Thoughtful House Responds: Sunday Times Defies Press Complaints Decision on MMR Autism Stories

Managing Editor's Note: Scroll down to read email correspondence as well.

Sunday Times Defies Press Complaints Commission

Paper Notifies Media Oversight Agency that it Will Not Remove from its Website False Stories about MMR and Dr. Andrew Wakefield  
 
(Austin, Texas) – The Sunday Times of London, a Rupert Murdoch News Corporation paper, has defied direction from the UK’s Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to remove from its web site controversial stories it has failed to substantiate, which allege Dr. Andrew Wakefield “fixed” data relating to the MMR vaccine.  The reports by correspondent Brian Deer are the subject of an extensive complaint filed with the PCC by Wakefield.

The PCC last week issued an unpublished directive that the stories be removed (see below).  They were taken down immediately, unannounced, but the Sunday Times has now defied the PCC by putting the stories back online after complaining Dr. Wakefield publicly announced the PCC’s directive. 

Stephen Abell, Deputy Director of the PCC, wrote in his unpublished directive, “Given the ongoing nature of the dispute, the articles should be removed from the newspaper’s website until this matter has been concluded.”

The Sunday Times has an obligation to “cooperate swiftly” with the PCC in the resolution of complaints under the UK’s PCC Code, which states it is “the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the UK [press] industry has made a binding commitment.”  The PCC is a non-statutory self-regulatory body run by the press.

Lawyers for the Sunday Times contacted Abell to inform him that the stories were to remain published on the website.  According to Amali de Silva of the Wiggin law firm, the paper’s management decided to return the stories to its web pages, after they had been previously removed, because Dr. Wakefield publicly announced the PCC’s directive to the Sunday Times.

“My client feels that it is entirely inappropriate and prejudicial to keep the articles down,” Ms. de Silva wrote to Abell.  “My client will therefore be reinstating the articles onto its website, but will be tagging them to make it clear that they are subject to a PCC complaint, which is ongoing.”

Deer, the author of the articles that are at the center of Wakefield’s PCC filing, immediately contacted the Wakefield legal team with further unfounded accusations.  He also boasted of the paper’s defiance of the PCC language, which stated, “The Commission asked that the newspaper now confirm that the articles will be temporarily removed from the website……..”

“In fact,” Deer seemingly brags in an email, “all of my stories concerning him [Wakefield] are available at the Times Online website.”

The PCC have decided not to issue a complete ruling on Wakefield’s complaint against Deer and the Sunday Times until the GMC announces its findings.  This decision was taken even though the focus of Wakefield’s complaint is Deer’s “fixing data” story; following an extensive investigation by the GMC, “data fixing” is not the basis of any charge against Dr. Wakefield.  Deer and the management of the newspaper have chosen to defy the PCC at a precarious time for UK journalism as parliament contemplates a regulated media and the Media Standards Trust is closely scrutinizing the industry.

(Email correspondence texts in full are listed chronologically below.)

See also Media Standards Trust news release about failing self-regulation of the media (HERE).

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. Visit them at www.thoughtfulhouse.org.

30th June 2009
 
Dr Andrew Wakefield
By Email    
 
Dear Dr Wakefield
 
I write further to our correspondence.  The Commission has now given an initial consideration of your complaint and has authorised the terms of this letter to you.
 
It has decided that it will temporarily stay its investigation until the conclusion of the GMC inquiry, which is apparently likely to be in August 2009. 
 
It considers that the conclusion of the inquiry will place into the public domain information necessary to inform its decision.    The Commission considered that – while the GMC was not specifically considering the charge that you had “fixed”, “changed”, “misreported” or “manipulated” data – its remit covered the manner in which the data was obtained and then published in the Lancet.  The central claim in the article (and several of the related claims that have been challenged in the complaint) appeared to be the newspaper’s – and journalist’s – own interpretation of the process behind the Lancet article; the GMC was itself looking at that process.
 
The Commission considered it appropriate to await the conclusion of the GMC process before considering all of the points made in the complaint.
 
