Archive | Wakefield RSS feed for this section

MMR And The Daily Mail – Archetypal Strawmen

23 Jun

In their continuing quest to establish MMR as evil in a syringe, the Daily Mail are turning increasingly to more and more blatant strawman fallacies.

In a recent article entitled *’We won’t allow MMR cover-up say parents of tragic toddlers’* , the Daily Mail reach new lows of journalism.

The parents of two healthy toddlers who died ten days after being given the controversial MMR jabs have warned the Government that they will not allow the cause of their deaths to be ‘covered up’.

Firstly, lets note that nowhere in any article I’ve read has the UK government attempted to ‘cover up’ the deaths of these two toddlers. The Daily Mail are inventing a conspiracy where none appears to exist. This will of course allow them to turn round when MMR is established _not_ to be the cause of death and scream ‘cover up!’ and ‘conspiracy!’ and ‘we told you so!’.

Lets further note that the MMR jab is only controversial to Daily Mail and Private Eye readers. I read a *lot* of non autism related, non vaccine related message boards/forums/newsgroups and whenever the issue comes up virtually nobody really believes the MMR causes autism, or is in any way ‘controversial’.

Doctors say they cannot explain why George Fisher and Anna Duncan, both aged 17 months, died in their sleep. But the children’s parents believe that the controversial triple jab – against measles, mumps and rubella – is to blame.

If this is a cover up then those Doc’s are really bad it it. Note that they’re being entirely honest and claiming that they cannot explain why these two kids died. Hell, they’re not even claiming the MMR _didn’t_ cause their deaths. I also note however, that no actual Doctors – and certainly not the Doctors who said they ‘couldn’t explain’ the deaths – are interviewed or quoted anywhere in this piece.

George’s mother, Sarah, said last week that despite repeated Government assurances the vaccine is safe,she and her husband were ‘100 per cent sure George was killed by MMR’.

Based on what?

The only indications of ill-health before the children died were that both showed signs of apparently minor reactions to their MMR jabs.

Minor reactions. My daughter had a reaction to her DTP – vomiting, fever – we panicked and took her to A&E where her fever settled almost immediately. At the time we were ‘100% sure’ that the DTP jab caused/triggered her autism but we’re not any more. Her reaction was, relatively speaking, fairly innocuous and it sounds liek these two kids reactions were too. Minor reactions don’t lead to death.

And Anna’s father, John, said he and his wife would ‘never forgive themselves’ for not paying privately for single jabs and for believing Government assurances that MMR was safe. _They now believe that the doctors should have spotted and warned of the dangers_. Mr Duncan said that, having conducted extensive research since Anna’s death, he and his wife, who is a nurse, considered it possible that their daughter had died ‘as a result of a catastrophic reaction to the vaccine’. He said: ‘Six days after her jab, Anna developed purple spots on her body and bouts of high temperature. ‘_We read only later that these were side-effects of MMR to watch out for. ‘If we had been properly warned we would have taken her for medical help sooner. But the risks of vaccines are just never mentioned. ‘Anna had been exposed to an outbreak of chickenpox in our village just before her jab, which we mentioned, and had a runny nose, which means she really shouldn’t have been injected with MMR at that point._ ‘Parents should be better informed about the risks and the choice of single jabs should be available to all parents through the NHS.’

So now we get to the meat of the matter. Despite the Mail doing their best to muddy the time line it now seems that this child was ill prior to receiving her MMR, which they didn’t know was something to look out for despite this information being freely available on the NHS Direct website, they then let her have the MMR which she had a minor reaction to nearly a week after the injection (which is also noted and discussed at NHSDirect) and she then tragically died. Her parents then decided that this previously categorised ‘minor reaction’ was in actual fact a ‘catastrophic reaction’ and that it was the Governments fault for engendering a conspiracy of silence over the MMR.

The idea of a government conspiracy to keep the potential dangers of the MMR vaccine quiet is fallacious in the extreme given that the information exists on the leading healthcare website in the UK. Its not even hard to find – simply go to the home page and type ‘MMR’ into the search engine.

Its also fallacious, given the time line established to claim that the MMR is at fault here. Medical wisdom is clear that vaccines should not be given to kids who have been ill. If her parents didn’t tell the person administering the vaccine this fact then they bear part of the responsibility. If they _did_ tell the administering nurse she’d been ill then the Practice concerned should be held accountable and punished.

The MMR is not at fault here. The issue is that an illness that could trigger a bad reaction was not identified prior to administering the MMR.

This is not the first time (and I’m sure it won’t be the last) that the Daily Mail attempt to seriously mislead people over the MMR vaccine. They have lost all sense of responsibility over the issue, mainly because they have invested so much time and ink into the matter. With breathtaking arrogance and irresponsibility, the end of this article, states that:

The failure of the Government’s campaign was demonstrated last week when figures showed that because so many parents are spurning MMR, Britain is now in the grip of the biggest measles outbreak since the vaccine’s introduction in 1988.

Has the government campaign failed? Probably. They did a poor job at getting the truth out but lets not pretend that rags like the Mail didn’t play a significant part in causing this measles outbreak. They share the responsibility. Its time for them to grow up and stop jumping at shadows.

The National Autism Association: You’re Not Helping

21 Jun

Its no secret that there are big questions over the legitimacy of the science behind the spurious claims that thiomersal causes autism. What’s not often discussed in the mainstream media is the extent to which blatant fallacy and misrepresenting occurs within so called advocacy groups.

The self-styled ‘autism community’ especially in the West are blatant hypocrites when it comes to promotong their own agenda. I aim to start highlighting some of the hypcricy and outright lies perpetuated by some.

The National Autism Association

The NAA first came to my attention when I discovered that Wendy Fournier, their President, was the web designer who designed (and I use that word in its loosest possible sense) David Kirby’s Evidence of Harm website. On this website there are claims from reviewers that Kirby:

explores both sides of this controversy

and that his book:

Walk[s] the middle line

It’s quite difficult how any book that has a supporting website designed by the President of an organisation that believes thiomersal cuases autism can be thought of as exploring both sides or walks the middle line. Its also difficult to see how the NAA gets so irate about what they percieve as non-impartiality.

