Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR Journalist’s Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper’s Web Site Work by Reporter Brian Deer is at Center of Investigation Being Conducted by Medical Regulators (Austin, Texas) – The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) of London, an independent body that oversees journalism fairness in the UK, has issued an interim order calling for the Sunday Times to remove stories written by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield from its web site. Dr. Wakefield had filed an extensive complaint with the PCC regarding errors of fact in Deer’s reportage on the MMR vaccine and its possible relationship to autism. The General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK is presently hearing evidence involving Dr. Wakefield and two of his colleagues following a complaint to the GMC by Deer himself. The PCC decision today appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories. The PCC complaint by Dr. Wakefield provides clear evidence that Deer’s allegations of “data fixing” by him are false. The complaint also accused Deer of an undisclosed conflict of interest since Deer also failed to reveal in his articles that he was the person who made the original complaint to the GMC, misleading the newspaper’s readers over the accuracy of his reporting. “Given the ongoing nature of the dispute,” Stephen Abell of the PCC wrote, “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.” Although media are expected to respond promptly to complaints through an informal process, the Sunday Times took more than three months to answer detailed issues raised by Dr. Wakefield, and called upon legal representation to write the paper’s response. Despite this the paper’s management have failed to produce any evidence of “data fixing” by Dr. Wakefield. In its letter to Dr. Wakefield regarding his complaint against Deer, the PCC “expressed concern at the initial slowness of the newspaper’s response.” The PCC said it delayed a complete ruling until it has a fuller accounting of all information submitted to the GMC, but that the outcome of the GMC hearing is not relevant to a final decision by the PCC. “My contention has always been,” Dr. Wakefield explained, “And it always will be that journalism, before it is published, must stand on its merits with good documentation, sources, and corroboration. Deer’s stories fail on every count. I see no connection between the GMC’s hearing and a decision by the PCC. If the Sunday Times cannot defend the information today, which it can’t, then it was unable to do so at the time of publication.” Wakefield has been one of the subjects of the longest GMC hearing in history. Although the hearing was expected to be concluded in August 2009, information from attorneys involved in presenting evidence indicate the case is not likely to be decided upon by the panel until December and may not conclude until early 2010. About Thoughtful House: Thoughtful House advocates a multi-disciplinary treatment approach to treating autism and supports a 'safety-first' vaccination policy. The research program at Thoughtful House is dedicated to understanding the biological origins of childhood developmental disorders and establishing best practices in treating children affected by these disorders. www.thoughtfulhouse.org Contact: James C. Moore 512.300.9232 media@thoughtfulhouse.org
The GMC Hearing
New! Read Martin Walker's latest article De The End of Mr Miller's Closing Speech covering the GMC Hearing on Monday 22nd June 2009 and Tuesday 23rd June 2009.
In bringing the fitness to practice case against Dr Andrew Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor John Walker-Smith, the General Medical Council in the UK listened to the Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer and excluded the views of hundreds of parents of vaccine damaged children. Who is Brian Deer: vigilante for truth or front man for Big Pharma? Selective Hearing covers Deer’s part in the heartbreaking betrayal of vaccine damaged children by the British government. Full length feature here Brian Deer Uncut here
Geuine objective journalism not only gets the facts right, it gets the meaning of events right. It is compelling not only today, but stands the test of time. It is validated not only by 'reliable sources', but by the unfolding of history. It is journalism that ten, twenty, fifty years after the fact still holds up a true and intelligent mirror to events. T.D Allman (Journalist) in: Pilger, J. Tell Me No Lies: Jonathan Cape: London 2004.
Sunday Times response to PCC Complaint against Deer
and Dr Wakefield's comments on the response:On the 13th March 2009 Dr Andrew Wakefield filed a formal complaint against 'journalist' Brian Deer to the UK Press Complaints Commission alleging that Deer made false accusations of scientific fraud against Dr Wakefield in articles published in the UK Sunday Times. Dr Wakefield added in this addendum that Mr. Deer failed to disclose in the Sunday Times conflicts of interest with respect to his role in the GMC investigation. He also alleges that Mr. Deer continues to mislead the public by denying his role in the GMC proceedings against Dr Wakefield and his colleagues. The Sunday Times have now issued this response, to which Dr Wakefield replies here Correspondence between the GMC and Mr Deer can be found here.
