Yes Autism Really Does Suck and Then Someone Dies: Often The Person with Autism
PA Halts Plan To Charge Families of Disabled for Services

British Medical Journal Deposition Raises Questions For Brian Deer in Wakefield Lawsuit

Brian deerBy Dan Olmsted

Brian Deer's appearances in Wisconsin yesterday and today -- and Andy Wakefield's press conference there Thursday -- are coming amid the continued crumbling of Deer's British Medical Journal case against Wakefield. Check out the depositions from Andy's defamation suit against Deer, including the first one, featuring a British Medical Journal fact checker who can't remember too many facts and doesn't sound like she checked too many, either (including whether the children did or did not have autism, kind of a key point).

 “The parents’ story is the most valuable starting point, and if the parents say, ‘This is what happened to my child, they were normal, they had a vaccine, now they're not normal,’ and this happens not once, but thousands of times around the world, then we have to take that very seriously,” Wakefield told a crowd of about 50  at a local park, according to WKBT in LaCrosse. “Here we have, for the first time, something in autism, which is directly treatable and where we can make the lives of these children so much better, and what a tragedy not to capitalize on that,” said Wakefield.

I got an e-mail press query yesterday: "Do you think Dr. Wakefield has a chance at rebuilding his reputation among most Americans after what has occurred in recent years?" My response: Andy plans to address Deer's claims that he engineered "an elaborate fraud" in the 1998 Lancet paper. It's certainly appropriate for Deer and others to investigate that paper, but it's also important for other journalists to hold Deer to high standards of accuracy and fairness in making such a serious and important claim.

I spent several months both in the US and England investigating Deer's claims. I found no evidence of fraud at all and have so far written 10 articles about that at AgeOfAutism.com. The vindication of Andy's co-author, John Walker-Smith, puts Deer in an even more problematic position, in that Walker-Smith independently vouched for the accuracy of many statements in the Lancet paper that Deer claims were fraudulently manipulated by Wakefield.

The fact is, based on my own reporting including interviews with parents in Lancet paper and many other sources, I believe that the MMR does cause bowel disease and autism. Thousands of parents and others know it to their great sorrow and have tried to sound the alarm. Andy will be speaking along with some of those parents. Ultimately, because he and they are telling the truth, his reputation will be rebuilt. The quickest way for that to happen is to get Deer's false claims in front of a jury, which Andy and his supporters are diligently working to do.

Read the depositions HERE. Learn more at Dr. Wakefield's justice fund.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Stone

Hi Crystal

The deposition actually took place in London at the end of June at the London office of BMJ's Texas law firm. A month later the Texas judge, Amy Meachum,

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/08/judge-in-wakefield-case-amy-clark-meachums-husband-lobbies-for-sponsor-of-alison-singer.html

ruled that the case did not lie within Texas jurisdiction, and this is currently being appealed. In Wisconsin Deer was still apparently insisting that he did not know Andy lived in Texas.

Crystal

i am confused... this was a deposition... in Wisconsin... why Wisconsin... what did i miss? somebody please 'splain to me what is going on? does this mean Andy's appeal was approved... i thought it was in TX? thanks in advance

Carol

So Smith went through Deer's article and checked Deer's footnotes in the GMC transcript, the transcript that Deer indexed and marked for her convenience. Of course, if facts are omitted, like the fact that Child 3 got sick immediately after vaccination with a bad batch of MMR, there won't be a footnote for Smith to check off.

How about things in the article that aren't footnoted? How did Smith check what the parents in the article are reported to have said? We know she didn't listen to Deer's tapes of his interview with Rosemary Kessick. And she didn't speak with Rosemary Kessick--or with any other parent, it seems.

But fact checkers are supposed to check quotations and conversations with sources. From _The Fact Checker's Bible_:

"There are three questions to consider for every quotation: Did the speaker say roughly what the author quotes him or her as saying? Is the quotation in the correct context? And are the facts within the quotation accurate? It's usually a good idea to talk to the speaker even if the quotation appears in notes or transcripts. In conversation, a checker will often get a more complete sense of the speaker's full intended meaning than the notes can convey."