On April 3rd of this year, Wendy Fournier and Rita Shreffler of the NAA put their names to an NAA press release regarding researcher Paul Shattuck’s study that said it was impossible to confirm or disprove the idea of an autism epidemic based on current knowledge. As this didn’t fit with the NAA’s agenda, they decided to play nasty:

In addition to the study’s weak methods and erroneous conclusions, questions have now arisen over possible failure to disclose conflicts of interest

So its interesting that the NAA are concerned about conflicts of interest only when they’re not their conflicts of interest.

So what about Shattuck’s conflict of interest? What was it exactly?

Although the article states that Dr. Shattuck has indicated he has no financial relationships relevant to the article, NAA has learned that he was a Merck Scholar Pre-doctoral Trainee from 1999-2003, and in 2003-2004 he successfully applied for $530,000 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Neither of things are true. As Orac commented at the time:

Oooh, Shattuck received money from the evil Merck to support his training! Except that the Merck we’re talking about seems to be not the evil drug company but rather a nonprofit organization, the John Merck Fund, which supports research into a variety of areas, particularly developmental disabilities

and as regards the half a million plus dollars, Paul Shattuck himself had this to say:

As for the $540,000 from the CDC…it’s not entirely clear what they are talking about. I certainly don’t have a grant that big from anyone. They are probably talking about the autism surveillance grant that our center received from the CDC…a proposal which I helped prepare but am not listed as a co-investigator and am not funded from. Our University is one of several sites around the country funded to do prospective monitoring of the prevalence of autism and other disorders…am not sure why that is so horrible in the eyes of some advocates. I do have a small grant for about $12,000 from the CDC to investigate racial and socioeconomic disparities in the timing of autism diagnosis and service utilization. Prior research has indicated that the timing of identification and the level of service receipt can vary as a function of race and class. This is not a good thing in my opinion. So, I’m trying to find ways to do something constructive about it. I cannot imagine why some people would think that’s such an awful thing.

So, not only are the NAA hypocrites that only abhor conflicts of interests that don’t suit them, they’re also at best, wrong and at worst, knowingly lying.

Just as a follow up to this, I had a brief email exchange with Lenny Schafer where he said he was going to ask the NAA about this:

*Schafer to Leitch (Apr 27th 2006):*
I have forwarded Shattuck’s response to NAA and await their response. Thank you for making me aware of it.

*Leitch to Schafer (Apr 28th 2006)*
The NAA are already aware of these issues. I know of at least one person who has mailed them directly. They elected to ignore it and not to issue a correction or apology.

*Schafer to Leitch (Apr 28th 2006)*
I communicated today with the person who did the research for NAA. I am told a response is being prepared.

That was almost two months ago. The press release is still in place on the NAA website, along with the following quote from Claire Bothwell who it should be noted, given the NAA’s distate for conflicts of interest is either employed or at one time was employed by Waters and Krauss who are thiomersal litigant lawyers.:

Given the rocky history of the CDC and the autism community, failing to mention the author’s ties to this agency is a glaring omission that requires an explanation

I would suggest that given the obvious propensity of the NAA to be economical with the facts, their inability to research a subject properly and their failure to put the record straight is both irresponsible in its implications for autism research and its implications for people like Paul Shattuck who now finds himself grossly unfairly painted in a very negative light.

In a more recent Press Release, the NAA quote Wendy Fournier as saying:

In understanding that the court of public opinion sits in the driver’s seat, entities such as the General Medical Council discredit sound research in the name of a supposedly well-perceived vaccination program. Yet, this is a compromise. Compromise has no place in science, even science surrounding vaccinations.

Dr. Wakefield is one of the few that conducted research in truth, and yet the leaders in medical authority continue to compromise the health of subsets of the population that have negative reactions to shots like the MMR. Are we supposed to view these children as acceptable losses?” asks Fournier. “Dr. Wakefield’s willingness to find answers for these subsets is a testament to his scientific integrity.

Yet again, the NAA seems more than willing to bend the known truth and be incredibly hypocritical into the bargain. Certainly compromise has no place in science, which is why we should never compromise knowledge with bad science such as the original Lancet study or seek to bolster bad science with unpublished and unverifiable science such as that performed by Krigsman – a partner of Wakefields at Thoughtful House and thus someone who one would assume that the NAA, given their dislike of conflcits of interest, would be highlighting in as equally negative a light as they did Paul Shattuck. They also state unequivocally the Wakefield condicted research ‘in truth’ – which is an eyebrow raising statement given the fact that he gained his studies participants via vaccine litigants.

Good science does not require ‘assists’ such as skewing the population. And advocates like the NAA have no place in placing themselves at the center of a debate they obviously have little understanding of and which they are patently prepared to misrepresent.

This post has been sent as an email to Wendy Fournier, Claire Bothwell and Rita Shreffler. I’ll be asking them for a response either via email or via this blog.

Dan Olmsted and Andrew Wakefield. Rumour Mongering Ahoy!

14 Jun

UPI journalist Dan Olmsted has released another in his series of autism related pieces. This one is entitled: *The Age of Autism: But is Wakefield Right?*

The piece then goes on to discuss Olmsted’s belief that he may well be. Lets take a critical look at Olmsted and also Wakefield’s beliefs and contrast them with what we know and strongly suspect about Wakefield and the whole MMR debacle. Olmsted begins with:

Let’s put aside the issues surrounding the Lancet paper and concerns about a measles epidemic and go straight to the heart of the matter: Does the MMR cause autism? In other words, is Wakefield right? After looking into the topic for more than a year, I’m very concerned that he may be — that, especially in children whose immune systems have been rendered susceptible by any number of possible exposures, the combined live-virus vaccine has its fingerprints all over numerous cases of regressive autism.

I can well understand Olmsted wishing to slide the inconvenient retraction by the Lancet aside. Unfortunately they cannot be so readily shunted away. This (does MMR cause autism) is at heart, a scientific question. Only well designed, thorough, replicable science can support or refute it. The Lancet paper was _not_ good science. The study group was tiny. It seems that not only were the group of subjects sourced via anti-vaccine lawyers but I have heard rumours that there were not twelve subjects in Wakefield’s original group but actually sixteen and that the ‘extra’ subjects were ignored when their outcomes didn’t support Wakefield’s hypothesis. I hasten to add that that is total rumour but if its true, it raises more questions about this study.

