.
    David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
    April 12th, 2011

    Do us all a favour, sniffer: fuck off out of here, and get a life, and – if you must blog on thalidomide issues (in and of itself, not a bad thing to blog about) – blog on your own blog!



  12. Nightstorm April 24, 2011 at 00:01 #

    I read the blog that Liz posted and the comments that JB wrote. Jesus Effing Christ. Where do they get all that vitriol and anger? Are they just miserable with themselves or are they just sexually frustrated?

  13. Dedj April 24, 2011 at 01:57 #

    “Me myself and I, had abuse of course..”

    And gave it, very on in your posting career….

    Of course, the challenge was to find examples of attacking people ‘instead of’ their ideas. Sniffer would do very well to read the rest of David N Andrews post, and would certainly benefit from reading Brian Deers previous posts in that thread, rather than cherry picking quote and misrepresenting the intent of the posters.

    Yet another example of Sniffer badly misunderstanding what it was they were expected to do, and being so deliberately dishonest in the way they went about it, to the point where it is reasonable to assume that they are being obtuse exclusivly for their own malicious purposes.

  14. Sniffer April 24, 2011 at 10:26 #

    Dear Dedj

    Deer can do no wrong and you can do no wrong in his eyes. Dedj no doubt a wonderful relationship you must have I am deligted for you both.
    As for Andrews abuse similar to a find from 12 years ago written under a desk at school not on a blog site puporting to be helping Autism.



  15. Chris April 24, 2011 at 18:02 #

    As far as I can tell, the only difference between Mnookin and Kennedy is that Mnookin is man enough to discuss his addiction up front and personal.


    Another big difference is that one had to go through court ordered treatment, along with doing almost a year’s worth of community service, and the other had pressure from his family to get treatment. Do you know which is which?

  16. Andrew April 24, 2011 at 18:21 #

    Sniffer: if you’re looking for “un questioned” abuse, the Deer example is pretty weak – especially since you accidentally quoted some of the criticism Deer got for his cruel comment (criticism that you claim doesn’t exist). The topic of this post is people who attempt to disparage someone’s arguments by criticizing the person directly, rather than criticizing the argument – sort of like you respond to Dedj not be addressing her argument but rather by making up lies about her thinking that Deer is infallible. See the distinction?

  17. Dedj April 24, 2011 at 18:38 #

    “Deer can do no wrong and you can do no wrong in his eyes.”

    Utterly false, Deer has directly and personally criticised me at least once that I recall. My response was to point out that he had misinterpreted my post.

    I feel I must remind you:

    “the challenge was to find examples of attacking people ‘instead of’ their ideas.”

    Get to it.

  18. Julian Frost April 24, 2011 at 19:33 #

    I look forward to reading an AoA article on Seth that describes what is wrong with his writings rather than what he used to do as a young man.

    You’ll be waiting a long time, Kev.

  19. Chris April 24, 2011 at 19:34 #

    Deer is not the topic of this thread, even though he has been attacked with the same type of methods.

  20. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. April 24, 2011 at 23:15 #

    Sniffer… the reason you get abuse from me is because that is what you draw. I see someone who presumably was born with a brain, and I see you wasting it with your mindless bloody drivel and you stupid trolling of this blog. Having seen and worked with people who were seriously brain-damaged or born without the bits of the brain that would have allowed them the capacity for thought – a capacity you seem fucking hell-bent on wasting – I am absolutely not of the opinion that you deserve any respect from me.

    If you have a problem with this, then go away and stop pissing us all off. Or – on the other hand – you could actually try being a sentient human being and start bloody thinking properly.

    End of my dealings with you, Sniffer. Fucking waster.

  21. sharon April 25, 2011 at 08:13 #

    @visitor, really well said. Their outward expressions of vitriol are a manifestation of inward unhappiness. And in groups such as AoA people find like minded folk to support their angry projections without challenge or restraint. AS for compassion. I’m not willing to try that hard. I just don’t care enough.

  22. Neuroskeptic April 25, 2011 at 11:11 #

    He takes money from innocent people to fund his personal obsession with something which promises happiness but really brings only lies and death…

    That’s Handley and his antivaccinationism.