What did Jane Smith do in this regard?

Carol

Smith, it seems, saw her job as going through Deer's footnotes to make sure that they lined up with his text. That's a different thing from getting to the truth of the matter.

In regard to checking Deer's assertions about what the parents told him and his characterizations of those conversations, Smith appears to have done nothing. She didn't ask for his tapes of his interview with Rosemary Kessick and is unaware if anyone at the BMJ asked for them. She didn't contact any of the parents to run Deer's assertions by them. Isn't that fact checking SOP?

She's not even sure that Andrew Wakefield testified at the GMC. She thinks she looked at some of Walker-Smith's testimony, but can't really remember. The BMJ did ask Walker-Smith for comments on Deer's allegations which he declined to provide because of his pending appeal (which he won). They didn't bother to ask Wakefield.

"How about Dr Wakefield, did you put the allegations that you were making about him?

A. No, we didn't.

Q. Regarding fraud?

A. No, we didn't.

Q. You had the opportunity to do that if you wanted to, correct?

A. We did.

Q. And you made a conscious decision not to?

A. Yes.

Q. And why is that?

A. Because we didn't think that -- many of these allegations have been put to him before and we didn't think we would get any useful information."

Mark Struthers

The BMJ is a disgrace! All UK doctors of integrity should cancel their BMA subscriptions. All people of integrity, doctors or otherwise, should cancel their BMJ print or online subscriptions. The evidence from "Miss" Jane Smith's deposition makes such action a no-brainer for such people.

Mark Struthers

More from the appalling ‘Godlee & Godwin’ dance fandango …

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/ex-c-bmj-smith-depo.pdf

Pages 51 - 53.

"Q. Now I understand there were people editing the articles who besides was responsible for fact checking the articles?

A. Fiona Godlee, our legal advisor.

Q. What is that person's name?

A. Can I consult with counsel about whether that is privileged?

Q. The name isn't. I am not going to ask you what they said?

A. Godwin Busuttil, B-U-S-U-T-T-I-L.

Q. Anyone else?

A. No.

Q. Just one more question about the Godlee declaration. Paragraph 21, it is on page 7? Yes. It says: "All three articles, however, were subjected to rigorous internal editorial review and fact checking processes.”Was the fact checking rigorous?

A. Yes.

Q. So if it is rigorous someone should have checked what Dr Wakefield said about these issues, correct?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Well, this was an article that you knew could do substantial damage to Dr Wakefield, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You are accusing Dr Wakefield of fraud, of doctoring records, of altering records?

A. This is articles two and three.

Q. It says all three articles?

A. Sorry, yes.

Q. "Were subjected to rigorous internal editorial review and fact checking."?

A. Yes.

Q. So back to the question. Let's talk about the first article, the one right in front of you. What Exhibit number is that?

MR BLANKE: 2.

MR PARRISH: Exhibit 2. You knew that in that article and, in fact, in the editorial that you signed on you were accusing Dr Wakefield of fraud, correct?

A. Yes.

MR PARRISH: In fact, you accused him of altering records, correct?

A. We accused him of altering the account of what happened to those children in the article.

MR PARRISH: You accused him of undisclosed alterations?

A. Yes, in the article.

MR PARRISH: And you accused him of intentional fraud, correct?

A. Yes.

MR PARRISH: So you knew that this was something very serious that was being alleged, don't you think if there was going to be rigorous fact checking you should have made some effort to find out what Dr Wakefield said about those issues?

A. Well, Mr Deer in general knows what Mr Wakefield says about those issues. We were satisfied from the checking that we did that everything Brian said in those articles stacked up.