See also:
A Character Assassin Caught in the Act
Dan Olmstead and Mark Blaxill An Appeal For FundsMartin Walker, one Britain's few independent investigative writers, author of Dirty Medicine, has been deeply committed to the campaign against vaccine damage denial being waged by thousands of parents in Britain and the US. For almost two years now, he has attended the General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practice hearing against Dr Wakefield, Professor Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, being held in London. This is an entirely self-interested prosecution in which the GMC pays the prosecution, picks the jury (or panel) and even employs the legal assessor who sits with the panel. The trial has proceeded with hundreds of charges based originally on the word of a journalist, Brian Deer. Deer works for The Sunday Times, which is owned by News International whose Chief Executive, James Murdoch, now sits on the board of GlaxoSmithKline, a manufacturer of MMR. The intention of the hearing is to damage Dr Wakefield's name and reputation, and get him struck off the medical register, thereby stopping him from giving evidence, anywhere, against MMR or its adverse reactions. Although the hearing was meant to last three months, the prosecution has been dragged out to become one of the longest regulatory trials in British history. Walker has followed and written about the hearing not just because he is committed to exposing ways in which the drug companies and the GMC manipulate legal and other realities, but because a large number of parents of autistic and otherwise vaccine-damaged children, who have been air-brushed out of this show trial, have great difficulty in attending it. Walker is now finding it difficult to fund coverage of the last stages of the hearing. He says: "In the beginning and at different occasions, autism-related individuals in the US have supported my work. Recently, however, I have had to depend on the parents of vaccine-damaged children who support Dr Wakefield. These parents are already under considerable financial pressures and I can no longer ask them for, or accept, their contributions. As the hearing nears its end I feel like a marathon runner who can see the tape but whose knees are buckling and I am fearful that I will collapse. From the roadside I will be forced to watch hoards of disinterested mercenary journalists who have joined the marathon in the last hundred yards pass me to write their received and opportunist opinions about vaccines, vaccine damage and the GMC manipulation of evidence against the three doctors. I need funding for my expenses in the last three months, on and off, of this hearing, I need this funding by the beginning of June when the hearing resumes again. I don't think that I need to state the obvious, that the trial is of real importance not just to Dr Wakefield and the two other defendants, but to the freedom of medical research and independent health practice in Britain. I will, however, state something that has not been quite so obvious over the last two years. Despite these three doctors being orthodox, and even conservative practitioners, there practices have been partly based upon nutritional and environmental approaches to the cause and diagnosis of gut and bowel disorders. I will personally acknowledge any funding that is sent to me and if individuals provide me with their email address and a land address, I will send them copies of my most recent essays about hearing issues. I will also keep any contributors informed, by email, of my work and this appeal in the next four months. All my writing about the GMC hearing, well over 400 pages now, can be read on the CryShame web site. Any money in excess of that which I need to attend the hearing, will go towards the production of a book that I hope to publish after the trial ends in August." Cheques should be made out to Martin J Walker and sent to:
Slingshot, BM BOX 8314, London WC1N 3XX. Online Payments can also be made on the Slingshot Publications site at: www.slingshotpublications.com.
The GMC Hearing
Read Martin Walker's article Broken English covering the closing speech on behalf of Andrew Wakefield at the GMC starting on April 7th..