    Now moving on to heroin…

  23. Neuroskeptic April 25, 2011 at 11:13 #

    As for sniffer, I don’t think passive-aggressive is an appropriate term, that implies some degree of subtlety. I would have said “stupid-aggressive”.

  24. John Fryer Chemist April 28, 2011 at 21:55 #

    Panic Virus was I thought a serious effort in the autism debate. I believe anyone can produce better work on solving the autism issue than those paid professionally but this bookis clearly an effort to make money and not to provide much to increase our knowledge.

    I personally was not well pleased with Andrew Wakefield when he came out with his ideas as clearly much damage isdone well before the MMR.

    Andrew defends himself very well in his latest talk at a bookshop and may be difficult listening for those who think he is wrong but for me he put his case across very well.

    It is possible both he and Deer are liars but his side is very convincing.

    In the UK the country of origin there are other ways of outing people and denying vaccine harm. One cherished method is the Star Chamber courts that every year take out 250 parents who have lost or dead children from vaccines. Shaken Baby Syndrome has no basis in science but different from known scientific harm of thimerosal we see in this mad world SBS is science and thimerosal so well defended that while people tellushow toxic methyl mercury is that thimerosal is magically OK for the foetus or infant child at a concentration ten times less than a lethal LD50 level.

  25. Sniffer April 28, 2011 at 23:04 #

    Dear John,

    Thanks for that .I can`t comment or I might be accused of being off topic.

    I see the heading of this topic is “People can’t change?”

    Brian Deer says he did in this piece he reveals he “outgrew a touch of aspergers” ….

    As David Andrews(above) would say F me !!



  26. Chris April 28, 2011 at 23:06 #

    Mr. Fryer:

    It is possible both he and Deer are liars but his side is very convincing.

    No it isn’t. You are being taken in by his charm and your own biases. Look at the science, or the lack of science. It was only a case series of a dozen children and the results (even with the fraud thrown in) did not associate either MMR vaccine with autism. Wakefield made statements at the press release that were not supported by the now retracted Lancet paper.

  27. Sniffer April 28, 2011 at 23:22 #

    Dear Chris

    If it were fraud why aren`t the Police knocking on the door of Dr Wakefields house slapping him in cuffs and throwing away the key?

    Simple answer , none of the charges fabricated by Brian Deer (self proclaimed aspergers sufferer) would hold water in the High Court Of London.



    • Kev April 28, 2011 at 23:46 #

      Sniffer – fraud doesn’t have to be legal. There’s a decent selection of alternate names right here for Andrew Wakefield.

      And if he feels that Brian Deer is wrong to call him a fraud – why not sue him? Is he afraid of losing _another_ legal battle to Deer?

  28. Chris April 28, 2011 at 23:48 #

    More vocabulary the troll has trouble with! First he can’t figure out the difference between financial and scientific fraud, and now he is confused by the difference between legal, civil, criminal and medical enforcement agencies. The police work in the legal/criminal arena while the General Medical Council deals with medial fraud. I believe you will see that Wakefield was convicted by the General Medical Council.

    You might find some adult basic English classes for those whose first language is not English. That should help you to understand the one paragraph I wrote to Mr. Fryer, which had nothing to do with Deer or any fraud. It was about the lack of science done by Wakefield.

  29. Sniffer April 29, 2011 at 00:09 #

    Dear Kev and Chris,

    I don’t know of many people that could afford to sue The Times on the back of the case that Dr Wakefield has had to defend over the years ,looking back over the web just now.

    More so Deer has accused him of money fraud fair enough,not in the Thorsen magnitude financially or the Thorsen deception magnitude to be disclosed in Science, to obtain the cash he withdrew from the CDC.


    “The police work in the legal/criminal arena while the General Medical Council deals with medial fraud.”

    I am not the only one on here then that misunderstands try telling Brian Morgan and Sullivan who between them were trying to get the Police in Scotland to seize my computer?

    Make your mind up time Chris, you cant have the Police picking and choosing who they are going to nick ,trolls or pro-phama`s . In my book fraud is fraud nobody has blanket immunity from it and is answerable in the High Court Of London.

    So where’s the charges based on Brian Deers case?