MR PARRISH: Objection, non-responsive. Mr Deer, if you ever looked at his website you would see he has it out for Dr Wakefield and he has for years. I am not asking about Mr Deer, I am asking about you as an independent fact checker. This was the British Medical Journal --

A. Yes."
- - - - - - - - - - - -

It's so difficult not to be cynical about the ‘Godwin & Godlee’ performance. Godwin Busuttil and Fiona Godlee were responsible for fact checking the defamatory articles published in the BMJ. Busuttil apparently took 60 hours to fact check those articles (pages 98- 99). A cynic might think that an awful lot of money spent for not a lot of checking done. If I were still a BMA member or BMJ print or online subscriber ... I would feel cheated.

no-vac

VAERS reports 2278 cases of autism as iatrogenic effect of vaccinations, of which c. 65% were after MMR vaccines. Since only form 1% to 5% of adverse reactions are reported, that means that there were probably from about 45,000 to 227,000 cases of autism caused by vaccines. Most likely majority of autism cases are vaccine-induced, which means there are millions of them in the US. It is absolute disgrace for UWisc to invite a fraudster such as Deer and even not allow to debate him. This whole department, which invited him, is a fraud and should be investigated by the FBI.

Percent (of 2,278)

ANTHRAX VACCINE (ANTH) 1 0.04%
CHOLERA VACCINE (CHOL) 1 0.04%
COMVAX (HBHEPB) 37 1.62%
DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS TOXOIDS AND ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS VACCINE (DTAP) 357 15.67%
DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS TOXOIDS AND PERTUSSIS VACCINE (DTP) 138 6.06%
DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS TOXOIDS PERTUSSIS AND HAEMOPHILUS INFLUENZA B VACCINE (HEXAVAX) (DTPHIB) 58 2.55%
DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS TOXOIDS, PEDIATRIC (DT) 15 0.66%
DIPHTHERIA TOXOID (DTOX) 2 0.09%
Diphtheria/Pertussis/Polio (oral [live] or inactivated not noted) (DPP) 3 0.13%
Diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis/hepatitis B (DTPHEP) 1 0.04%
Diphtheria/Tetanus/whole pertussis-Inactivated Polio Virus-Haemophilus influenza b (Pentacoqr) (DTPIHI) 1 0.04%
DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS TOXOIDS AND ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS VACCINE + HEPATITIS B + INACTIVATED POLIOVIRUS VACCINE (DTAPHEPBIP) 17 0.75%
DIPHTHERIA AND TETANUS TOXOIDS AND ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS VACCINE + INACTIVATED POLIOVIRUS VACCINE + HAEMOPHILUS B CONJUGATE VACCINE (DTAPIPVHIB) 10 0.44%
DTP-IPV COMBINED DTP AND IPV VACCINE (DTPIPV) 16 0.70%
HAEMOPHILUS B CONJUGATE VACCINE (HIBV) 441 19.36%
HAEMOPHILUS B POLYSACCHARIDE VACCINE (HBPV) 8 0.35%
HEPATITIS A (HEPA) 23 1.01%
HEPATITIS A AND HEPATITIS B VACCINE (HEPAB) 1 0.04%
HEPATITIS B VACCINE (HEP) 338 14.84%
HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS (TYPES 6, 11, 16, 18) RECOMBINANT VACCINE (HPV4) 4 0.18%
INFLUENZA A (H1N1) 2009 MONOVALENT, INTRANASAL SPRAY (FLUN(H1N1)) 1 0.04%
INFLUENZA (SEASONAL) VIRUS VACCINE (FLU(SEASONAL)) 32 1.40%
MEASLES AND RUBELLA VACCINE (MER) 1 0.04%
MEASLES VACCINE (MEA) 5 0.22%
MEASLES, MUMPS AND RUBELLA VIRUS VACCINE, LIVE (MMR) 1,472 64.62%
MEASLES, MUMPS, RUBELLA, AND VARICELLA VACCINE (PROQUAD) (MMRV) 23 1.01%
MENINGOCOCCAL CONJUGATE VACCINE (MNC) 4 0.18%
MENINGOCOCCAL POLYSACCHARIDE VACCINE (MEN) 14 0.61%
MENINGOCOCCAL VACCINE (MENACTRA) (MNQ) 5 0.22%
MUMPS VIRUS VACCINE, LIVE (MU) 2 0.09%
PERTUSSIS, ADSORBED VACCINE (PER) 3 0.13%
PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINE, POLYVALENT (PPV) 13 0.57%
PNEUMOCOCCAL, 7-VALENT VACCINE (PREVNAR) (PNC) 170 7.46%
POLIOVIRUS VACCINE INACTIVATED (IPV) 179 7.86%
POLIOVIRUS VACCINE TRIVALENT, LIVE, ORAL (OPV) 159 6.98%
RABIES VIRUS VACCINE (RAB) 1 0.04%
Rotavirus Vaccine (ROTHB5) 4 0.18%
ROTAVIRUS VACCINE (ROTASHIELD) (RV) 7 0.31%
ROTAVIRUS VACCINE LIVE (ROT) 1 0.04%
ROTAVIRUS VACCINE (ROTH1) 1 0.04%
RUBELLA VACCINE (RUB) 2 0.09%
TETANUS AND DIPHTHERIA TOXOIDS AND ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS VACCINE (BOOSTRIX/ADACEL) (TDAP) 4 0.18%
TETANUS AND DIPHTHERIA TOXOIDS, ADULT (TD) 4 0.18%
TETANUS TOXOID (TTOX) 4 0.18%
TETRAMUNE (DTAPH) 14 0.61%
VARIVAX-VARICELLA VIRUS LIVE (VARCEL) 167 7.33%
UNKNOWN VACCINES (UNK) 30 1.32%
Total 3,794 166.55%