Latest Shocking Allegations against Wakefield ‘MMR doctor’ caught sitting near a stethoscopeFreelance reporter Brian Deer appears to have become a little perturbed by Dr Andrew Wakefield’s responses to his most recent attacks. Whilst managing to refrain from the blogging habit that brought him nicely to the attention of major US autism lobbyists (thank you LbRb for the invaluable service), Deer is clearly digging around for more information with which to sustain his increasingly ludicrous attacks. When in a hole, keep digging……So far, he has unearthed: Dr Wakefield sitting near a stethoscope (which incidentally belongs to Dr Bryan Jepson, whose office Wakefield was using for a press interview whilst his own room was inaccessible); and Dr Wakefield allegedly ‘examining’ a boy in severe pain and suggesting the parent seek a clinical referral for further evaluation; further evaluation which led to relief from the boy’s suffering and a letter of gratitude and support from his mother. Sadly, the parent quoted by Deer was tragically killed in a car accident at a US skiing resort in December 2005. As Deer is aware, Liz Birt, a formidable spokeswoman for the rights of vaccine damaged children, is no longer able to speak on her own behalf. Liz, however, leaves a legacy of hope and strength for all parents who fight this battle. Deer’s attempt to undermine Liz’s legacy, allowing no right of reply, is as low as it gets. The letter cited by Deer was written by Liz Birt as a Rapid Response to the BMJ, replying May 14th, 2005, to a book review by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, a London GP who made the news in 2006, in connection with the death of journalist Penny Campbell Our response is on Liz’s behalf. Thank you Liz.
Thoughtful House News Release
February 25th 2009 Court Rules MMR Vaccine Causes Autistic DisorderDecision Contradicts Findings in Controversial Cedillo CaseAustin, Texas) – The controversial Feb. 12 decision by the US vaccine court that there was no link between MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccines and autism contradicts a ruling issued by the same court in June of 2007. In addition, just days after its announcement denying the vaccine-autism link in the Cedillo case, the court awarded an estimated $3 million dollars to the family of 10 year-old Bailey Banks on Friday, February 20, 2009, and confirmed that the child’s acute brain damage was a result of the MMR vaccine, which led to his autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Although the US vaccine court continues official denials to the public of any connection between the MMR shots and autism, it quietly settled the case with the Banks family. Special Master Richard Abell wrote that the family had successfully demonstrated “the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer.” Awards have been granted to three families because the vaccine court has decided there was in fact a causative connection between the MMR 3-in-1 shot and brain damage in these children. That damage resulted in an autism spectrum disorder. Vaccines have also been found to be causally related to autism spectrum disorders in seven other known cases by the same court. In the Banks decision, the court relied on a report based on a complete neurological investigation, including an MRI scan sixteen days after his MMR shot. He was diagnosed with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), a neurological disorder characterized by inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, which is known to follow immunization. “I am personally aware of many, many parents who report these exact symptoms in their children following MMR immunization,” said Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Executive Director of Thoughtful House, an autism treatment center in Austin, Texas. “Very few children with autistic regression receive the proper work-up that Bailey had during the early stage of the disease, so a possible ADEM diagnosis may well have been missed in the other children. The MRI findings often disappear after the damage has been done.” Signs of ADEM usually appear within a few days or a few weeks after immunization or infection, often beginning with gastrointestinal or respiratory symptoms. The disease progresses to neurological deterioration including loss of eye contact, ataxia (poor coordination), changes in mental status, delirium, lethargy, and seizures. “The contradictory rulings from the vaccine court regarding vaccines and autism demonstrate that we still don’t have a definitive answer,” said Dr. Bryan Jepson, an autism specialist at Thoughtful House. “We need to realize that the question of the MMR’s possible contribution to autism remains a matter of scientific debate. Ultimately, the correct answer will come through honest, transparent, and rigorous scientific study, not from a court bench.” About Thoughtful House: Thoughtful House takes a multi-disciplinary approach to treating autism and supports a ‘safety-first’ vaccination policy that gives parents the option of choosing a stand-alone measles vaccine for their children. The research program at Thoughtful House is dedicated to understanding the biological origins of childhood developmental disorders and establishing best practices in treating children affected by these disorders. http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/
Turnaround in Wakefield Allegations US TV show turns the tables on the reporter reporting on his own reports! - Read the story in the Huffington Post.