The Commission wished to take this opportunity – in advance of any formal ruling on the complaint – to make the following points:
 
• Given the ongoing nature of the dispute, the articles should be removed from the newspaper’s website until this matter has been concluded.  This would not be an admission of any liability on the part of the newspaper.

• The Commission wished to express its concern at the initial slowness of the newspaper’s responses. It expected that the paper would engage promptly with the PCC once the case is reopened.  A failure to deal with the matter with appropriate speed could lead to the complaint being upheld on that point.

• The central test for the Commission will be whether there is evidence that the newspaper took “care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” at the time of publication and whether there can be established any significant inaccuracies, misleading statements or distortions.  While the subject matter is complex, the article contained statements in clear language, which would need to be substantiated.  The information due to be  provided when the GMC hearing reports is regarded as essential to the Commission’s deliberations,  and both sides will be entitled to refer to the transcripts.
• However, the PCC will not rely solely on the outcome of the GMC inquiry, or on the hearing in its entirety, and wishes to emphasise that this hearing is important because of the information submitted to it, rather than its outcome.

• While the Commission takes note of the complainant’s concerns about conflict of interest involving the journalist and claims about his private bias (including what he has published on his own website), it can only have formal regard for possible breaches of the Code that relate to the material published in the newspaper itself. This may include the question of whether readers would be likely to be misled by the non-disclosure of the journalist’s involvement in the GMC inquiry (which is a matter of dispute among the parties).  However, the Code does not guarantee objectivity, and newspapers are entitled to print articles that are partisan about particular issues.  In the Commission’s view, the central thrust of the accuracy complaint was summarised in the 32 statements contained in the office’s email to the newspaper of 15th May and repeated to the complainant in the email of 2nd June.
 
The Commission asked that the newspaper now confirm that the articles will be temporarily removed from the website and that it undertake to notify the Commission of the conclusion of the GMC process and then co-operate promptly with the remainder of the investigation.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Stephen Abell
@pcc.org.uk

Press Complaints Commission, Halton House, 20/23 Holborn, London,  EC1N 2JD Tel: 02078310022 Fax: 02078310025  http://www.pcc.org.uk

******************************

 -----Original Message-----
From: Amali de Silva [email redacted]
Sent: 30 June 2009 17:22
To: Stephen Abell
Cc: Tyrer, Bob; Brian Deer
Subject: Wakefield - PCC complaint
Importance: High
 
 Dear Mr Abell
 
I am writing to add my and my client's serious concern regarding the email received by Mr Deer from NBC News. It may be that NBC has misunderstood the position, but the PCC asked my client to take the down only the articles complained of strictly on the basis that it would be temporary pending the outcome of the PCC's consideration of Dr Wakefield's complaint, and that such action should not be construed as an admission of liability. In these circumstances, it is seriouslyprejudicial to my client and Mr Deer, as well as highly misleading about the PCC, to allow the suggestions that the PCC has made a ruling against
my client and directed that all Mr Deer's reporting on Dr Wakefield to be removed, to remain uncorrected.
 
In the light of this, I would be most grateful if you would confirm that you will be contacting Dr Wakefield immediately to do the following:
 
1 - Clarify what statements he and/or his publicists or other representatives have made to third parties regarding the PCC's letter today, and the identity of those third parties.
 
2 - If Dr Wakefield and/or his publicists or other representatives have suggested to any third parties (including NBC News) that the PCC's letter today constitutes a ruling against my client and/or that my client has been directed to take down all Mr Deer's reporting regarding Dr Wakefield, that Dr Wakefield should contact those third parties again
immediately, retract such statements and inform them of the true position.
 