Carol

And then there is this astonishing reveal:

"Q [by Mr. Parrish] yes. This is the editorial that Dr Godlee, you and Dr Markovich wrote entitled 'Wakefield's article linking MMR Vaccine and autism was fraudulent'; is that right?

A [by Jane Smith]. Yes.

Q. And it says: 'Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare.' As part of this title, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So you and Dr Godlee and Dr Markovich were representing here that there was clear evidence of falsification of data, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So things like whether or not Child 12 had a diagnosis of autism or not?

A. When diagnosis of autism occurred in relation to MMR Vaccine, yes, things like that.

Q. Well, there is nothing -- you have read the Lancet article, haven't you?

A. I have, yes.

Q. And the Lancet article doesn't say anything about when the child was diagnosed with autism in connection with the giving of the MMR?

A. If I recollect rightly there is a table that gives that information.

....Q. You are saying -- are you saying that the -- you interpreted this on the basis of your presentation of the editorial and the article is your interpretation that the behavioral diagnosis of autism was made at the time column four reports interval from exposure to first behavioral symptom?

.... You have got the Lancet article in front of you, Exhibit Number 1?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the first column deals with the child identification number?

A. Yes.

Q. The second deals with the child's behavioral diagnosis overall?

A. Yes.

Q. The fourth column says: 'Interval from exposure to first behavioral symptom.'?

A. Yes.

Q. Is your claim in the editorial and otherwise based in part on your interpretation of this table, that the column for interval from exposure to first behavioral symptom was the time of the diagnosis of autism?

[At this point Ms. Smith takes a break to review the Lancet paper.]

MR PARRISH: Is your claim in the editorial and otherwise based in part on your interpretation of this table that the column for interval from exposure to first behavioral symptom was the time of the diagnosis of autism?

A. In part.

Q....Actually, before I do that tell me your basis for the interpretation that that column represents the date of diagnosis of autism?

A. It represent the first behavioral symptoms, because in the text --

Q. Wait a minute. I am asking you just to make sure you understand, not whether it represents first behavioral symptom, but if that is what you are claiming represents the date of diagnosis of autism, tell me the basis of that?

A. On page 638, the bottom of the first column, it talks the paragraph -- the bottom paragraph starts 'In eight children -- In these eight children later on the average interval from exposure to first behavioral symptoms was 6.3 days.'

Q. And that's the basis for your interpretation?

A. Yes.

Q. Anything else?

A. Nothing specific, the whole tenure [sic] of the paper."


This woman co-authored an editorial claiming the Lancet paper was fraudulent based in part on the flabbergasting premise that the phrase "interval from exposure to first behavioral symptom" is synonymous with "interval from exposure to autism diagnosis." Furthermore, she suggests that Godlee and Markovich thought the same thing.