I can also well understand Olmsted’s wish to put aside concerns about a measles epidemic. After all, already this year one life has been claimed by measles and hospitalisation rates are exactly in line with those predicted by experts in 2004. These cannot be comfortable truths for a journalist as one-sided as Mr Olmsted to face.

However, Mr Olmsted wishes us to ignore these things – pretend they don’t matter – so lets humour him and discuss only his narrow view.

Mr Olmsted states that he’s been looking into the matter for over a year. I’ve been looking into the matter nearly three times as long as that. Does that mean I ‘trump’ Olmsted? He says that childrens immune systems have been compromised and that the MMR live virus has ‘its fingerprints’ all over numerous cases of regressive autism. However, as is usual in these reports, Olmsted fails to back up these unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, these are part of the same belief system that has led to the point where Wakefield is being investigated by the GMC.

Does MMR cause autism – its a matter of science, not propaganda. If Olmsted wishes to convince people capable of rational thought then he needs to provide the science.

Has any science so far managed to substantiate Wakefield’s claims? Here’s Ben Goldacre:

But let’s not forget, the Daily Mail was promoting Krigsman’s research back in 2002 as well: at that time, he was putting endoscopes into the bowels of young children with autism, and said he had found evidence of inflammation. 4 years later, looking on PubMed, the standard database for all medical papers, it seems this research still has not been published in a peer reviewed academic journal. Forgive my bluntness, but it seems a shame to go poking around up there if you’re not going to write up your findings properly. Meanwhile the Telegraph says that Krigsman’s most recent unpublished claim is replicating similar work from 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield, and 2002 by Professor John O’Leary. But there is no such work from 1998 by Wakefield, at least not in PubMed (in that year he publishes his infamous, very different, and partially retracted Lancet paper on MMR, of course). Meanwhile it is well documented that other labs have tried to reproduce the 2002 O’Leary study and come out with different results, and that the protocol was likely to have problems with false positives because of the tests used: two perfect examples of the importance of research being fully written up and published, so it can be replicated and assessed. Oh, and the newspapers didn’t mention that Andrew Wakefield was also an author on the 2002 study along with O’Leary, nor that Wakefield is also very closely associated with Krigsman (they are doctors together at Thoughtful House, a private autism clinic in the USA).

Bad Science.

So despite the claims of scientific verification from Krigsman’s work lets be clear: this work has not so far met the most basic standard of scientific credibility. Olmsted fails to mention this. It bears repeating: *Does MMR cause autism* is a scientific question. It can only be answered with good science. Krigsman’s work is not good science.

After talking about all the families he’s talked to, Olmsted adds:

You get the picture. “Anecdotal evidence.” But you have to wonder how many of these stories — one is tempted to say, bodies — must pile up before the medical authorities go back and take a fresh look at the issue. This blithe disregard for case histories — for what parents, the supposed bedrock of our “family-friendly” society, say — is one of the most appalling features of the current climate surrounding autism research.

Firstly, I have to say I am _not_ tempted to use the word ‘bodies’ in connection with autistic kids. Given recent events Mr Olmsted would do extremely well to choose his words with a little more care.

Lets also note that the ‘medical authorities’ _have_ taken repeated looks at this issue. The truth is that they can look until the cows come home. If there’s nothing there to find, nothing will be found. Ben Goldacre again:

in the May issue of the Journal of Medical Virology, there was a very similar study, only this one has actually been published. It looked for measles RNA in children with regressive autism after MMR vaccination, much like the Krigsman story. It used tools so powerful they could detect measles RNA down to single figure copy numbers. But they found no evidence of the magic vaccine-strain measles RNA to implicate MMR, and perhaps because of that unfrightening result, the study was loudly ignored by the press.

Readers may recall that as recently as last month, the usual tabloid suspects were screaming about MMR again, this time due to another unpublished poster presentation from Krigsman. Strangely, they failed to mention another IMFAR presentation which failed to replicate Wakefield’s work. No scope for shrieking headlines I guess and no scope for propaganda from Olmsted.

Olmsted also refers to Dr Peter Fletcher:

The official, Dr. Peter Fletcher, became an expert witness for parents’ lawyers, which of course creates a competing interest that needs to be factored in. But Fletcher said his new role gave him access to documents that deeply concerned him.

However, as readers may recall in an earlier piece I wrote at the time, Fletcher brings _nothing_ to the table except vague insinuation and conspiracy mongering. No new science is mentioned or discussed whatsoever.

Lets go through it once again: *Does MMR cause autism?* – this is a question of science. It can only be answered using the scientific method. So far, this science question has been answered in the negative. At some point Olmsted, if he wishes to continue thinking of himself as a journalist, will need to start looking a little more deeply at the issues he writes about. At the moment, he’s not a journalist. He’s a propagandist.

Creatinine, Chelation and Lupron…Oh my!

6 Jun

A recent news segment on NBC in America covered Chelation therapy as a treatment for autism. The response was as predicted. The pro-cure/biomed side went into raptures. Everyone else winced. As a UK resident I have to say that (sorry America) this seems to be a furtherance of the dumbing down of science in the US that has led to both this sort of report appearing on a serious news show and the joke of creationism being taught in science classes.

Anyway, thankfully, these types of things are still viewed by most people (over there and over here) as marginal and not representative of the truth. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that there is a lot of experimentation going on by so called ‘scientists’ and by some parents. My favourite quote so far from some retorting to the Dateline segment is:

A treatment used prior to proof is called an experiment.

ACSH.

So what can be said to be poorly understood and yet still be used?

Lupron for Autism

I recently had an interaction with a number of people on an Autism Biomed board after they stated that Lupron was ‘working miracles in recovering my child’. At least one of these people was someone who had assured me about a year ago that chelation was ‘working miracles in recovering my child’. A part of me fully expects to hear that car battery acid is ‘working miracles in recovering my child’ from the same person a year from now. After that? Tongue of Toad? Eye of Newt?

It was clear that the ‘scientists’ advising these people had not informed them of basic facts about the condition that was allegedly affecting their kids autism. Neither of them had had their childrens hand and wrist radiographed which is the standard way of determining if a child is undergoing Precocious Puberty or not. Basically, If bone age is within 1 year of chronological age, puberty has not started. If bone age is advanced by 2 or more years, puberty likely has been present for a year or more or is progressing more rapidly.