3 - Impress upon Dr Wakefield that the PCC has made no ruling against my client, that the request to take down just the articles complained of is a temporary measure pending the outcome of the PCC's consideration of Dr Wakefield's complaint, that it does not in any way constitute either a ruling against my client or any admission of liability and that he
should not be suggesting otherwise.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Amali de Silva

***********************************

Original Message-----
From: Amali de Silva [email redacted]
Sent: 03 July 2009 16:16
To: Stephen Abell
Subject: FW: Wakefield - PCC Complaint - URGENT

Dear Stephen
 
I am writing further to our previous correspondence and our telephone conversation earlier this afternoon. As you know, this is an issue that my client feels particularly strongly about. The circumstances in which the PCC requested my client take down the articles in question are very different from those that subsist now. In the light of the actions of Dr Wakefield and/or his representatives, and the inaccurate "spin" which has been put on the PCC request, my client feels that it is entirely inappropriate and prejudicial to keep the articles down. My client will therefore be reinstating the articles onto its website, but will be tagging them to make it clear that they are subject to a PCC complaint which is ongoing. In this way, anyone reading the articles will be informed of the current position.
 
I would like to impress upon the PCC that this is not a decision which my client has taken lightly. As you know it would, in normal circumstances, co-operate with all requests made by the PCC during the course of an investigation (as can be seen from my client's prompt action in taking the articles down in the first instance). It has had no option but to take these measures because of the very unfortunate course of conduct which Dr Wakefield and/or his representatives have chosen to pursue. The fact that my client has felt forced to take these steps is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way as a lack of regard by my client for the authority of the PCC.
 
Regards
 
Amali de Silva

************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Deer <email redacted>
To: Joanna Bower <email redacted>
Cc: Ryland, Anissa
Sent: Mon Jul 06 13:12:00 2009
Subject:

Ms Joanne Bower,
RadcliffesLeBrasseur LLP

Dear Ms Bower,

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

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

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

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

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

With best wishes,

Brian Deer

 

 

Comments

[mark hawkings]

Kim
I don't think so

Mike has 4 mins and 42 seconds left to achieves is 5 minutes for fame whilst a generation is lost.
Go for it Mike

[Tennis Anyone? From Kim Stag]

Boys, have we had enough of this autism Wimbeldon yet? Back and forth, back and forth. Can we just declare DEUCE now?

[Garbo]

Actually, I don't think you're as famous or important as you seem to believe...

[mark hawkings]

"just for everyone's information ..."

Mike
don't overestimate your importance most people here won't know who you are.

we have many new people joining us here every day, not sure why ,, perhaps its genetic.

[Mike Stanton]

"just for everyone's information ..."

I think they knew that already :=)

[Jim Thompson]

This is a 21st century witch hunt. The articles in the London Times are an accusation, trial, and conviction of Dr. Wakefield. The London Times is making the news, not reporting it. There is nothing noble or gentlemanly about it. On the other hand, the comment about “Wakefield's ungentlemanly conduct” meets the criteria given in “On Bullshit” by Harry Frankfurt. It is so far removed from the truth that it cannot even be called a lie.

[John Stone]

Stanton has, of course, espoused an ideology which is scientific 'Flat Earth News'

http://www.flatearthnews.net/

The genetic theory of autism is now completely untenable

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/autism-not-genetic-says-expert-professor-simon-baron-cohen.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/03/we-need-to-learb-where-toxins-impact-gene-expressions-to-find-the-cause-of-autism.html

In August 2004, Richard Mills, the senior scientific officer of the UK National Autistic Society (where Stanton is the bee's knees) declared to the The Times 'that though there is clearly no single cause of autism, “no one can seriously suggest now that heavy metals are not implicated in some way”'.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article468711.ece

It was his first and last public pronouncement of this kind. Five years later their heads are buried in the sand as we face the biggest adult disability care crisis the world has ever seen.

Thanks Mike and thanks Richard!

[mark hawkings]

just for everyone's information

Mike Stanton is a Autism Hub Blogger and is a councillor for the UK's National Autistic society.

I am not sure if Mike still holds this opinion but it give some idea of his believes

http://actionforautism.co.uk/2008/06/

"Embracing Neurodiversity allows you to stop looking for a cure because there isn’t one. I agree with the Autism Society of America that,

Most of the enlightened world knows that autism is at its root, genetic, and therefore by definition it is not something that can be considered “curable” or a “disease.”

[Mike Stanton]

"If I said you should do something, would I be giving you an order?