Mark Struthers

"Miss" Jane Smith's deposition was truly fascinating theatre of the absurd. Ye Gods and little fishes! I particularly enjoyed watching the highly unimpressive Marcovitch & Smith show ... and imagining the farcical dance duet between Godwin & Godlee.

See page 98,

"Cross-examination by Mr Blanke

Q. Miss Smith, just a few questions. Dr Markovich spent how much time reviewing this?

A. He told me he spent about three to four hours on it.

Q. Okay. And there is this mention of swift review there, is three to four hours consistent with how much time he typically spends, or is it less time than he typically spends, or what?

A. He tells me it was actually rather longer than he would normally spend.

Q. And do you have any sense of what his normal period is?

A. About two hours.

Q. You also mentioned a fellow whose name I am sure to butcher Godwin Busuttil?

A. Yes.

Q. And he was a barrister or an attorney, is that right?

A. Correct."

Of course, Godwin is the big fish of the stars ...

http://www.5rb.com/member/fullprofile/godwin_busuttil

... while Fiona Godlee is the BMJ's great-flat-footed fish ...

http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/editorial-staff/fiona-godlee

Page 99 continues,

"Q. And did you determine how much time he [Godwin] devoted to reviewing the article or articles?

A. Yes, I did, he devoted rather a long time to it, about 60 hours.

Q. Sixty hours.

A. Yes.

Q. And is that broken out so you can determine how many hours were devoted to looking at the first article as opposed to the others?

A. I haven't got that information with me. It probably is possible to find it out.

Q. Okay. 60 hours in total over the three; is that right?

A. Yes."

Sixty hours!?!! Barristers to the stars charge sky high hourly fees. Did Godlee get value for money? Godwin only knows!

Jenny Allan

Carol posted BMJ 'fact checker' Jane Smith's responses to questioning about the BMJ 'facts according to St Deer'.
LOVE IT!!

Carol

The link takes us to "fact checker" Jane Smith's deposition only. I love this part:

Q [by Mr. Parrish]. That box contains what were the key allegations of fraud against Dr Wakefield, correct?

A [by Jane Smith]. Yes.

Q. And let's just take the first one, for example, in the box. It is the first bullet point. It says: 'In fact three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnoses at all.' Correct?

A. That is what it says.

Q. And that is a very serious allegation in connection with this paper, isn't it?

A. It is one of the allegation of the paper, yes.

Q. And it is a serious one?

A. Yes.

Q. And it is one that could easily be checked in the GMC record, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you knew that the GMC record had the medical records of the children that were being discussed?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr Deer has testified yesterday, and I am sure he made clear to you that he was talking about the three were Child 6, 7 and 12. I am sure you knew that at the time you were doing your fact check, did you not?

A. I am sure I did, yes.

Q. Look at what has been marked as Exhibit 44. I will represent to you that this is testimony from Day 7, page 18 of the transcript relating to Child 12.
(Exhibit 44 marked for identification)

A. Okay.

....Q. And you understand that GP notes refers to general practitioner notes?....That is quoting the general practitioner notes for Child 12 saying there was a diagnosis autism, correct?

A. The GP note says diagnosis autism, correct.

Q. Yet you printed in the British Medical Journal that that child had no diagnosis of autism at all. Did you fact check whether or not there was a diagnosis of autism?

....A. You know, one little piece on its own.

Q. But this is not a little piece. This is a significant piece. You put it in a box and highlighted it and it is the first bullet point of whether or not three of the nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnoses at all?

A. There are six points in that box.

Q. That is right, and this is the first one listed, isn't it?

A. Yes, but there are six points listed in that box.

Q. Mr Deer said that characterizing these three children -- that the representation that these three children had autism was fraud, is that part of the BMJ's characterization of the fraud in this case?

A. The fraud consists of all the discrepancies between what actually happened and what was said in the Lancet Paper.

Q. Is it fraud for Mr Deer to have said that three of the nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnoses at all if, in fact, there were diagnoses of autism for those children?