The single most basic fact about Precocious Puberty is that it is immediately subdivided into Central Precocious Puberty (CPP) or Pseudo Precocious Puberty (PPP). It is vital to make this difference as the treatment is different in each division. The division can only be made by testing for premature activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. When I asked one of these people if the Geiers (yes, it was they) had subcategorised into CPP or PPP they did not know what I was talking about. They were entirely ignorant of these terms. It was clear neither of the two people I had spoken to had undergone this sub-categorisation.

They claimed it was ‘enough’ to ‘know’ that their children had excess testosterone. One of these children is female. This child’s parent was utterly ignorant of the fact that excess testosterone in females was not called ‘precocious puberty’ but indicative of ‘Androgen excess’. Lupron is not mentioned as a treatment for Androgen Excess.

One other interesting fact about increased testosterone is that in patients diagnosed with PPP, this can result from an excess of vitamins and other dietary supplements. Its common knowledge that this is a common part of DAN! and DAN! style treatment regimes. Yet again, the Geier’s patients parents were entirely unaware of this fact.

Sources

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1882.htm
http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic1881.htm
http://www.androgenexcesssociety.org/signs.html
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/sex_hormones_tests.jsp

The Role of Creatinine in Relation to Porphyrins and Chelation to Creatinine

I’m not going to go over this subject as well as Not Mercury recently did but I want to highlight a few key concepts from that paper that it seems the authors either missed or didn’t account for.

The paper’s essence is that it is significant the their are elevated levels of Porphyrins in autistic kids. However, they fail to account for the likelihood that this is a false elevation. The study attempts to measure the amount of porphyrins in the urine of their subjects. However, because collecting urine of a standard volume, content and dilution is next to impossible, its necessary to use a stable compound to express the porphyrins as a ratio of – which is where creatinine comes in. So, the paper claims that, relative to creatinine, porphyrins are high in autistic kids.

However, as Not Mercury also highlights, its fairly accepted amongst DAN! practitioners:

Creatinine is often found to be marginal in the urine of autistics, and low creatinine can skew urine analyte results to high levels. So, also take note of creatinine levels if the laboratory results include ratioing to creatinine.

PDF translated to HTML from ARI

And Andrew Wakefield’s colleague, Paul Shattock, also reports low creatinine in autistic kids (see source on Not Mercury blog entry). So why does that matter? Now, I’m no scientist so I was struggling to find a way to visualise this in my head and I came up with the bar chart below. The thin black line is an arbitrary ‘baseline’ (where the creatinine stops and the Porphs start) below which in purple is creatinine levels and above which is Porph levels. Now, in the autistic representation note how the decrease in creatinine has led the baseline measurement for Porph to falsely raise the amount of Porphs. In other words, relative to the baseline, there are not more Porphs as such, but less creatinine. I’m open to interpretation on this by the way – I don’t want it to be misleading.

There are also anecdotal reports of various chelators reducing creatinine further:

my son’s creatinine has come down to 11 by round 3. why is it going down?how can i bring it back to normal? i have been giving glycine to him also during rounds – every 3hrs dmsa+ala

Onibasu.

And:

Importantly, recent data suggest that oral NAC administration > transiently lowers creatinine levels.

PubMed

So here we seem to have a situation wherein autistic children are already noted to have low creatinine levels and that these levels could be even further reduced by the chelators used either in the study itself or by parents externally to the study and still the study authors claim it is significant to epxress Porphs _as a ratio_ of creatinine.

Autism One

Meanwhile, over in Chicago, Autism One has been in full force (or should that be farce?). I’m reliably informed that one of the big draws was David ‘crowd pleaser’ Kirby so I downloaded his slides to have a looksee.

Incredibly, it seems that David Kirby has magically ‘forgotten’ everything he conceded to blogger Citizen cain regarding the use of CDDS data. Lets remind ourselves of what Kirby told Citizen Cain:

…if the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis. He [kirby] also conceded that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure….

And yet, here we have slides showing Kirby demonstrating the change in the rate of increase, something he has conceded is inaccurate as a measure. He also refers to the increase in cases as ‘new’ cases when its been demonstrated time and time again that these are _not new cases_ . All in all, this is simply more dishonesty from David Kirby.

Autism and autistic people deserve better than this hodge-podge of sloppiness and dishonesty.

MMR and Metal Studies – Empty Discussions

28 May

Two new (not sure what to call them) papers? Abstracts? Press releases? Came out this week concerning autism and vaccines. Also, one _actual_ study was released.

Study number one is entitled…well, actually, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t have a name yet. The first draft (which I saw in October last year) was called *Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder*. The authors are Robert Nataf, MD Corinne Skorupka, MD, Alain Lam, BSc , Anthea Springbett, PhD, Lorene Amet, DPhil and Richard Lathe, DSc.

Richard Lathe is the heavy hitter in this bunch. He’s quoted in New Scientist as saying:

It’s highly likely that heavy metals are responsible for childhood autistic disorder in a majority of cases

New Scientist.

Strong words. However, as I said at the top of this piece, this study has not yet even been published yet. The only scientists who’ve read it are the scientists that performed the study. As far as I know, its not even been accepted for publication by Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. I _do_ know it was submitted to The Lancet and I’m guessing as the authors moved on to Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology that it was rejected by The Lancet.

I can’t discuss the science as it may have changed since the first draft I have a copy of. In the absence of the science, we can’t really discuss much of any importance.

However, we can take a look ‘behind the curtain’ at some of those names can’t we?

_Lorène Amet_ is an Editor of Medical Veritas – a journal that PubMed does not, as far as I know, index. MV’s ‘mission statement’ includes:

MV…recognizes that medical modalities promoted by public health departments and authorities are often compromised by conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and other political and personal agendas. These areas of detrimental influence include, but are not limited to, the following: vaccinations, pharmaceutical drugs, pregnancy, childbirth and child care practices, treatments for cancer, AIDS and other diseases, food additives, pesticides and herbicides, water fluoridation,d ental procedures, including amalgams, medical procedures and surgeries

Nothing like going in with a preconceived agenda eh? That’ll help with scientific objectivity.