Would the PCC advise this newspaper to take down Brian Deer's stories if the commission didn't question their accuracy?"

Thank you, Jake for summarizing the whole issue so admirably. The answer to both your questions is "No." Recent press releases on the matter from Wakefield assume that the answer to both these questions is "Yes."

There seem to be two two threads to this discussion. Some people are arguing that Wakefield is not saying "Yes" to your questions in his press releases and that I am twisting his words. Others agree that he is saying "Yes" and is right to do so.

I do not think anyone is going to change their minds now based on what I have to say and so I will take this opportunity to bow out from this discussion

[John Stone]

We can all see what Stanton is trying to do but the question is, why does he lap up this childish monsense. How could it be, for instance, that Wakefield could fiddle the results under the noses of 12 other signatories? This is just one point, but basically it looks as if Stanton will just believe anything.

[Jake Crosby]

Mr. Stanton,

If I said you should do something, would I be giving you an order?

Would the PCC advise this newspaper to take down Brian Deer's stories if the commission didn't question their accuracy?

[John Stone]

Mike

This is a deplorable piece of twisting. The press release briefly re-states Wakefield's case and quotes Stephen Abell of the PCC:

“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.”

There was no attempt by Wakefield to mislead whatsoever: indeed he indicates that he is disappointed that the PCC has not acted further.

To say you appear to be splitting hairs is an understatement. I asked before, what is your interest?

[Mike Stanton]

Mark H wrote

"Once that response was received the PCC agreed to await the outcome of the GMC hearing before proceeding"
Agreed with whom, the times ?, Deer, Wakefiled??

if you have inside knowlege of this please share??

Dear Mark
I have no inside knowledge. This is what happened. Following the Times response to Wakefield's complaint the PCC decided to await the outcome of the GMC hearing before conducting their inquiry. They requested that the Times remove the relevant reports from its website until then and the Times agreed.

Wakefield issued a press release which said that the PCC had ordered the Times to remove the artices and he suggested that the PCC's action was proof that the articles were false. He is wrong on both counts. There was no order and no suggestion that the PCC ha come to a decision in favour of Wakefield. In fact they have come to no decision at all.

The Times reinstated the articles because they felt that Wakefield had tried to spin the story to his advantage. They felt that their good faith had been abused.

Now we have another press release from Wakefield declaring that the Times are defying the order from the PCC. No order exists. All orders from the PCC are published on their website. There is no order there pertaining to Wakefield and the Times. Wakefield is making it up.

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

Curt, I think you hit the nail on the head. Mike and Anthony are just like Deer himself. They all act like little children.

If there is ANY basis for what Deer wrote he would have produced by now -- as any reasonable person would have.

Mike, Anthony, Why do you think it is that Deer and the Times took so long to respond to the initial PCC inquiry? And why do you think they just didn't back up the articles with facts rather than taking stalling actions??? This is what a reasonable person would expect to happen -- regardless of whether they support Dr. Wakefield or not.

[John Stone]

Anthony

As usual you are playing with words - the only real issue here is your attempt to distract from Brian Deer's failure to fend off Andrew Wakefield's criticisms. The PCC are supposed to resolve these matters swiftly and the signally failed. Deer's article was preposterous - after 11 years he was claiming that Wakefield had fiddled the results under the noses of 12 other authors without anyone noticing or remarking on it. The article had elementary errors in it and was based on documents which could not be reproduced, and which Deer should not have had. But all this is alright with Anthony Cox, yessirree! When it comes to Andrew Wakefield, anything goes.

[Anthony]

Yep, that's correct John. I am not employed by the MHRA as I noted then.

I don't understand your issue with me. Do you really think my views on MMR where planted in my brain by pharmaceutical companies and the MHRA. Has it ever crossed your mind that I might have examined the evidence and come to the conclusions I have independently?

For the record, no-one from the MHRA or industry has ever told me what to say.

Thanks for reminding me of that excellent thread at the Spectator though.