- Watch the TV clip
Dr Wakefield Responds to Recent Allegations in the UK PressBelow is a list of the allegations made by Brain Deer against me, received on Friday 6th February 2009, 2 days prior to his publishing in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper.
(my responses are shown in blue text). Dear Dr Wakefield, I'm directed by editors managing my investigation of the MMR matter for The Sunday Times to inform you that we intend to publish further on this topic, and particularly on your role in it. It is now some five years since I first sought to discuss with you your work, and I've made numerous attempts to do so. As you will appreciate, the safety of children by means of vaccination is an unparalleled issue of public interest and concern. As you will know, not least as a result of our concurrent attendance at the General Medical Council fitness to practise hearing into your conduct, I'm now extremely familiar with the precise medical histories, diagnoses and so forth of the children enrolled for your study, published in the Lancet on 28 February 1998. Based on this knowledge, and other sources of information, including the cooperation of families enrolled in your research, I must put to you, for your response, a number of serious matters. (1) That you repeatedly, and without justification, changed and misreported findings from those children for publication in the Lancet. I cite, for instance, three children who you represented as having regressive autism, who in fact had Asperger's disorder, or in one of those cases PDAS, which are not regressive and involve no loss of language or other basic skills. You claim that the paper is a series of "previously normal" children, but medical records - which you had a duty to read and understand - show that some five of the 12 children were subject to concerns prior to vaccination, and were not "normal". Other children, who you claimed to have suffered their first "behavioural symptoms" within days of vaccination, in fact had none for months. In the cases of some 8 children - two thirds of the total - you changed normal histopathology results to abnormal results, in a so-called "research review", despite claiming that the series was merely a clinical report. The diagnoses reported in the Lancet were accurate based upon the information provided to the clinicians and review of the available records1 . Where there was considered to be a pre-existing developmental problem, this was accurately described in the Lancet paper 2. This is not the place to get into a detailed discussion on developmental regression which is still a subject of debate by experts in child development and is certainly not something about which Deer has any expertise. It is a matter of fact that I did not play any part whatsoever in making the microscopic diagnoses of inflammation on any biopsy from any child investigated at the Royal Free Hospital. Intestinal tissues were examined, and the children’s pathology documented, by two doctors (not me) employed in the Department of Histopathology who were experienced in bowel disease, using an agreed protocol to ensure rigor and consistency . These doctors were co-authors on the paper. The same tissues were reviewed by Professor Walker-Smith and his team. I merely entered the documented findings into the Lancet paper. I did not “change” any findings as alleged. The paper was then reviewed by the relevant authors prior to submission to the Lancet in order to confirm that the diagnoses were correct. The findings reported in the Lancet are, in the opinion of the relevant authors, correct. This is a matter of record at the GMC. (2) That, without justification, you omitted parental links to MMR in the case of one quarter of the children, in order to reach your unsubstantiated claim in the paper that problems came on within days. Contrary to your claim that the parents of 8 of 12 children linked MMR to their child's problems, in fact the parents of 11 of the children made this connection whilst at the Royal Free. The additional, unreported, children are Child Five, Child Nine and Child Twelve. Their parents said that problems came on between one and four months after MMR, and their hospital records, which you had access to (and in one case wrote), show this. Through the device of their omission, you contrived to create the appearance of a clearcut temporal link between MMR and autism, when there was none such. Furthermore, by their omission, you contrived to create the appearance that these children were routine clinical cases passing through the hospital, when in fact, as you knew, they were recruited, marshalled and referred in collaboration between you, JABS and a solicitor. As such, they were bound to blame MMR when they came to the hospital. This is a particularly tortuous argument that reflects Deer’s grasp (or lack of it) on the evidence. Parents of 8 of the 12 children made the link between MMR vaccination and onset of symptoms contemporaneously. Other parents made the link retrospectively, that is, some years later. We reported on those 8 who made the link at the time of their child’s deterioration and excluded those who made the link later in order to