A. But we know there weren't.

Q. No, we don't know that. In fact, I have just shown you with respect to one of them that there was."

Mark Struthers

And I really dislike the pharma-whore, doctor or otherwise.

Mark Struthers

I loathe dishonesty, and I particularly despise the dodgy, dishonest doctor. John Stone quoted Dr Richard 'tricky-dickie' Smith, former editor-in-chief at the BMJ as saying,

"That MMR paper is the best example there has ever been of a very, very dodgy paper that has created a lot of discomfort and misery."

And the reality, Dr Dick? Who is the dodgy, despicable doctor?

Jane V

The poll is definetly bogus. I voted a number of times for family members in this house and so did others at this site. I started to see the votes for "yes" increase a tiny amount to around 270 about 10 hours ago. I thought when I checked back later the results for "yes" went backwards. The only one that seems to increase is the "No" vote (funny that). The "yes" vote hasn't moved at all despite us of us voting for all the family members in our houses for several hours. I think it is a bogus poll with a phony pre determined result. To make it look like it is genuine the authors have put a few token "yes" votes in with the clear winners to be the "NO" votes to serve their purpose. This whole news story and associated opinion poll is a typical example of a vaccine manufacturers "advertising" thinly disguised as a "balanced" news report. Polls are a favourite tool of media and politicians to "create" public opinion and interest in a story that can be milked for advertising revenue rather than reflect true public opinion and real change. The results of legitimate polls are most likely used by the vaccine companies to let them know how successful their propaganda campaigns for blind faith have been and where and on whom persuasion is still needed. Still all these biased news reports and polls can't suddenly turn our vaccine damaged children into healthy ones can they Brian? We are still out there and growing in numbers daily.

Jenny Allan

Benedetta says:-
"Jenny Allen -- I don't think you should put porno on this website. It is not nice."

Sorry!! I should have warned you that this interview with Brian Deer was 'gut wrenching' and, (as Angus Files points out), it is liable to make you puke!!

Thanks for your comments about that false 'poll' allowing anyone to 'vote' any number of times. This, of course makes it completely worthless as a measure of public opinion.

John Stone

It is also worth mentioning that when Deer first turned on Wakefield in February 2004 the final "soundbite" in his article went to the then BMJ editor:

"Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, said, however: "That MMR paper is the best example there has ever been of a very, very dodgy paper that has created a lot of discomfort and misery.""

The journal already had an agenda and they were already dealing in prejudice.

Aussie Dad

The laziness of the British Medical Journal is astounding. They simply relied on Brian Deer.

The opinions of a generation of doctors, scientists, the mainstream media and the masses have been informed by unjustified conclusions based on Deer's lies because these fools simply did not fact check.

Benedetta

Yeap:
All I have to do is sign off on the internet and back on and I can vote again.

Benedetta

Well, I was able to vote three times.
I starte late though -- and on vote number four I could not vote anymore.

I wonder if I turn off my computer and than back on ---
But the poll can't be a true one if you can vote more than once.

Maybe they assuem we have four people living in the house-- which we do --- maybe I will turn it off and back on and vote again. .

Benedetta

It seems strange - something is not right on that poll.
It is over whelming voted that they are not concerned about vaccine safty and then why are they even bothering to read this article????

Something is not right, I was allowed to vote twice by the way?????

Benedetta

The world has to come to an end soon!
When you have people getting up in front of cameras and lying and as they do it - cock their head to one side and say and "brain injuries" ---- not enough they died with measles--- lets get down to the real fear of folks - an have them have brain injuries from measles too --- because really in truly is that not more frightening than death????

I use to think so, but no - I am glad I have mine - although I do wish them whole. But it is weird - vaccines cause brian injuries so Brian Deer says measles does it?

Jenny Allen -- I don't think you should put porno on this website. It is not nice.

Angus Files

Only time I have puked looking at AOA!!pass the bucket!!

Jenny Allan

http://www.wxow.com/story/19739599/british-journalist-comes-to-uw-l
Short interview with Brian Deer. More lies. This time claiming measles outbreaks and deaths in the UK due to parents' not vaccinating their children in the wake of the Wakefield scare.

WRONG!! Only 2 official child deaths recorded from measles post MMR vaccine intro. Both children had severe co-morbidities which precluded vaccination. There are 4 official UK child deaths recorded over the same period from MMR vaccine. In view of the fact that deaths from vaccines are almost impossible to prove in the UK, this will be a vastly under reported statistic.

Parents were already distrustful of the MMR vaccine, years before the 1998 Wakefield et al Lancet article, after several cases of autism were publicised in the newspapers. There was another dip in MMR vaccine uptake, after erstwhile Prime Minister Tony Blair refused to tell us whether or not his son Leo had been administered MMR or single dose vaccines.

nhokkanen

How sad to see university faculty degenerate into a courtesan role, bringing Deer's sideshow to disinterested students and discouraging research into bowel disease.

Buying legitimacy for a Murdoch trickster while cementing pharma connections puts academics on shaky ethical ground -- by disregarding voluminous evidence of vaccine problems, they've admitted they are willing to sacrifice the subset of children and adults vulnerable to vaccine injuries.

Attractive lies are still lies. In the movie "Shattered Glass," based on a New Republic writer who fabricated article material, a character observed that the whole problem could have been prevented if someone had only taken photographs. The trouble with the LaCrosse faculty is they have shown a remarkable unwillingness to look at all beyond the convenient answers they are leveraging.

Benedetta

Jenny
Of course they are not concern about saftey.
There is a news black out on it!
What is more:
Most vaccines injuries are so slow and subtle no one knows but a few that actually was leaning over the crib when it happened in less than 15 minutes.

After it happens it only takes 20 years to go soooo, to say one day in a light bulb moment 000hhhh that is right ---- I did have some signs of a thyroid problem after that tetanus shot. Ohhhhh that is right - Kawasakis may have taken 8 weeks but she sure was sickly during that time -- right after that shot.

It also doesn't help that you have doctors hiding, won't release medical records and stalling.

So the American population goes blissfully along cliameing everyone has a genetic problem.

This week my sister-in-law with two twins with autism, one with bipolar and one that is NT --- and has their beloved grandson --- is now 18 months old and has yet to say a word.

I told them since they could not figure it out.
It is the state of Mississippi - what --- what rights do they have???
After they clean out Miss, perhaps South America, Central America, and Canada can repopulate the area.

Jenny Allan

This article has a poll:-
"Do you worry about the safety of vaccines?" Yes or No

At the moment the Nos are winning.
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/finding-vaccine-truth-crowds-hear-two-takes-on-dismissed-study/article_4f1d528a-0e9c-11e2-b597-0019bb2963f4.html%3Fcomment_form=true

"Finding vaccine truth: Crowds hear two takes on dismissed study"

Tim Kasemodel is asking for comments. It's a war out there!!

Tim Kasemodel

http://www.news8000.com/news/Vaccine-Autism-debate-reaches-La-Crosse/-/326/16864476/-/etrym0z/-/index.html

Vaccine-Autism debate reaches La Crosse

TV COVERAGE of press conference

please comment

John Stone

One of the things you have to consider here is the great efforts to persuade BMJ of the dangers of feeding from Deer's hand prior to the articles of January 2011. Of course, there were several damning issues - Deer's unethical use of confidential records, the lack of frankness over failing to identify himself as GMC's complainant against Drs Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch, the fact that on his own evidence he was engaged on a fishing expedition,

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/the-british-medical-journal-shows-misjudgement-bias-in-further-attack-on-andrew-wakefield.html

but most serious in this context was the letter of Susan E Davies (the junior histopathologist in the Lancet paper) dismissing Deer's interpretation of her evidence (with no obvious professional benefit to herself).

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/caution-assessing-histopathological-opinions

This was compounded throughout 2011 by BMJ's poor handling of criticism: the failure to allow room to detailed criticisms of Deer's readings and methods, or require him to answer them in BMJ's own columns: indeed in her Bethesda presentation Godlee referred angelically to the fact that Deer had answered criticisms at different places on the web. But the basic message was never the academic one of having a free and open discussion of the evidence, but the legal one of sue if you don't like it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/9167415

Despite the recent characteristic whimsy of former BMJ editor Richard Smith, the reality is of an international journal with pharmaceutical money in its veins flexing its superior financial muscle.

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2012/09/19/richard-smith-is-the-bmj-too-sensitive-about-libel/

The proposition that BMJ is a sensitive plant is just about as plausible as the pathetic refrain that pharmaceutical companies don't make any money from vaccines, let alone Godlee's barely credible statements along the way that she didn't know BMJ partners Merck and GSK were manufacturers of MMR, ot that Andrew Wakefield lived in Texas.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/09/jake-crosby-challenges-bmj-editor-in-chief-fiona-godlee.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/04/bmjs-godlee-swears-she-did-not-know-wakefield-lived-in-texas-in-face-of-documentary-evidence.html

patricia

That deposition was stunning. We, the lay public and medics alike, needed to read in very clear and concise terminology exactly what that BMJ fact checker did or did not check. And it is all there. Deer's tantrums if he didn't get his own way, plus the dawning realisation as one reads every page that the whole BMJ article was driven by him and that Godlee and others all gave in to that, no "awkward questions" asked or checked, for example what Wakefield himself had to say. Nobody was interested in his own words. It still speaks that way. Illuminating is an understatement. Thankyou for putting it up for us.

lisa

Wow! I read the deposition. I am blown away! It is so obvious from reading it that the BMJ had an agenda and made no effort whatsoever to ensure that Deer's article was factually correct. Basic, and I mean VERY BASIC, fact-checking was not done. This is truly pathetic. I am so glad he found a firm to represent him. He simply has to fight back, for everybody's sake.

Tim Kasemodel

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/finding-vaccine-truth-crowds-hear-two-takes-on-dismissed-study/article_4f1d528a-0e9c-11e2-b597-0019bb2963f4.html%3Fcomment_form=true

Finding vaccine truth: Crowds hear two takes on dismissed study


please comment

Tim Kasemodel


“The vindication of Andy's co-author, John Walker-Smith, puts Deer in an even more problematic position,…”

Attending Deer’s lecture last night was a test of monumental proportions on my intestinal fortitude. But the Q&A portion made it all worth while. When he was asked to explain what Justice Mitting’s ruling on John Walker-Smith means to his argument, he said “Well, yes, that is a BIT OF A WRINKLE……”

The lecture, student attendance being a requirement of many academic courses, was well attended. My overall impression was that they not there for any other reason, as shown by the fact that the halls emptied by two thirds as soon as Deer finished, leaving before the Q&A. I actually believe that Deer’s arrogance and self congratulatory BS showed though loud and clear and may have worked against him in an audience of young adults with modest Midwest values. The most glaring example is how Deer continually pointed to parents as stupid, gullible and greedy, lying about their kid’s serious maladies just for money, not worth of their trust. I imagine many of them were thinking that Deer could be just as well talking so dismissively about their own parents.

I would bet more than half of the 13 Q&A questions asked of Deer from note cards turned in were from Andy Supporters. Many of them were answered with evasion, saying he did not understand the question, (especially the one about how he got them medical records) and at one point Deer complained about the process where the note cards on led to what he implied, hypocritically, were biased questions.

The Press conference was awesome, having been nice enough to set up out in the lawn of the park. It was well attended by strong advocates and interested opposition alike considering the short notice. Unlike Deer, Andy answered all questions posed directly, articulately and accurately without the evasive behavior employed by Deer in his Q&A.

Thank you Andy, and I especially want to thank Meadow and Dan for arranging the location and being the local family willing to be on the TV news in support of Andy!

Zed

Awesome progress in this deposition. Keep 'em coming, Please.

Eugene Nicks

bye bye Brian .....wasnt nice knowing you .

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)