[mark h]

Mike

"Once that response was received the PCC agreed to await the outcome of the GMC hearing before proceeding"
Agreed with whom, the times ?, Deer, Wakefiled??

if you have inside knowlege of this please share??

[Garbo]

"The fact that my client has felt forced to take these steps is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way as a lack of regard by my client for the authority of the PCC."

They felt FORCED to take these steps? They don't have a lack of regard for the authority of the PCC?! Gimme a break. Poor Wakefield is the subject of a years-long libelous campaign against him, and takes it and takes it and takes it. He has the unmitigated gall to update people with the ongoing facts surrounding the suspect articles, and this practically moves the Times and their attorney to tears? Boy, they can dish it out but they sure can't take it. With Baby Murdoch's quid pro quo Glaxo appointment after that last fiasco of an article, it's no wonder that they're squirming to defend the indefensible. I wonder from whence their change of heart on the removal of the articles really came. How high up? The powers that be really need for those articles to be true, don't they? Sold their souls to the company store, they have.

[curt linderman sr]

seems to ba a lot of bickering on here for no reason. Anyone that can't see what's going on here and the horribly apparent conflicts of interest at the times (with scumbag elitist Murdoch at the helm) is a complete idiot that is unable to determine fact from fiction. they're not worth the time to argue with them. They're just lemmings with their head up the asses of the lemmiings in front of them and our only hope is that they get to the end of the line at the cliff before they completely screw up this world!

[John Stone]

Mike

First of all, I agree with Jake Crosby: it sounds like an order to me. Secondly you are are putting words in Andrew Wakefield's mouth. I see nothing in the original press release which contradicts the terms of Stephen Abell's decision.

And, by the way, what's your interest?

[Ginger Taylor]

I wondered why a NewsCorp outfit would stick its neck out for a sketchy story, which they should be able to defend in an afternoon if they had checked their sources in the first place. Baby Murdoch on the board of GSK makes perfect sense.

Additionally, News Corp and Murdoch's empire is somewhat reliant on Pharma advertising, but what other interests might he have?

Turns out, Rupert Murdoch is on the board of Cornell Medical school which (I think) runs New York Presbyterian Hospital.

http://weill.cornell.edu/about/board_members.html

Don't know if that means anything, but it is interesting.

[Mike Stanton]

Weasel words, John? Which of my statements are false?

The reason the PCC took so long to respond is because they were kept waiting for the Times' response. Once that response was received the PCC agreed to await the outcome of the GMC hearing before proceeding and, as a quid pro quo, requested that the Times remove the articles.

It should be clear that opinions on the strength of evidence on either side had no part in these decisions. Wakefield suggested that the PCC were supporting him against the Times. He was wrong. His most recent press release compounds that error by suggesting that now the Times is defying the PCC.

A cynic might be excused for thinking that the Wakefield camp is doing this to pre-empt the decision of the PCC, making a fuss about nothing so that they can use it as an excuse when their complaint ultimately fails.

[John Stone]

Anthony

I found these quotes from a Melanie Phillips blog last year:

"I have a part-time job funded by the NHS in the West Midlands. Only a portion of that post is funded (indirectly) by MHRA money."

"I have told you on numerous occasions that I work for a unit that is partially funded by the MHRA to promote the reporting of adverse reactions by the public and healthcare professionals."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/731746/the-debate-that-wont-go-away.thtml

[Jake Crosby]

The fact that the PCC said the articles SHOULD be removed suggests an order, and the fact that The Sunday Times is not following through suggests a failure to comply.

[A V R]

mike
you really should watch the film about deer and the GMC,
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/#

In my mind the question is how the GMC ever bought the case solely on Brian's complaint.
brian can't find the eady letters or the material his latest articles are based on.

[John Stone]

More weasel words from Mike Stanton. The reality is that Wakefield raised poweful objections to the Deer articles which even the normally pusillanimous Press Complaints Commission could not dismiss after many months.

http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/complaint-against-brian-deer.pdf

http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/complaint-addendum-against-brian-deer.pdf

So now they are ducking the issue by trying to postpone a decision till after the hearing in the hope that GMC will get them out of trouble, but the truth is that the Sunday Times showed no such decorum when they published the material at a sensitive time last February (by a remarkable coincidence just six days after News International boss James Murdoch was appointed the board of GSK with a brief to protect the company's reputation).