Ms Amet’s colleagues from Medical Veritas include Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, who doesn’t believe HIV leads to AIDS, as well as someone called Kenneth P. Soller, MD who I’m guessing is Kenneth P. S *t* oller, MD – our new friend who likes HBOT for autism and who tried to smear Paul Shattuck and Andrew ‘Wakers’ Wakefield.

Source – NB: there is at least one person who is now deceased listed on that page.

Here’s some snippets from Ms Amet’s CV:

In the process of setting up an Autism Treatment clinic with the charity Autism Treatment Trust (former Action Against Autism). Principal Scientist.

(UK version of Generation Rescue led by Bill Welsh)

Received DAN! (Defeat Autism Now) doctor accreditation, Dec., 2005. Initiated and organised with Action Against Autism a conference called Treating Autism, Edinburgh UK, October 14-15, 2005. Participated to two clinic days with Dr. McCandless and Dr. Usman (16 children with autism). October 16-17, 2005.

Well, I guess we should all be reassured at how impartial any study featuring a DAN! practitioner and Editor of Medical Veritas will be. I sincerely hope their study has moved on since the first draft.

The second study/paper/abstract/thingy does at least have an actual title. It’s title is: *PERSISTENT ILEAL MEASLES VIRUS IN A
LARGE COHORT OF REGRESSIVE AUTISTIC CHILDREN WITH ILEOCOLITIS AND LYMPHONODULAR HYPERPLASIA: REVISITATION OF AN EARLIER STUDY* which is a bit of a mouthful. It basically claims to substantiate Andrew Wakefields earlier findings with the MMR vaccine.

Yet again, however, despite this being reported in at least two mainstream newspapers, it should be noted that the actual study has not been published. It will be discussed at the upcoming IMFAR conference in Canada but no-one has seen the paper yet. The presentation could not even legitimately be referred to as an abstract yet.

The authors are: Steve Walker, Karin Hepner, Jeffrey Segal and Arthur Krigsman.

There appears to be a fund raiser for this study on the website of the NAA where Andrew Wakefield and Jeff Bradstreet (who apparently used to recommend exorcism for autistic kids) are listed as ‘consultants’.

Lets not forget that the NAA have made a big deal of ‘outing’ Paul Shattuck’s non-existent connection to Merck so I wonder if we’ll be seeing them play the ‘conflict of interest’ card in the case of this study? Doubtful I’d guess.

However, the big connection here is Thoughtful House, Andrew Wakefield’s project. Steve Walker, one of the authors listed above, is on the board alongside such scientific luminaries as, uh, Martie Maguire of the Dixie Chicks.

A keen eyed observer might also note that one of the other authors is a partner of Andrew Wakefield’s. This hardly instils a great deal of hope in the objectivity of this paper.

So there’s our two non-papers which we can’t really discuss the science of as none has been made available. However, that hasn’t stopped people from going ahead and reporting on them as if it were.

The third bit of news from the autism/vaccine issue is (gasp!) an _actual_ paper, which has been peer reviewed, submitted and accepted for publication in a decent journal. Its title is: *Is There a ‘Regressive Phenotype’ of Autism Spectrum Disorder Associated with the Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine? A CPEA Study.*

And what does it say?

There was no evidence that onset of autistic symptoms or of regression was related to measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.

Of course, that story doesn’t get mentioned – its not as interesting as wild speculation.

Open Letter To Andrew Wakefield

4 Apr

Dear Mr Wakefield,

Following your announcement of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, uptake rates of this vaccine in the UK have fallen to amongst the lowest in Europe:

Take-up rates of the jab dropped throughout the UK, down to less than 70% in some areas, after a small-scale study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield suggested a link to autism.

Source.

In 2004, mumps cases in the England and Wales rose from 4,204 in 2003 to 16,436 in 2004, nearly a four-fold increase.

And in the first month of 2005, there were nearly 5,000 cases. Most were among young adults born before 1988 and who would, therefore, not have been offered MMR as a child. In the second paper, Dr Ravindra Gupta, from London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’, working with colleagues from King’s College London, found cases have also occurring in very young children who would have been eligible for the MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – vaccine…..Dr Gupta (…) said uptake of MMR among two-year-olds in the UK fell from around 92% in early 1995 to around 80% in 2003/4.

Source.

In October 2004, experts predicted that due to falling vaccination uptake, the UK would start to suffer from ‘small outbreaks’:

The medical newspaper Pulse has warned that there could be a measles epidemic this winter on a scale last seen in the 1960s. It said that lowering levels of immunity meant as many as 12% of children and 20% of adults could be hospitalised if infected by measles.

Source.

And now, this year, 18 months after this warning, we have the UK’s first measles induced fatality in 14 years.

The 13-year-old who died last month lived in a travellers’ community. It is thought that he had a weakened immune system; he was being treated for a lung condition. The boy died of an infection of the central nervous system caused by a reaction to the measles virus. The Health Protection Agency described his death as shocking.

Source

The Times also says that of the 72 reported measles cases last month, 9 required hospitalisation – this tallies almost exactly with the 2004 prediction of a hospitalisation rate of 12%.

I have a few questions for you Mr Wakefield.

Do you accept that there is a strong causative correlation between the falling MMR vaccine uptake and the rise in both mumps and measles? If you do not, could you please explain why not. If you do could you please explain what you feel is your role in these matters.

Is it true that, as reported by Brian Deer in the Times and in the Channel 4 current affairs programme ‘Dispatches’, that you received up to £55,000 to find scientific evidence of a link between MMR and autism and that you did not disclose you were being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers?

Is it true that the vast majority of your subjects from the Lancet study were not, as you claimed, captured through the normal referral process, but actually supplied to you by lawyers representing these people and their families in vaccine litigation?

Is it true that up to nine months prior to the publication of your paper showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism that you and the Royal Free (where you conducted your research) filed numerous patent applications which were alternatives to the MMR vaccine? If you did, would you consider it a lucky guess that led you to do this seeing as your MMR paper had yet to be published?

Do you believe, like your collaborator Hugh Fudenberg, that:

Some parents would rather see their kid die than live as a severely autistic.

Source.

These are serious matters Mr Wakefield. I’m aware that you are pursuing three court cases related to these matters (although at least one is currently stayed) and you are also due to be investigated by the GMC sometime this year but as the parent of an autistic child – in short exactly the sort of person you claim to want to help – I need answers now. What I read of you indicates wrong doing on a grand scale. If these things are established to be true you are guilty of not only extreme medical negligence but also of betraying thousands of parents and forcing thousands of autistic children to undergo totally unnecessary and highly invasive medical procedures.