remove any bias associated with recall that may have been prompted by, for example, media coverage. To have done otherwise would have been potentially misleading. In fact, when all of the medical and parental records were made available via the GMC many years later, it became apparent that one further parent had made the link with MMR contemporaneously, but had remained silent on this at the request of her husband because it had led to doctors dismissing their concerns about their child’s medical problems on the basis that they were “just looking for something to blame.” This in itself is a telling indictment of how a possible cause risks being overlooked because of the prejudice of some physicians. The second part of this allegation, which is dependent upon the fallacy in the first part, is nonsense. The route by which the children came to the Royal Free was one driven by clinical need and had nothing whatsoever to do with the lawyer Richard Barr. The facts of this matter and in particular the route by which the children came to be seen by Professor Walker-Smith, have been reported to the GMC. This allegation – one which Deer has rehashed in spite of the evidence – has no basis in fact. It need hardly be stated again after so many occasions in the GMC but the leading, primary and principal reason all twelve children ended up at the Royal Free, was that they had bowel or 'stomach' problems. The matter of vaccination was brought up by parents because they thought that it was relevant to the clinical diagnosis. (3) That the paper you wrote and published in the Lancet was a device, assisting you in obtaining money from the Legal Aid Board. I draw to your attention your prior contractual undertaking with Mr Barr, and your joint undertaking to the Legal Aid Board to attempt to find a "new syndrome". This latter undertaking was entered into before any of the children were admitted to the Royal Free, or you could ever have known of any syndrome. Eighteen months later, you would declare that you had found precisely such a syndrome, based on the 8/12 temporal link, and an alleged coincidence of regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease. The records show that neither of these are valid. Without the public ever suspecting, the route by which you reached this claim required the wholesale changing and misreporting of data. Following your claims, to which you attached the reputations of 12 other, generally unwitting, doctors, you successfully extracted substantial sums of money from the legal aid fund, not least for the business Unigenetics, of which you were a director, and for yourself personally. We have previously reported that the Legal Services Commission says that you pocketed more than £435,000, plus expenses. The amounts you received increased as the scare you created continued: the grossest possible conflict of interest. Deer is wrong on all counts. The purpose of the contract with Mr Barr was to conduct a scientific study to look for measles virus proteins in the bowel of children (initially those with Crohn’s disease and later, to include those with autism and intestinal symptoms (such as abdominal pain and diarrhea) that required endoscopic examination and biopsy. On the other hand, the clinical basis for the investigation of the autistic children has been established by my pediatric colleagues – two of the most experienced pediatric gastroenterologists worldwide - beyond any reasonable doubt. The “syndrome” that we have accurately and reproducibly described is the combination of autistic regression, swelling of the lymph glands in the last part of the small intestine (ileum) and inflammation of the colon. Any association of this syndrome with MMR vaccine remains to be confirmed and in contrast with Deer’s claim the syndrome does not require any temporal link to MMR vaccination at all. This has been made clear to the GMC. The children who turned out to suffer from the “syndrome” were referred as early as May 1995, long before I had ever heard of Richard Barr or vaccine litigation. Deer is aware of this fact. Any payment that I received over the course of working for over 7 years as a expert to the UK courts in the MMR litigation – substantially less than the sum Deer claims – was donated to an initiative to build a new center for the investigation and care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease at the Royal Free. This matter is described in more detail in a forthcoming essay by Bill Long, access to which will be posted in due course at http://www.drbilllong.com/index.html. I resigned from Unigenetics and was not involved in the dealings of this company with the Legal Aid Board. Finally, I did not “create” a scare but rather, I responded to a scare that parents brought to my attention. To have ignored their concerns would have been professional negligence. (4) That, additional to the above, in recent years you have reviewed your changes and misreportings in the Lancet, and yet you have neither withdrawn your claims in the paper, nor sincerely and publicly apologised for your conduct, as you should have done. As a result of the GMC hearings, you have been supplied with all the documentation, and, indeed, were last year taken by counsel through the changes and misreportings. There can be no question that you know the precise details of these children. Particularly given outbreaks of measles, widely reported in UK media most recently today, and the appalling burden of guilt laid on the parents of autistic children who believe it was their own fault for vaccinating their child, you had an absolute duty to come forward at the earliest opportunity and make the position clear. You have not done so, but indeed continue to display the paper's claims on your website, and to campaign against MMR. The evidence presented by me to the GMC described precisely and accurately the basis of the findings reported in the Lancet. The absence of any ‘misreporting’ is a matter of record both in my oral testimony and in that of my clinical colleagues. There is absolutely nothing either to withdraw or to apologize for in this matter. It is, however, a tragedy that the continued misrepresentation of the facts has had a negative impact on the ability of affected children to get access to the care that they so desperately need. (5) That, overall, you created the appearance of a possible link between MMR and autism, when you knew, or should have known, that there was no reasonable basis for this in the histories of those children, and, as a result have caused immense and growing harm, unnecessary concern and waste of public money. In summary, not one of the 12 children is free of serious doubt as to the manner in which their case has been reported by you. Indeed, there is no real evidence that any of the children were as you reported in the Lancet. When lack of evidence of previous normality, lack of evidence of regression, lack of evidence of inflammatory bowel disease, and lack of any temporal link as you describe, are taken into account, there was no basis in the records for your claim to have discovered any new syndrome at all. Based upon the parental histories of regression in their children after MMR vaccine, the known link between measles and brain damage including autism 3 and the findings in the children, there was and continues to be every reasonable basis for suspecting a possible link between MMR vaccination and autistic regression. The reporting of the children in the Lancet paper is an accurate account of the clinical histories as reported to Professor Walker-Smith and his clinical colleagues. The normality or otherwise of the children’s development was evident in the medical history taken by these clinicians, and backed up by the Health Visitor’s 4 contemporaneous record of the respective child’s development. The claim to have detected a possible new syndrome was valid and, in contrast with Deer’s false claim, is supported by confirmation of the original findings by others 5. As you will see, the issues we raise with you are not the same as the charges you face before the GMC, although the fitness to practise hearings have, as expected, yielded important insights and evidence. It is clear that, particularly in the context of measles outbreaks in the UK, US, Europe and now Australasia, it is important that the public be urgently informed of the true position at the earliest possible date. On the contrary, the issues raised by Deer are, in many respects, identical to those raised by him on previous occasions. One can only imagine that, as the evidence has emerged at the GMC, the fallacy of Deer’s original allegations has become clear. The timing and content of Deer’s latest allegations and the published article, his behavior at the GMC hearing (See “The Incident” by Martin Walker 6), and recent admissions of failings in the area of vaccine safety by the US National Vaccine Advisory Committee, suggest a degree of desperation on the part of Deer and those whom he represents. Measles outbreaks are preventable immediately by offering parents with valid concerns about the safety of MMR vaccine a choice of single measles vaccine; not to do so is unethical and puts the vaccine policy, “our way or no way”, before the wellbeing of children. There is absolutely no question of the continuing investigation and treatment of these children coming to a halt because of this or any other kind of subversive tactic.
Health Visitor checks: a routine regular developmental and physical in-home assessment of children by the National Health Service in the UK Lancet 1998:351;637-41 Deykin EY, MacMahon B, Viral exposure and autism. Am J Epidemiol, 1979;109:628–38.Ring A, Barak Y, Ticher A, et al. Evidence for an infectious etiology in autism. Pathophysiology, 1997; 4:91–96. Health Visitor checks: a routine regular developmental and physical in-home assessment of children by the National Health Service in the UK Gonzalez, L., et al., Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms: A Preliminary Report. GEN Suplemento Especial de Pediatria, 2005;1:41-47. Balzola, F., et al., Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome? American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981. Krigsman A et al. http://www.cevs.ucdavis.edu/Cofred/Public/Aca/WebSec.cfm?confid=238&webid=1245 last accessed June 2007) (paper submitted for publication)
|