What Stanton and Cox are doing is trying to distract from the compelling counter-evidence of Andrew Wakefield. I note, incidentally, that while Deer re-published Wakefield's addendum on his website, he didn't publish the main complaint, and that's really what he doesn't want you to look at.

[julie]

Thank you Mr Stone. I was about to post that link. Shows the pond scum ethics poor Dr W. is dealing with.

[Mike Stanton]

The articles were not ordered to be taken down. The Times agreed to remove them until after the PCC could complete its investigation. The PCC has postponed its investigation until after the GMC publishes is decision.

Wakefield issued a misleading press release that tried to spin this as some kind of sanction by the PCC against the Times and suggested that in so doing the PCC were calling into question the accuracy of the Times stories and vindicating his account.

If he had not issued this press release the articles would still be down from the Times website and would have stayed down until after the GMC ruling. Instead the articles are back up and thanks to the ensuing publicity more widely read than before.

The decision to remove the articles came about as a result of a gentlemen's agreement between the PCC and the Times. Wakefield's ungentlemanly conduct in seeking to exploit the situation led directly to the Times reinstating the articles.

Like Anthony Cox I think this is a tactical blunder by Wakefield and wonder why he did it. The fact that we are both in disagreement with Wakefield about MMR and autism in no way invalidates this question. In fact, if I were a Wakefield supporter I would be asking the same question.

[John Stone]

It may be of interest to US readers - as hinted at by Julie below - that the main news in the UK today is that another part of Murdoch empire the 'News of the World' newspaper has been exposed for illegal phone tapping activities:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking

Amongst the important issues raised in this story is:

"The Press Complaints Commission, which claimed to have conducted an investigation, but failed to uncover any evidence of illegal activity."

[Anthony]

For the record, I have no links to the pharmaceutical industry, and am not directly employed by the MHRA.

The correspondence is damning John, because it clearly sets out that Wakefield's calim that the PCC issued an interim ruling was hogwash.

[Jack R.]

" or indirectly controlled for his interests, such as ageofautism.com, operated to promote and profit from concern over children's vaccines."

Wow, Kim. You must be selling a shitload of "the bull stops here" t-shirts. I had no idea.

[John Stone]

PS The MHRA, for which Anthony Cox works, is entirely funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

[A V R]

Anthony
a warm welcome to you .
perhaps while you are here you could comment on this fine film about Brian and the GMC

http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/#

Enjoy and please share it to all your friends

so why has Brain failed to produce the evidence for the PCC and throw this out??.he's had the 1 month plus a extra 2 for nothing ..
If the PCC was a guard dog I think it would be a Chi Wawa .

May I remind you about the Letters from Judge Eady which the parents of the Vaccine damaged children have repeatedly asked Deer to produce
we can only conclude that Deer is the complainant and his reporting is design to prejudice the hearing that he caused to happen.

I would love to hear what you think

btw Anthony is a quackbuster science chap please be nice to him.

[Odysseus]

If there is a hell, Brian Deer will surely burn in it for all eternity.

[John Stone]

Damning evidence of what, Anthony? The PCC would have dismissed this matter months ago if Wakefield had not presented strong evidence.

For those unfamiliar with Anthony Cox he published a study early last year which puported to show that Wakefield had cmmitted fraud, by critiquing a graph accompanying a letter that AW had written to the Lancet in in 1999. Cox accomplished this by not referring to the text of the letter to which it was an illustration. It was one of the most blatant cases of quoting out of context I have ever come across.

Cox is also an employee - not declared here - of the UK medicines licensing authority, the MHRA.

[julie]

So the articles were ordered taken down, but nobody is allowed to say why? The UK media is such a joke. They should stick to eavesdropping on celebrities's cell phones and leave respectable scientists alone.

[Anthony]

That's fairly damning correspondence. What was Wakefield thinking?