You need to account for yourself Mr Wakefield. Please don’t wait for more children to be hospitalised or die.

Lenny Schafer’s Cognitive Dissonance

27 Mar

Another day, another Schafer Mercury Report.

Lenny has a dig at the recently published Afzal et al paper ‘Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK’:

It is hard to understand why the authors claim that their study of MMR virus in the blood “failed to substantiate” the reports by Andrew Wakefield, and by now any other researchers — that they found the MMR virus in gut biopsy samples from autistic children.It is obviously far easier to collect blood samples than to collect biopsy samples from the GI tract, which is an invasive procedure with risks. If blood were a suitable source to look for the MMR virus, Wakefield would have used blood in his study

I have no doubt it _is_ hard for Mr Scahfer to understand. It was hard for me to understand too. So I asked someone.

…measles is a lymphotropic virus, even more so for the vaccine strain which has been selected to exploit the CD46 cellular receptor. If there is a persistent MV infection the most logical place to detect it is in cells that it is most adept at infecting. Lymphocytes

Lymphocytes are a type of blood cell. Of course, given that, Lenny’s question re: Wakefield becomes unintentionally hilarious:

If blood were a suitable source to look for the MMR virus, Wakefield would have used blood in his study

Only if it occurred to him Lenny, only if it occurred to him.

Simple translation: Yes, this new study does not replicate Wakefield examining the gut. This is because there’s no need to. Blood cells are more likely to show infection than the gut. If Wakefield or Bradstreet wanted to make a special case for the gut then they failed to do so.

Interestingly, Afzal et al approached both Wakefield and Bradstreet to collect samples of the tissue they collected but they never responded to the request:

The groups of investigators that either had access to original autism specimens or investigated them later for measles virus detection were invited to take part in the study but failed to respond. Similarly, it was not possible to obtain clinical specimens of autism cases from these investigators for independent investigations.

Cynic that I am, I have to wonder why. Too busy to ask a research assistant to locate, package up and send off some samples? Or maybe too worried about what a decent scientist would reveal.

Amusingly, Lenny next attacks Parental Perspectives on the Causes of an Autism Spectrum Disorder in their
Children which recently reported that a low percentage of parents blamed their childs autism on vaccines:

This immense undertaking involved collecting questionnaires from a grand total of 41 parents! It is remarkable that as many as 16 of the respondents said vaccines are a cause of autism. How many questionnaires were given to parents who simply discarded them, knowing that a survey conducted by a University Department of Medical Genetics has little interest in learning what parents think about the role of vaccines in causing autism?

Can anyone remind me again how many kids were involved in the original Wakefield paper? Was it 41? No? 20? No?

Twelve?

Twelve.

Lets also not forget that another recent study looked at what treatment options parents were pursuing. Only 7% were pursuing detoxification (chelation etc). That was from a total of 552 returns.

Lenny seems disturbed that he is part of a minority. I’d advise him to get used to that feeling. As decent science like Afzal et al continues to refute the poor science that precedes it, people like Lenny will become more and more isolated.

Paul Shattock: What The…?

14 Mar

I recently had occasion to quote some of Mr Shattocks work. Namely, the case studies he diagnosed autism from in Victorian Britain. These were the papers that John Best Jr felt were lies. What I didn’t tell John until after he had a good rant and (if I recall) called the author ‘some nut’ was that Mr Shattock is a staunch believer in the MMR/Thiomersal/autism connection.

Some nut indeed.

Paul Shattock has extensive ties to Andrew Wakefield. Both feel that the MMR has some role to play in autism and Mr Shattock is a promoter of what he terms:

…some of the unorthodox forms of biomedical intervention currently being applied to autism.

Sunderland.

Dr Micheal Fitzpatrick comments:

Metabolic theories continued to attract a following in the shadowy area of alternative and fringe therapies, particularly in the USA. The cult of ‘orthomolecular psychiatry’ emerged out of these theories and popularised the treatment of a range of psychiatric problems with a high dose of vitamins, amino acids, minerals and other diets and dietary supplements. It is out of this tradition, which has little concern for the rigours of scientific research, that Mr Shattock’s studies have emerged.

Like the Geier’s, Paul Shattock publishes his research in some strange places (source as above):

It is impossible to evaluate Mr Shattock’s findings because they have not been published in any form. Indeed, virtually all his work has been published in the ‘grey literature’, in journals which have no formal process of evaluation or peer review.

It seems the paper he published and I quoted to John is a rare exception in a sea of vanity publishing. Indeed, Paul Shattocks Sunderland team website carries links to places like nomercury.org – hardly an informed or non-partisan choice.

Paul Shattock himself is an interesting figure. Father of an autistic child himself, he refuses to publish his work until he has studied 1,000 children. However that didn’t stop details of his work and preliminary findings mysteriously appearing (source as above):

Mr Shattock’s research entered the public realm, via journalists sympathetic to the anti-MMR campaign

But perhaps the greatest mystery about Paul Shattock is what the letters after his name mean. Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches journalist Brian Deer asks the same question:

(I)….ran a Google search for DipAgVet, the latest qualification sported by Mr Paul Shattock, who specialises in urine tests.

For details of what came back and how you can help Mr Deer, go visit his site and take a guess.

Peter Fletcher, Melanie Phillips and the Daily Mail – A Cracked Facade

9 Feb

The Daily Mail published another MMR piece earlier this week. As usual it had the predicted results in that it stirred up the usual frenzy of illogic and fallacy.

Why do I say that?

In order to explain we need to fast-forward a couple of days to where Melanie Phillips, Andrew Wakefield’s staunchest media supporter in the UK, published her own follow up to the Mail story. I urge you to go read both pieces now before you read the rest of this.

OK, done? Good.

So lets talk about what was said. Basically, the gist of both articles is now the medical community in the UK _have_ to take the MMR link seriously because Dr Peter Fletcher, ex-Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health has said a few things about it.

On the face of it thats pretty impressive – this isn’t some no-nothing from nowhere – this is an *ex CSO*. But once you get past the fact of who he _is_ and start to isolate what he’s actually _saying_ then, to borrow a phrase, the facade starts to crack.