    None = no fraud = innocent

    Yours Sincerely


    • Sullivan April 29, 2011 at 00:25 #

      I am not the only one on here then that misunderstands try telling Brian Morgan and Sullivan who between them were trying to get the Police in Scotland to seize my computer?

      Wow. That’s an amazing accusation. When it comes to this subject, yes, you are the one who misunderstands.

      Does the United Kingdom have statute of limitations laws? My guess is yes and that if any of the charges against Mr. Wakefield were considered criminal, they couldn’t be prosecuted anyway. But, hey, you make accusations all the time without any charges in place. Not that I’m surprised by the logical shifts.

  30. Sniffer April 29, 2011 at 00:40 #

    Dear Sullivan

    I am not a lawyer. In the UK I have read stories of money fraud taking years to surface .Such as the pop singer Sting who had an accountant stealing 7 million pounds over 15 years .The accountant was charged found guilty and jailed.

    Cases do get “thrown out” I believe in the UK.

    I can’t see that the time lapse with Dr Wakefield would have been a problem.

    Only problem I see is that Brian Deer’s methodology in preparing his case for The Sunday Glaxo Times would not stand criminal law scrutiny.

    Yours Sincerely


  31. Science Mom April 29, 2011 at 00:44 #

    I am not the only one on here then that misunderstands try telling Brian Morgan and Sullivan who between them were trying to get the Police in Scotland to seize my computer?

    That’s pretty off-the-rails there sniffer. Chris is correct, you don’t have a clue of the differences between various types of fraud and how they are dealt with. Wakefield has plenty of money and support to go after Deer if he was falsely accused and has plaintiff-friendly UK libel laws on his side. The simple fact is, is that he knows he can’t win and stands to have even more of his deceptions come to light. It’s happened to him before and it would happen again.

  32. sharon April 29, 2011 at 01:24 #

    It’s interesting to me that anyone can find Wakers charming. He gives me the heeby jeebies. I agree with Chris that John Fryer is being swayed by his own biases. Except he thinks he is an independent thinker. It is precisely the reason John, why valid research does all it can to eliminate bias, as it is such a powerful dictator of how we perceive incoming information. You have proved this with your above assessment of Wakefield/Deer and Mnookin’s book.

  33. John Fryer Chemist April 29, 2011 at 08:54 #

    Hi Chris

    Have you seen and taken in that video link I gave?

    Your comments are answered in this video.

    UNLESS of course Andrew is a LIAR?

  34. John Fryer Chemist April 29, 2011 at 09:12 #

    Hi Chris

    Have you really seen that video?

    You repeat again a misconception of Andrew.

    Are we really here to argue and disagree about FACTS.

    When I trained as a chemist OBSERVATION was not ANECDOTE.

    Today ANECDOTE is taken as FACT

    I know a man who knows a man who knows a person 1 year old who died of SIDS in USA and never had a vaccine is an ANECDOTE.

    and FACT is just thrown away.

    Harry Clark was well when he went for a mercury vaccine.

    The whole world agrees

    He was dead within 6 hours.

    THIS is FACT and NOT ANECDOTE. We know the facts and all the world can check them.

    This is OBSERVATION not coincidence

    but the PROOF of murder came from a top scientist who went to meetings every month discussing death after vaccines

    But he was HONEST and kept his vow of SECRECY even on OATH in COURT.

    Now for me that is a crime where the police should come knocking on the door.

    They cant of course for obvious reasons if like me you have studied and practised science for 50 years.

    If you can prove to me that MEADOW and his proof of murder is more LIKELY than that a neurotoxin which at ten times more concentration kills 10 out of 13 people is likely than murder to be the cause of Harry’s death I will RETIRE from these debates.

    Today in the UK more than 250 such cases cometo SECRET courts.

    We know numbers but NO FACTS

    Dr Jennian Geddes

    Dr Marta Cohen

    Dr Irene Scheimberg

    Dr Waney Squiers

    ALL had reservations about these SBS cases

    AND they are all women.

    One reason alone that tells us why most people on this site are NOT women

    But their are some surprising exceptions which puzzle me.

    I spent 5 years working on the Sally Clark case so of course know just a bit more than the snippets here.

    She was FREED after MANY years in prison and the refusal to act when evidence of INNOCENCE is obvious makes you very NERVOUS of believing ANYTHING official.

  35. Chris April 29, 2011 at 15:37 #

    I have enough to do without watching over an hour of Wakefield making excuses. Have you figured out how to show evidence of your claims, and to not change the subject?

  36. Passing Thru April 29, 2011 at 16:34 #

    Actually, Deer’s allegations in The Sunday Times DID stand criminal law scruitiny: which is the standard the British General Medical Council works to. This found Wakefield guilty on four counts of dishonesty – research fraud, financial fraud and two counts of lying to doctors who were trying to find out where he got his research subjects and money from.

    He was also found guilty of 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally-challenged children, and about another two dozen miscellanous charges, including ordering tests without appropriate qualifications, causing invasive tests to be performed without ethical approval or clinicial necessity, and buying blood from children at a birthday party.

    The GMC panel was a statutory tribunal of the High Court, to which Wakefield said he would appeal. After his legal team advised the Medical Protection Society that he was unlikely to win, they discontinued funding and he withdrew his appeal. He is now, for all time, a proven cheat and liar, and there is nothing he can do about it.

    Blustering outside the GMC hearing, he goaded people to look at the proceedings and judge for themselves that he was innocent. The transcript reveals that he could produce no witness (including any parent) in his defence, that he asked no questions of the government’s vaccine chief, that he submitted that the chair of the panel had no conflicts of interest, and that his multitudinous claims were plainly false.

    Deer get sued? No, Deer got Britain’s top journalism award, and I hear he’s soon to get another.

  37. Chris April 29, 2011 at 16:39 #

    “Deer get sued?”… actually he did, but Wakefield dropped it and had to pay him a check.

  38. John Fryer Chemist April 29, 2011 at 16:54 #

    Hi Chris

    As I said I spent 5 years on the Clark case which involved wasting as you say all of my time.

    You do not have to watch the link I mentioned and forme it is tedious too.

    But to know the facts you need to know both sides and to understand how government, regulators and industry works.

    I can tell many anecdotes as I had good jobs in industry and education and a lot of time in universities. About equal in each.

    I cannot understand Andrew and his position except in the way he was got at by the GMC.

    When Meadow was outed by the GMC he put in an appeal and won on a judgement of two judges out of three.

    I would expect that Andrew would follow this route too.

    The snag as I see it is to do this costs say at 30 year ago prices more than 1 million.

    If you lose you are BANKRUPTED.

    What would you, I or Andrew do in such a situation?

    For myself it is certain I would FIGHT.

    But many people cannot face up to the pressure.

    The class action on MMR folded not because of proof but because of money. 14 million and the court, witnesses et al came back for more.

    As a simple scientist Harry Clark vaccinated at 4.30pm and dead less than 6 hours later means one thing – the vaccine is to blame.

    However in 5 years of looking for the neurotoxin I never found thimerosal until after this work.

    You can be so close but so far.

    Most people here do not accept thimerosal harm but it has been proven to kill at just ten times the concentration in a vaccine.

    Discounting observations like this and more than a dozen dead bodies when testing a thimerosal vaccine and passing it to give to millions of infants at 2/3 of the previous age is attempted murder.

    Nobody would admit mass murder if they controlled the law.

    Take the genocide in World War 1 and what happens to people who want the knowledge to be recognised 90 years on. Shot down like a rat outside their workplace.

  39. John Fryer Chemist April 29, 2011 at 18:08 #

    At passing through

    Buying blood – yes illegal and anecdotal.

    I used to draw blood in school science lessons without any parents permission. Time has moved though on I agree because of AIDS possibly if Maurice Hilleman is correct from vaccine contaminants.

    But no proof of this was obtained except taking the anecdotal comment of Andrew as correct. In some courts of law you cannot testify against yourself or your spouse. Again time has moved on.

    Drawing blood is a normal and frequent fact of life. Today the cat scratched me and today I got scratched by a thorn. The only danger is bad hygiene and this is in fact normal and FREE vaccination. When I first came to France the reactions were almost enough but not quite to get medical help. After lots of bleeding incidents the damage now is zero except for a day or so to heal. Hardly enough to put a man out of work for life?

    It shows how the work of many people in their research papers can be bizarre except this was never put in the paper. Someone proved a common additive in our food is strongly cancer producing and the comments from a blog site was how awful for humans to produce cancer in animals while saying nothing about the additive in everyones food causing cancer to one in two today.

    As to financial payments, these were never denied but did not apply to the study under review. Conversely as time moves on we see financial payments to Brian from millionaire interests solely formed to destroy annoying researchers. Similar to search and destroy tactics admitted by the vaccine maker Merck.

    Ethical approval was obtained. Aclear and demonstrable lie by one side in the dispute.

    The study always was a preliminary study.

    Suppose you found that rubella caused health problems and the medical doctors were ignorant of this. Do you say nothing so the harm is kept quiet for another 10 years? The Royal Free team had a duty almost to publish this work.

    In the event Brian himself found it was similar to work in the research journals a decadeor so before at the then level of 40 per cent.

    Today we know that autism coexists with many other conditions. Gut problems, hearing problems, eye problems, epilepsy, diabetes and so on. Brian again used one supplementary condition to prove one patient had already got early autism BEFORE the vaccine.

    My own view also is that much autism is present at birth or at day one but takes three years to get diagnosed.

    Again even if the research was 100 per cent wrong it would be placed with much other research. Many papers in the past looked at proteins for the stuff of life. When they found DNA they looked at triple strands for ages until the work of Watson.

    To spend 12 years debating and withdrawing one minor paper is something that occurs in fact but would never be accepted in fiction.

    The only acceptable reason that makes sense is that it is the man and not the work at fault. Faulty work is very common but search and destroy is fact.

    Brian has every right to investigate whatever he gets paid for or not paid for as anyone else but lying by anyone is not helpful as sullivan tells us and me to help people ill or people not born who will be ill.

    I can see dozens of ways people can be autistic and to deny anyone of them is stupid and hurtful to society and those suffering.

    Similarly to deny a vaccine to a person is also distasteful. Gay people have the right to an AIDS vaccine evenif it is now nearly 40 years to slow in coming. AIDS kills more people than every vaccine preventable illness put together and fromthe vaccine theory known it MUSTbe possible to produce a vaccine if our ideas on vaccines are correct.

  40. Sniffer April 29, 2011 at 21:59 #

    Dear Chris

    “Deer get sued?”… actually he did, but Wakefield dropped it and had to pay him a check.

    That was a long time ago matters have moved on from then.



  41. Sniffer April 29, 2011 at 22:08 #

    Dear Passing Through

    “Actually, Deer’s allegations in The Sunday Times DID stand criminal law scruitiny: which is the standard the British General Medical Council works to”

    Have you forgotten that the main evidence supplied comes from Brian Deer whose only income comes from Dr Wakefield.

    Then you have all the many, many conflicts of interests involving the Glaxo kangaroo court that presented the verdict and accepted the evidence, Kumar et-al and below.

    Take that into the Police and hear the laughing Policeman..

    Yours Sincerely


  42. Chris April 29, 2011 at 22:50 #

    Exactly, Wakefield has been dropped from the medical registry and Brian Deer won another award.

  43. Sniffer April 29, 2011 at 23:12 #

    Dear Chris

    I see they are holding back my other comment .

    Moving on,what award was that? It must have been big news in Pharma land?



  44. Passing Thru April 30, 2011 at 06:53 #

    Ah, but sadly for Mr Wakefield, Brian Deer merely showed the GMC where the bodies were buried. They dug them up and did not rely on evidence from him. Which is why he was not called as a witness, as they re-sourced all of his facts for themselves. If you understood anything about criminal standard proceedings you would know that nothing rested on the assertions of Mr Deer.

    So, my foolish and ignorant friend, you might read the GMC hearing transcript and then you would understand why Mr Wakefield had no grounds of appeal, and why it is Mr Deer and not Mr Wakefield who now lectures at Michigan and Johns Hopkins.

    As for the award you ask about, it’s here. You must be well out of the loop to have missed this one:

    And it was not big news in pharma land. In pharma land, there has been never been the slightest interest in the events concerning Mr Wakefield.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: