Archive | Brian Deer RSS feed for this section

Dateline and Dr. Wakefield’s patent activities

16 Sep

In the recent Dateline NBC episode about Dr. Wakefield, Matt Lauer asked Dr. Wakefield about his patent activities.

As a bit of background: before Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet article was published, his hospital, the Royal Free, had submitted a patent application for an invention of Dr. Wakefield’s. The application was titled, “PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR TREATMENT OF IBD AND RBD”

IBD is “inflammatory bowel disease”
RBD is “regressive behavioural disease” “(also referred to as pervasive developmental disorder)”

(definitions taken from Dr. Wakefield’s Great Britain patent application 2,325,856)

As you might assume from the title, the patent has as a main thrust the idea that certain transfer factors could be used therapeutically. In other words, the main point appears to be to use this as a treatment. This does not exclude the fact that the patent also includes a claim for a classic, preventive vaccine.

The original patent application, filed June 6 1997 (before Dr. Wakefield’s first autism paper in The Lancet), is shown on Brian Deer’s website.

There are nine claims to the patent. Eight of which relate to the proposed treatment. Claim two, however, states:

The composition according to claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus.

Prophylaxis, of course, meaning to prevent.

The existence of such a patent application raises the obvious question of conflict of interest. In other words, was there the possibility that Dr. Wakefield’s invention could result in royalty payments to Dr. Wakefield for a vaccine? Could he profit from what amounts to a single vaccine for measles (as opposed to the combination virus MMR vaccine)?

Dr. Wakefield in a previous statement (again hosted on Brian Deer’s website):

The reference to the possible use of TF [transfer factor] to protect children against measles infection – the thrust of the Sunday Times’ conspiracy theory – was put in as an afterthought in the patent. It was entirely speculative and never pursued in any shape, manner or form.

The provisional patent filing was entirely speculative and was for a possible therapy; as such, it had no bearing on the 1998 Lancet paper.

Note that Dr. Wakefield acknowledges that his invention was claimed to be able to protect against measles infection. As we will see below, this is in direct contrast to his statements on Dateline.

Before we delve into that, I must strongly disagree with Dr. Wakefield as to whether this had bearing on the 1998 Lancet article. Part of the patent application clearly claims the use of the invention as a vaccine. Whether the invention was speculative or that the main use was as a therapy is immaterial. The appearance of a financial conflict of interest should have been reported to The Lancet, the referees, and to the press, in my opinion.

In his statement, Dr. Wakefield goes on to say:

It constituted no potential conflict until the patent was awarded.

Again, I strongly disagree. If the patent was a potential conflict of interest, so was the application. Both are a potential to profit.

Also, if the patent itself is a potential for profit, how can one justify the previous argument that the application was not a conflict since it was merely “for a possible therapy”? Again, if the language of the patent was a potential conflict due to the inclusion of the vaccine, the application was a potential conflict as well.

So, after that long introduction, what did Dr. Wakefield have to say to Matt Lauer?

Dr. Wakefield is back to denying that the invention was for a vaccine to prevent measles and is claiming it as merely a therapeutic agent.

But as we have already seen above, this is not what the patent states. This isn’t even consistent with Dr. Wakfield’s own previous comments.

Here is the section where Matt Lauer of Dateline interviewed Brian Deer on the topic:

First impression: Matt Lauer’s team messed up with the statement that the vaccine was “for the elimination of MMR”. I heard that statement as though the purpose of the Wakefield vaccine was to eliminate the MMR as a vaccine. The wording of the first sentence of the patent application is:

The present invention relates to a new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and measles virus and to a pharmaceutical composition…

I read this as the vaccine for the elimination of the MMR viruses from someone with a persistent infection of one or more of measles/mumps/rubella, not as for the elimination of the MMR vaccine itself.

It is not well worded.

The statement from the patent application that most clearly shows that it covers the invention as a vaccine is claim 2. It is short, clear and direct to the point.

The composition according to claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus.

This is what Dateline should have used, in my opinion.

I think the segment below clearly shows that part of the intention of the invention was as a vaccine for the prevention of measles which is purported to be safer.

fragment of Dr. Wakefield's original patent application

fragment of Dr. Wakefield's original patent application

Back to the interview, I think that Mr. Deer makes a key point in stressing that the patent application discussed the invention as a “safer” vaccine. This makes it more clearly a possible contender to replace the MMR vaccine as a product.

Brian Deer notes on his website:

A letter from his lawyers dated Jan 31 2005 said: “Dr Wakefield did not plan a rival vaccine.”

It is very difficult to ascertain intentions. At a very real level, what Dr. Wakefield planned is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that there was a possibility (however remote) that Dr. Wakefield could profit if the combination MMR vaccine were removed. The appearance (at least) of a potential conflict of interest was there and should have been disclosed in the paper and press conference, in my opinion.

The information I would like to see on this would be Dr. Wakefield’s lab books (or notes, as the case may be). In particular, he is reported to have applied his “transfer factor” on at least one child. Were there any tests performed (say, measles titers?) that could have been used to justify development as a vaccine? For example, measles titers?

It is also worth noting that as far as I can see, all of the patents on this potential vaccine have been abandoned. In other words, Dr. Wakefield and/or the Royal Free Hospital do not appear to have continuing financial interests in the proposed measles vaccine, or the IBD/autism therapy.

As a final word–I find it interesting that in one of the patents Dr. Wakefield states that that the autism prevalence is about 1%. This from a document dated 1998, 10 years ago. So much for that epidemic, eh?

Section of GB patent 2,325,856

Section of GB patent 2,325,856

Andrew Wakefield gives NBC “talking points”

11 Sep

Dr. Wakefield “took issue” with a recent Dateline episode discussing him and his work. Thoughtful House (his clinic) has offered Dateline some talking points to, I gather, give “the full story” that Dateline supposedly missed.

Since there is next to zero chance that Dateline will act on them, I thought I would take a look at the talking points:

A. There has been extensive replication of the finding of bowel disease in children with autism (ASD) from five different countries. These findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at scientific meetings. It is therefore incorrect and misleading of Matt Lauer to have stated that every aspect of my original hypothesis has been disproved. On the contrary, the main findings of the original Lancet paper, that is, bowel disease in autistic children, has been repeatedly confirmed. This obvious inaccuracy requires clarification by NBC.

One of my many failings is that I am a sloppy writer and, yet, I key in on imprecise language in the work of others. Case in point:

“On the contrary, the main findings of the original Lancet paper, that is, bowel disease in autistic children, has been repeatedly confirmed. ”

“…the main point of the Lancet paper, bowel disease in autistic children…”

Very imprecise. What about bowel disease in autistic children is the finding of the Lancet article that Dr. Wakefield wants us to know? The statement is so vague that all we are left with is the fact that some autistic children have bowel disease.

This is misdirection on Dr. Wakefield’s part. It isn’t even good misdirection. The Dateline story wasn’t “the career of Andrew Wakefield, what he got right and wrong”. It was about the assertions that MMR cause autism.

Dr. Wakefield makes it appear that this statement was Matt Lauer’s. It is a fine point, but Matt Lauer didn’t state that “…every aspect of my original hypothesis has been disproved”. The statement was from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which Matt Lauer quoted with attribution.

It’s worth recalling what the Lancet paper stated. The concluding paragraph of the 1998 Lancet article was:

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

Had Dr. Wakefield himself distanced himself from the MMR-causation theory in the last 10 years, even a little, I’d think it reasonable for him to emphasize the the idea that he brought to light GI disturbances in autistic kids. But he hasn’t. It isn’t what the Dateline story was about.

The big question, if he thought this was important, why didn’t Dr. Wakefield himself emphasize that in the interview?

Dr. Wakefield’s second point:

B. The shortcomings and the flaws of the studies quoted by Dr. Offit, claiming to disprove an association between vaccines and autism, were not discussed in the program. In my interview with Mr. Lauer I took as an example a paper from Dr. DeStefano from the CDC claiming to exonerate MMR that actually showed that a younger age of vaccination with MMR is associated with a greater risk of autism. This study confirms the association and has been falsely portrayed as vindicating the vaccine. This should have been included in order to provide balance to the program.

Can someone tell me what DeStefano paper and what analysis he is talking about?

C. Reference was made to an autistic child in the vaccine court whose claim for MMR damage was overturned by the judge. No reference was made to the successful vaccine court case on behalf of the child Bailey Banks, coming just one week after the unsuccessful claim described by Mr. Lauer, in which the judge ruled that MMR vaccine can cause autism. Therefore, in the view of vaccine court, it is not a question of whether or not MMR can cause autism, but rather how many children are affected.

The case referred to in the Dateline episode was that of Michelle Cedillo. Her’s was the first “test case” to be heard by the Autism Omnibus Proceeding.

Her case was first heard by a “special master”, who denied compensation. The case then was appealed, and the judge didn’t “overturn” anything. The judge upheld the original decision.

The Bailey Banks case is one that gets debated a lot on the net. Rather than go into that again, let’s ask: how does this relate to Dr. Wakefield’s research? Perhaps I missed it as I did some very quick searches, but I didn’t find anything in the Bailey Banks decision that had anything to do with digestion/inflamation/enterocolitis/constipation/diarrhea… I think you get the idea–the case has nothing to do with Dr. Wakefield’s ideas about autism and the gut.

I.e. Wakefield’s point C is another diversionary tactic.

D. There was a complete absence of comment on the lack of any adequate safety studies of childhood vaccines and the vaccine schedule in particular. There was no mention of the admission by vaccine regulators that there is no data on the long-term safety of vaccines, the chronic disease burden caused by vaccines, and the likely potentially harmful interactions between various vaccines in the routine schedule.

Have you heard the phrase “diversionary tactic” too often yet? What does any of this have to do with whether Dr. Wakefield’s research? This is a favored diversion in online discussions of vaccines/autism. When people run out of real ammunition (and they do quickly), switch to trying to debate general safety of vaccines–and it almost worked. Instead of addressing some of your comments, I’ll move on to your fifth point:

E. Undue credibility was given to Brian Deer, a discredited freelancejournalist, whose false reporting has caused so much misunderstanding and damage to children through the misrepresentation of the doctors and parents who were seeking answers to the vaccine-autism question. Deer has repeatedly misled the public and the medical profession and has been unable to respond to clear evidence of his false reporting in the Sunday Times through the UK’s Press Complaints Commission.

Nice slam, there, Dr. Wakefield. Given the sloppy nature of your previous comments, I am impressed that you pulled this together so well.

You make it seem like it is accepted that Brian Deer is “discredited”. I guess if you don’t get out of Thoughtful House or autism-parent conventions, you might think that.

The “unable to respond…” bit is pretty classic. The Press Complaints Commission isn’t hearing the complaint until after your own GMC hearing, correct? So, I guess he has been unable to respond at the PCC. But, did that really stop him from responding? I seem to recall a pretty sharp worded response that Orac hosted on Respectful Insolence.

Didn’t you, Dr. Wakefield, bring that complaint to the PCC? If so, nice job leaving out the fact. It would come across quite differently had you stated: “…and has yet been unable to respond to clear my claims of his false reporting in the Sunday Times through the UK’s Press Complaints Commission.”

F. It was not disclosed that I have repeatedly invited Dr. Offit to take part in public debate on the safety of MMR vaccine and the false and misleading claims that he has made in the media and his book. He has refused to accept this invitation and has continued to hide from an open and honest debate.

Why would NBC waste time on this? Was it pertinent to the discussion? Answer: no.

I think they did you a favor by not mentioning it. No one looks good with the “So and So won’t debate me” argument. They just don’t. The “please debate me” argument is a staple of the crank. I doubt you wish to appear to be in that category, do you?

Academics “debate” in the literature, not on some stage. If you want to debate Dr. Offit, come up with some good research. Publish it.

Alternatively, if you want to see how a Wakefield/Offit debate comes out, read “autism’s false prophets”. If that is “hiding”, he hasn’t done a very good job of it.

G. NBC alluded briefly to the fact that Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, was informed of my participation as a medical expert in the MMR litigation almost one year before publication of the Lancet paper in 1998. NBC failed to clarify that when Horton was challenged to respond to the fact that when he so enthusiastically denounced me and the paper in 2004 the Lancet staff was already fully aware of the facts and at that time did not consider them to be relevant. Horton refused to be interviewed by NBC and the interview segment shown was from 2004. This refusal is in sharp contrast to his willingness to denounce me in the media in 2004. NBC also failed to mention that in the light of these facts Horton has been reported to UK’s General Medical Council on an allegation of perjury.

Even if true, this is just more diversions. If you thought it important enough to fax all this information to the Lancet, why didn’t you include a conflict of interest statement in the article itself? The referees would have appreciated that, I believe. Was there any mention of potential conflicts of interest in your cover letter to The Lancet when you submitted the paper? Or in the cover letter for your acceptance? All of those were places where you should have made such statements.

H. It was unfortunate that NBC, having stated their determination to resist external pressure to distort the balance of the program, yielded to such pressure from the American Academy of Pediatrics, allowing them the final word in the program while denying representation from the National Autism Association who put forward to NBC a rational and well reasoned call for further science to resolve this very real issue.

I’m sorry, but are you seriously putting he “National Autism Association” on equal footing with the American Academy of Pediatrics? How many members does the NAA have? (a lot less than the AAP) What is the name of their journal (they don’t have one) What is the impact factor of their journal? (Pediatrics is a very well respected journal).

Given the NAA’s recent childish antics with their attempted slime job against Dr. Offit (which you, Dr. Wakefield, participated in), I think that Dateline has been proven correct for not airing their comments.

I. Dr. Offit cited a large population study of autism and MMR from Denmark in support of his claim to ‘certainty that there is no link.’ This study was so flawed that it was rejected from consideration by the gold standard scientific review by the highly influential Cochrane Collaboration. Dr. Offitt, who is not an epidemiologist, was clearly at a loss to understand the study’s fatal flaws.

“Dr. Offitt, who is not an epidemiologist…” What’s up with that comment? I’m sorry, is Dr. Wakefield an epidemiologist? Answer: no. Do you have to be an epidemiologist to understand the study or it’s strengths or flaws? No.

What fatal flaws is Dr. Wakefield referring to? The big Danish study was by Madsen, et al.. The Cochrane Review lists this study as one of the “cohort studies included in the review”. Not “rejected from consideration”.

That aside, I have the Cochrane Review “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children (Review)” open. The version I have open is noted: “This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3”, so I think it is the most recent.

I guess if the Cochrane review is “highly influential” and the “gold standard” it would make sense to see what they think of the autism/MMR hypothesis, eh? The review states:

No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found.

Was this because they didn’t know about Dr. Wakefield’s work? Hardly. Four of Dr. Wakefield’s papers were listed. All were listed in the “excluded studies” section.

So where does this leave us? We have, what, nine talking points which are mostly diversions or misrepresentations. Anyone wonder why I don’t think Matt Lauer will be responding to these soon?

Brian Deer talks back to Andrew Wakefield

7 Jul

I was copied in to the following:

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:12:00 +0100
To: “Joanna Bower”
From: Brian Deer
Cc: Thoughtful House

Ms Joanne Bower,
RadcliffesLeBrasseur LLP

Dear Ms Bower,

Your client, Dr Andrew Wakefield, has published, and caused to be published, on his website, thoughtfulhouse.org, and on other sites, false claims that the Press Complaints Commission has issued an “interim order” concerning my investigation into his conduct. Dr Wakefield claims that The Sunday Times has been ordered by the PCC to remove my stories about him from its website.

I understand that the PCC has written to your client to point out that these claims are untrue. In fact, all of my stories concerning him are available at the Times Online website.

thoughtfulhouse.org is unquestionably controlled by Dr Wakefield, and his publication there has caused similar untruths to be published on websites either directly controlled for his interests, such as cryshame.org, which, as you may know was set up by Mrs Isabella Thomas, the parent of two of the children anonymised in the now-infamous Lancet MMR paper, or indirectly controlled for his interests, such as ageofautism.com, operated to promote and profit from concern over children’s vaccines.

It is, of course, nothing new for Dr Wakefield to mislead the public, and especially the parents of autistic children. He has faced the longest ever proceedings before a General Medical Council fitness to practise panel, following the GMC’s reinvestigation of my journalism. In due course, I’d expect he will face a hearing of the PCC, covering much of the same ground on a significantly different evidential base.

However, you may feel it advisable to explain to your client that either he accepts the untruth of his latest claims and takes them down, or he maintains them in publication, in which case his conduct would not merely be wrong, but would be dishonest.

With best wishes,

Brian Deer

http://briandeer.com

Wakefield’s false claims backfire

6 Jul

Last week Andrew Wakefield announced to the world that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) had ordered the Sunday Times to take down some articles about him from its website. Wakefield suggested that this was a tacit admission by the Times that its story was inaccurate and this message was dutifully repeated by Age of Autism and the rest of Wakefield’s online supporters.

As I reported previously, the PCC is waiting on the final outcome of the GMC disciplinary hearing against Wakefield before conducting its own inquiry over the articles and felt it would be fairer all round if the material was temporarily removed from the Times website. The Times agreed and removed the articles as a courtesy to the PCC. The Times was not impressed by Wakefield’s ungracious response and as a result the material is now back on their website.

This is not the first time that Wakefield’s actions have backfired on him. Four years ago he tried to sue Channel 4 and Brian Deer for libel over a documentary, MMR: What they didn’t tell you, that contained damaging revelations about Wakefield’s role in the MMR scare. As with his current complaint to the PCC and his recent press release, Wakefield’s action in bringing the case seems to have been motivated by a desire to please his loyal supporters rather than a serious attempt to settle the issue. Unusually for a litigant, Wakefield showed a marked reluctance to clear his name in court, seeking to delay the hearings for two years. When the court decided that Deer and his legal team were entitled to see the unredacted medical records of the children who were the subjects of Wakefield’s original Lancet paper Wakefield withdrew the action and agreed to pay costs to Brian Deer.

It is ironic that without the libel action by Wakefield it is unlikely that Deer would have been granted access to the medical records. And without the records he would not have sat through months of the GMC and so written the story that Wakefield is now complaining about.

According to Brian Deer (private communication, quoted with permission)

There’s also the irony that it was Wakefield who in February 2004 called for a GMC investigation into my allegations that he had a conflict of interest over his research for lawyers, and no proper ethical cover, prompting me to hand over all my materials to the GMC’s lawyers, producing the longest doctor’s discplinary hearing ever.

I understand that the Press Complaints Commission has written to Dr Wakefield about the claims on his website, and he’s now in a tricky position. Either he admits that was he says is untrue, and takes down his claims, or he leaves them up in circumstances which would then be both dishonest and actionable.

I expect Wakefield to withdraw his complaint to the PCC once the GMC deliver their verdict. He will claim that it is impossible for him to get a fair hearing in the UK. It may suit him to continue to play the martyr from his self-imposed exile in America while enjoying the adulation that befits a “brave maverick doctor.” But he is and will remain the author of his own misfortune.

Tags: , ,

Wakefield, distortion and the Sunday Times

3 Jul

The journalist Brian Deer has done as much as anyone to investigate the background to what Ben Goldacre describes as the MMR Hoax. In the course of his investigations he discovered undisclosed conflicts of interest by Andrew Wakefield that led to most of the authors of the original paper in the Lancet withdrawing their names and the editor publishing a retraction.

Then in February this year Deer published his latest investigation. The Lancet paper had already been dismissed as bad science. Now, if Deer’s findings were correct, it would seem that some of the data had been deliberately falsified. Wakefield responded by complaining about the article to the Press Complaints Commission. The Times stood by its story and also forwarded all details to the General Medical Council who are still investigating Wakefield over allegations of misconduct.

And that was it until this week, when Thoughtful House, the clinic that Wakefield has established in Texas, issued a press release announcing

Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR journalist’s Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper’s Web Site

It goes on to suggest that this “interim order”

appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories.

Of course it does no such thing. Thoughtful House even quote Stephen Abell of the PCC as saying that

Given the ongoing nature of the dispute the articles should be removed from the newspaper’s website until this matter has been concluded. This would not be an admission of any liability on the part of the newspaper.

The wording reveals what actually happened. The Sunday Times has not been ordered to take down the articles. The PCC decided to postpone its investigation until after the GMC reaches a decision on the allegations of misconduct. This makes sense. If Wakefield is found guilty the complaint will fail. Meanwhile the PCC has asked the Sunday Times to remove the article from its website until matters can be resolved and the Sunday Times has agreed. That tallies with the email I received from the PCC

The PCC has considered the matter initially and has elected to stay its investigation until the conclusion of the GMC inquiry. It has reached no formal decision on the substance of the complaint and there is no published ruling on our website.

The Commission has asked that the paper remove the articles temporarily until the conclusion of the PCC investigation. This is without any admission of liability on the paper’s part.

So no order was issued, no judgement was made and there is no suggestion of impropriety by Deer or the Sunday Times. All the suggestions come from one source, Wakefield himself. His friends on the web may try to pretend that this is further proof of the brave maverick doctor’s innocence in the face of a vicious campaign against him. I think they are clutching at straws.

Tags: , ,

One Click Hacks and Homophobes

22 Feb

As blogged by Anthony at Black Triangle the One Click Group – who say they are:

…a British-based international health advocacy pressure group and worldwide raw news hub…

described Brian Deer and his involvement with the MMR case thusly:

By all accounts a gay man and therefore unlikely ever to have to face the multiple vaccine risk agonised over by parents from around the world in relation to their children…

Nice. Sounds to me like they’re a bunch of homophobic stupidniks to me. As Anthony says:

Even if Deer is homosexual, it does not necessarily mean he has no stake in vaccine safety. Homosexuals are not some mysterious alien presence in our society, they have families which include small children. Homosexuals can even adopt children.

Unless you’re a Daily Mail reading OneClickTwit of course.

They are anti-vaxxers of course and really really don’t like Brain Deer much at all. This makes the JABS loonies recently in evidence in the monumental ‘Wakefield‘ post on this blog big, big fans of theirs naturally. Amusingly, these same JABS loonies have been complaining about the horror of Brian Deer _making_ the news and then _reporting_ on the news regarding Wakefield. Not that he has, but thats how they see it. The amusing thing is that one of the straplines of the OneClickGroup is:

We not only break the news, we also make it.

They also proudly boast of receiving ‘7,000 – 33,000 hits per day’…..woah…big time baby!

Just for fun, I ran LB/RB, JABS and OneClickGroup through the Compete analyser which analyses Unique Visitors (a much more reliable indicator of traffic than ‘hits’):

Sadly, you’ll notice only two lines there. OneClickGroup didn’t generate enough statistics to be measurable.

So, this member of the antivaxosphere, carried on from homophobic attacks on Brian to carrying an alleged ‘out of control’ attack from Brian on their owner/Director/whatever – one Jane Bryant. Here’s how its ‘reported’ on the OneClickGroup website:

Brian Deer Is Out Of Control

On Monday 7 April 2008, with the Defence presentation for Dr Andrew Wakefield at the General Medical Council MMR Vaccine Trial UK concluded, Brian Deer went berserk in the Press Room of the General Medical Council. This incredible aggressive behaviour is not that of a responsible and objective journalist with ethics covering a story in the public interest….I entered the GMC Press Room to discover Deer holding court over what he clearly perceived to be his case with the assembled media. Comfortably sprawled in lounging lizard position

Out of control…went berserk…incredible aggressive…holding court…lounging lizard…

and these descriptives are used before Bryant even _begins_ her description of Brian’s behaviour. Thank goodness for impartial media!

When she does get to that transcript (which has clearly been edited) it reveals _more_ editorialising and less fact.

When asked if Deer was the complainant and if this was his case with the GMC, Deer simply exploded. Springing to his feet, placing his body inches from mine and invading my space, Deer proceeded to threaten, to rant and to jab his fingers close to my face.

Brian Deer: “No! I’ve not complained! I’ve got letters from the GMC saying I’m not the complainant! Ask me the question again! Ask me and I’ll tell you!”

Deer continued ranting: “So, you’ve this, um, dribbling idiot here,” gesturing towards investigative writer Martin J Walker who has exposed Deer’s vaccine activities in the aforementioned Complainant, “pumping out this information and you believe it and this is what this whole MMR thing has been about! Andrew Wakefield enjoys giving evidence! You get these CLOWNS who just MAKE THNGS UP as they go along!”

I wondered if any other members of the press ( the ones Brian Deer was holding court over) had reported on this behaviour from Brian. That of threats, invasion of body space and jabbing his fingers close to Bryant’s face. Funnily enough, the answer is ‘no’ – nobody from the other members of the press Brian was apparently ‘holding court’ over when Bryant arrived noticed this. I can find no record of this behaviour in any mainstream media. And there were plenty there. How odd.

Its also worth noting that Brian was right. He is _not_ the complainant and he _does_ have letters from the GMC to establish that fact.

Next in Bryant’s highly selective account was the issue of who was paying Brian. At the end of which despite not mentioning any intimidation she reports:

At this point, people in the foyer piled in to the doorway of the Press Room to witness a fully grown male journalist attempting to intimidate a press colleague and deploying classic bully boy techniques against a very small woman on her own.

What bully boy techniques exactly? Answering her questions? Or is this more of the finger jabbing and space invasion that only Bryant witnessed and reported on? Lets not forget that Bryant also directly accused Brian of threats (‘Deer proceeded to threaten’) – no sign of a threat so far…lets continue.

Jane Bryant: “Why are you being so abusive?”

Brian Deer: “Of who?”

Jane Bryant: “Of the parents, of the children…”

Brian Deer: “What parents have I been abusive to?”

Jane Bryant: “You have just been abusive to me.”

Brian Deer: “Are you a parent?”

Jane Bryant: “Yes, I am a parent, I’m also press. Why are you being so abusive? Get away from me, Brian! Stay away from me.”

With Brian Deer out of control, Editor Polly Tommey of The Autism File showed support.

Polly Tommey: “Stay away from her Brian, keep away. Look, you’re a journalist, give her some space.”

Is Bryant parent to an autistic child? I can’t find anywhere that says she is.

Anyway, notice how Tommey of the antivax magazine ‘The Autism File’ also chimes in. These two poor cowering ladies who are in terror of a man answering their questions. I’ll say it again. I can find nowhere else that reports on the eminently newsworthy story of two women being threatened by an out of control Brian Deer – other than OneClickGroup itself. In a room full of the media no one takes notes, no one turns on their dictaphones and no one turns on their cameras. The _only people_ who capture this threatening, out of control Brian Deer are a couple of anti-vaxxers. What an amazing coincidence.

At this point in the proceeding, Brain Deer calls for security. He has to call them again later that day.

Later on in her piece, Bryant accuses Brain Deer of damaging the equipment of Polly Tommey.

Interestingly, the only person’s equipment that got damaged that day was that of Polly Tommey, Editor of The Autism File. Having left her belongings in the Press Room whilst she went to conduct an interview in the foyer, two of the recordings destined for Autism One Radio were purposefully deleted by someone. I will leave One Click readers to surmise just who the perpetrator might be, who had the access and the motive.

She also says:

The GMC has now categorically on the record refused to deny Brian Deer’s complainant status. They will simply not comment on Deer. So much for Deer’s GMC back up

Which, as we know is simply incorrect. I look forward to Bryant’s correction on her massively popular website.

If you want to see the depths and lengths that St Andy’s fan Club will stoop to, look no further than this. The word of a homophobic woman who seems to mislead people about her status as parent to an autistic person (assuming I’m right about that) and who wants to paint a man as an out of control tyrant when I suspect he was just a bit pissed off.

Tags: , ,

Brian Deer, not a complainant

16 Feb

Just in case you didn’t see it–Brian Deer published more information about Dr. Andrew Wakefield recently. This has caused a lot of furor (we are over 160 comments on that thread already). No surprises there: saying anything which might suggest Dr. Wakefield is anything less than a hero, especially when Brian Deer is doing it, will do that.

Almost all (if not all) of the responses to Brian Deer’s piece has been one big diversionary tactic: attack the messenger. Everyone seems to be studiously avoiding facing the real tough questions. Let’s avoid the ethics questions for the moment. If the details Mr. Deer presented in his article are true, Dr. Wakefield’s autism research has lost any last shred of support. That is a tough pill to swallow for the Wakefield supporters.

David Kirby joined in on the Deer bashing. Seems he read an article by Melanie Philips and rehashed it for his fans on the Huffington Post. He found Ms. Philips’ story to be “very interesting reading”. You see, Ms. Philips postulated:

What the Sunday Times did not report was that the GMC investigation into Wakefield was triggered by a complaint from… Brian Deer, who furnished the allegations against him four years ago.

This was then spun into a story of supposed conflict of interest and a great avoidance of the direct and specific claims of possible misinformation in Dr. Wakefield’s papers.

But, back to Mr. Kirby. He states:

The point is an excellent one. Imagine if a US journalist sued a doctor for libel or misconduct, and then went to the NY Times and asked to be hired as a freelancer to cover the trial that they themselves had instigated in the first place. It wouldn’t happen.

I found that statement very ironic, coming as it did from someone who aided significantly in manufacturing the thimerosal controversy, and who now seems to owe some of his employment to servicing that same controversy.

That said, what about this notion, this postulate as I have called it, that Brian Deer initiated the investigation that he is now reporting on? Well, it turns out that Mr. Deer is not a complainant in the GMC hearings on Dr. Wakefield. Below is a letter to Mr. Deer explaining exactly that.

Strictly Private & Confidential
Mr Brian Deer

25 May 2005

Dear Brian

General Medical Council – Dr Wakefield, Dr Murch, Dr Walker-Smith

I write further to your telephone conversation with Peter Swain last Thursday seeking clarification in relation to your role in the above General Medical Council (“GMC”) proceedings.

I have now had the opportunity to review the GMC’s files. My understanding is that further to your articles appearing in the Sunday Times in February 2004 in relation to your investigation into Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine, you were approached by GMC case officer Tim Cox-Brown, who asked you to supply the GMC with further information regarding this matter.

Your situation as a journalist who has carried out an investigation into the conduct of the practitioners in question is unusual for the GMC. I note from the GMC and FFW’s correspondence files that there does appear to have been some confusion in relation to your role in these proceedings.

In GMC ‘complainant’ cases an individual will have approached the GMC with a complaint against a particular practitioner. If the GMC decides to hold an inquiry, legal representation is offered to the complainant for preparation and presentation of the case before the Professional Conduct Committee.

As stated in Peter Swain’s letter to you dated 16 December 2004, your role in this matter is that of ‘informant’ rather than ‘complainant’. This is due to the fact that the conduct of the practitioners in question has not affected you directly and clearly involves issues of a wider public interest.

As you are aware, your involvement the GMC’s conduct of this case prior to our commencing our investigation and subsequent to our meetings with you on 24 February 2005 and 7 March 2005 has been minimal. We are preparing this case for presentation at the Professional Conduct Committee on the instructions of the GMC. Moreover, we are not able to discuss draft charges with you for reasons
of confidentiality.

We apologise for any confusion in relation to your status in these proceedings and any difficulties this may have caused you. We have made it clear to all parties that your role is that of informant rather than complainant. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to Dr Wakefield’s legal representatives clarifying your status in these proceedings.

We are grateful for information supplied by you and your assistance to date.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Lohn
Partner

So, Brian Deer didn’t initiate the investigation. He wasn’t a complainant. It isn’t like, as in Mr. Kirby’s analogy, Mr. Deer didn’t “sue a doctor for libel or misconduct”.

Let me take a page out of Mr. Kirby’s own playbook:

David, if you read this (and we both know you will), take the message to heart and write a correction to your blog piece on the Huffington Post. Better yet, put up a new one with an explanation and apology.

Newer Entries →