First is the fact that this sort of argument – based on his good standing in the past – is a sort of reverse Argumentum Ad Hominem in that it is argued that it is equally or of more importance regarding who Dr Gordon _is_ as oppose to what he _says_. This is, of course, a fallacious position from which to start.

So what does he (and the original article) actually say?

[Dr Gordon]….has accused the Government of “utterly inexplicable complacency” over the MMR triple vaccine for children.

Thats simply an assumption based on his circular reasoning that the MMR has routine or above average negative effects: as an argument it relies on the reader agreeing that there is a case for the Gvmnt being complacent in the first place. Since the establishment of this case _is whats actually being debated_ its safe to ignore this as pre-conceived bias.

[Dr Fletcher]…..said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, _”the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history”_.

Well, d’uh. How is that news? Its obviously true and equally obvious entirely irrelevant to establishing a case for believing MMR has a role in causing autism. Its a tactical appeal to emotion – nothing more.

He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see. He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.

This is at the heart of the two articles. Dr Fletcher however simply invokes the spirit of these ‘thousands of documents’ and doesn’t discuss them or what they contain at all. It may well be that he’s hampered by the legal constraints of the case(s) in question but thats really besides the point. What we need to know is – what can Dr Fletcher _add_ to the debate? Both the epidemiology and the hard science have refuted the MMR link on more than one occasion. If Dr Fletcher has peer reviewed journal based evidence that contradicts or invalidates the science done so far then he should state it. At the moment he is simply repeating a fallacy of intuition, magical thinking and an argument to the future. None of these lend any scientific credence to making a case that supports the idea that the MMR jab caused or contributed to anyones autism. If there’s evidence lets get it peer reviewed and published in a respected journal – anything else is simply hearsay.

But he added: “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”

This is a combination of Galileo gambit and a fallacy of the assumed but hidden truth. In other words its the invocation of a conspiracy theory. Its an easy thing to say because one doesn’t have to prove or even allege who these ‘powerful people’ actually are and thus there is no one available to defend the given proposition. I always think of this as the last refuge of the truly desperate. If someones case is strong enough then why resort to such a transparent and desperate tactic?

Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,” he said.

It is? Where? In fact the vast weight of scientific evidence has very recently concluded that there is no link.

There was no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccination. This is the conclusion drawn by the Cochrane Review Authors, an international team of researchers, after carefully drawing together all of the evidence found in 31 high quality studies from around the world. They also highlight that the policy of encouraging mass use of MMR has eliminated the scourge of measles, mumps and rubella from many countries. _”In particular we conclude that all the major unintended events, such as triggering Crohn’s disease or autism, were suspected on the basis of unreliable evidence,”_ says lead author Dr Vittorio Demicheli who works at Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy.

By contrast, Dr Fletcher yet again fails to say _what_ this ‘vast weight’ of scientific evidence was, where it could be found and who produced it. He just says its there. And we should just trust him because he’s cleverer than us.

Yet there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR’s introduction

Really? Obviously Dr Fletcher (and the Daily Mail) don’t examine the actual science which states:

The new study, which involved 10,903 preschool children in the United Kingdom, confirmed the elevated autism rate, but clearly demonstrated that autism prevalence is not increasing.

Fletcher also makes the mistake of matching correlation with causation – a schoolboy error for any scientist.

He said there was “no way” the tenfold leap in autistic children could be the result of better recognition and definitional changes, as claimed by health authorities.

Another totally specious statement with nothing to back it up. Fletcher might well believe it but as he provides no evidence then its just an opinion. In fact, scientific studies in the US indicate the rise in rate _is_ down to better recognition and diagnosis.

“It is highly likely that at least part of this increase is a vaccine related problem.” he said.

Again, this may be Fletcher’s opinion but he provides nothing in the way of support for it. This isn’t science, this is just gossip.

And thats just about all of Dr Fletcher’s contribution to the debate. Fallacy, lazy reasoning, assertion and unverified claims. It comes as no surprise that other lazy thinkers hype such garbage when they have so little science to support their position.

Andrew Wakefield: Beginning To Regret Libel Case?

6 Nov

There’s new legal paperwork up at Brian Deer’s personal site. It reveals some very interesting facts about two things: First that Andrew Wakefield is instructing his legal team to use his Libel action against Brain Deer as a ‘gagging order’ and secondly that Andrew Wakefield is obviously getting extremely nervous about the effect his GMC hearing will have on his Libel case.

There are three separate actions involving Andrew Wakefield and Brian Deer. One is between Wakefield and the Sunday Times, the other between Wakefield and Brain Deer personally (in respect of his website) and a third one (the one under discussion here) between Wakefield and Channel 4/Twenty twenty Productions.

The ruling judge in this case first said that it was certain that the outcome of just one of these actions would determine the outcome of the others as all three rest on the exact same subject matter. [edit – not sure I got that exactly right – if anyone reads it and comes to a different conclusion, please let me know]

Andrew Wakefield has applied for a ‘stay’ in this case (the C4/2020 one). This means he essentially wants to put this action ‘on hold’. He wants to do this because he claims that the GMC case has seniority over this one. Justice Eady remained distinctly unimpressed with this argument:

In the light of this timescale, it is impossible to envisage the trial of these libel proceedings taking place before the Michaelmas term of 2007. Much of the evidence relating to the issue of justification relates to the mid-90s and a delay of that kind would be plainly undesirable. It would, moreover, involve a gap of three years between the broadcast in question and the trial. That is beyond what is normally regarded as acceptable in the modern climate for the span of a libel action between publication and trial – even in a complicated case…

In British law it is part of the case to consider that a Libel action should be acted on as hastily as possible as the defendant may have good need to clear their name – people like Brian Deer for example who, as an investigative journalist, needs to be trusted to be employable.

So why would Wakefield wish to grant a stay to after the GMC hearing? Because he wants to ‘test the water’ with the GMC action which at most can strip him of his license – a minor inconvenience for one who’s already making a living in Texas – whereas a libel action can strip him of a hell of a lot more. I’m guessing that when things go bad for him and the GMC strip him of his license that all other actions will be quietly dropped.

However, even though he has asking for a stay of this particular action Andrew Wakefield is not above using it as a weapon to browbeat people:

These factors loom even larger in the present case in the light of certain conduct on the Claimant’s part which Miss Page has prayed in aid. It is her case that *the Claimant is seeking to take full advantage of the fact that he has issued libel proceedings while avoiding any detailed public scrutiny of the underlying merits*. In other words, she argues, he is seeking to adopt a strategy comparable to that generally characterised by the phrase “a gagging writ”. It is necessary to consider these allegations in a little further detail.

A few of you may remember that Wakefield took part in their original Power of Parents rally in the US during which he read an extract of a statement in which a small British paper (the Cambridge Evening News) backed down from a report it had made about Wakefield. Obviously the American parents lapped it up to riotous applause. However, what had _actually_ happened is that Wakefield had instructed his legal team to threaten the Cambridge Evening News with an action like that he had over the Sunday Times:

“You should be aware that proceedings in defamation have already been commenced against The Sunday Times in respect of the article published by Mr Brian Deer on 22nd February 2004. Your article has gone even further than the allegation in The Sunday Times which are currently being litigated and allege impropriety on the part of Mr Wakefield to receive money from lawyers to achieve a predetermined outcome.”

Justice Eady took exception to this:

In my view that paragraph was misleading. Mr Browne (Wakefield’s QC) argues that, even if the circumstances had been set out more fully and accurately, it would have made no difference to the outcome. The editor would still have acknowledged that he had got his facts wrong. That may be, but the important point at the moment is that the editor was given a misleading impression. Because of the stay, to which I have referred, the allegations in The Sunday Times were certainly not “currently being litigated”. They were stayed pending the outcome of serious allegations of professional misconduct against the Claimant, to which no reference was made. It thus appears that the Claimant wishes to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter other critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the “downside” of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification.

And there’s more: Dr Evan Harris MP had criticised Wakefield on a radio programme. He also got a letter:

“[Mr Andrew Wakefield] has asked us to inform you that defamation proceedings have been instituted against Mr Brian Deer and The Sunday Times newspaper in relation to articles that have been appeared [sic] and statements that have been made by them which are defamatory of [him]………..Mr Wakefield has drawn our attention to a number of statements made by you in connection with Mr Wakefield and the question of MMR both in newspapers and in BBC broadcast programme……Given … the fact of litigation having been instituted in defamation and the existence of the General Medical Council inquiry we hope you will agree that further comment on Mr Wakefield’s conduct by you or anyone else should be limited until the outcome of those proceedings has been determined. This will avoid Mr Wakefield having to consider further legal proceedings at the present time”.

Justice Eady took a grave view of this too:

I regard that as a threat that libel proceedings will be issued against Dr Harris unless he “limits” any further comment – not in itself objectionable. On the other hand, the threat is backed up by reference to litigation against The Sunday Times and Mr Deer which, by the date of the letter, had already been stayed. The implication is that for rather vague “sub judice” reasons it would not be appropriate to comment until the proceedings have been determined. At that stage none of the libel actions was “active” within the meaning of the schedule to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and there was accordingly no reason why Dr Harris should not comment further, if he wished to do so, subject always to the constraints of defamation. Again, one sees the same pattern. The Claimant wishes to use the proceedings for tactical or public relations advantage without revealing that they have been put on the back burner.

And, incredibly, Wakefield also instructed his team to go after the Dept. of Health:

“…In the circumstances Mr Wakefield is concerned and surprised to note that your official website on behalf of the Department of Health offers links not only to Mr Deer’s own website, but also the Channel 4 website on the programme. It seems extraordinary to us and wholly wrong that the Government’s official organ should direct website visitors to another site which not only records partisan and hotly disputed opinions on the subject but is also the subject of defamation proceedings. You will appreciate our grave concern that this fact appears to suggest that Government offers this subject matter official weight and authority.”

This letter is intended to provide formal written warning that the links provided to these two websites are allowing the dissemination of defamatory material. Since this is so you are now invited to withdraw the Department of Health link to these two websites forthwith given that this is an inappropriate use of Governmental weight and authority in such a controversial area”.

Just as a side note I find it incredible that anyone should try and go after a website which links to Brian Deer’s. For their further legal presumption I’d like to present a list of sites that link to Brian Deer’s. I await your issue of a writ against Wikipedia and Google with interest.

Anyway, back to Justice Eady:

I am quite satisfied, therefore, that the Claimant wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to give the Defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims. It seems to me that these are inconsistent positions to adopt. This conduct is a powerful factor to be weighed in the exercise of the court’s discretion in circumstances which are clearly unique.

And indeed so powerful that Justice Eady ruled that:

I have come to the conclusion, bearing all these considerations in mind, that the interests of the administration of justice require that the Channel 4 proceedings should not be stayed pending the outcome of the GMC proceedings. I appreciate that there will be an increased workload for the Claimant’s advisers, but I do not have any reason to suppose that the firm is incapable of absorbing that extra burden. It is, after all, their client who chose to issue these proceedings and to use them, as I have described above, as a weapon in his attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public issue. (I note that separate teams of counsel are instructed for the GMC proceedings and the defamation claims.)

So far as the website proceedings are concerned, I see no advantage in those continuing in parallel. There is a significant overlap. I am persuaded that this overlap is so significant, in relation to the defamation proceedings (unlike the GMC disciplinary process), that the outcome of the Channel 4 proceedings is likely to be in practical terms determinative of the others. Mr Deer acts in person in the website proceedings, and a very considerable burden would be placed upon his shoulders if he had to progress that litigation in parallel to the other action, in which he has the advantage of legal representation. Indeed, it may well be that there is a whiff of tactics in the Claimant’s change of stance, whereby he wished to have the website proceedings continue – but only provided there was no stay of the Channel 4 litigation. This is borne out by the suggestion that, before the Claimant should serve his reply, Mr Deer should be obliged to serve a defence in the website proceedings. That proposal has all the hallmarks of a tactical ploy to put Mr Deer at a disadvantage. It would have the effect of isolating him. I am not prepared to go along with that.

Its not looking good for Andrew Wakefield. He’s now been exposed as a bully who likes to threaten with what he has no intention of pursuing. He’s also looking like he’s beginning to realise that he has no chance of escaping the GMC hearings unscathed. Hopefully all those who like to bandy around legal action as a threat will see that a hot head often gets regretted when the facts are examined.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →