Dachel Wake Up: Columbia Autism Scientists in Butt Ugly Lawsuit
Vaxxed At Cannes

More Fantasies and Falsehoods from Brian Deer

Deer Black and WhiteBy John Stone

A comment posted by Brian Deer earlier this month on the Orac blog about the 2012 appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith – Andrew Wakefield’s senior colleague - against the GMC findings two years earlier has been forwarded to me and can be read beneath my comments.

The most fundamental flaw in the General Medical Council  (GMC) case – thrown out in the instance of Prof Walker-Smith who unlike Wakefield received funding to appeal – originated with the incompetence or malice of Deer himself. It was the claim that the Wakefield Lancet 1998 paper rather than being an early report of cases seen and investigated of the basis of clinical need as it stated, was conducted under a protocol for a study to be funded by the United Kingdom Legal Aid Board (sometimes referred to as Project 172-96). Once the GMC accepted this false and absurd claim – which originated in Deer’s hidden complaints to the body - it was destined to unravel under any careful judicial scrutiny, and what was untrue for Walker-Smith was also untrue Wakefield, not to mention the Prof Simon Murch, the third doctor to fall under this GMC prosecution. The crux lies with Mr Justice Mitting’s observation:

Its conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to the Lancet children was in part founded upon its conclusion that the investigations into them were carried out pursuant to Project 172-96. The only explanation given for that conclusion is that it was reached “in the light of all the available evidence”. On any view, that was an inadequate explanation of the finding.

At the Walker-Smith hearing the GMC counsel, Joanna Glynn QC, came under pressure from the judge to provide an explanation, and she was unable to do so. After two and half years of the hearing the GMC were unable to offer an explanation, and two years further on they were unable to do so again before a High Court judge. The GMC would have had ample warning of the substance of the Walker-Smith appeal and yet they could not, when the chips were down, provide arguments to counter it.

Equally, having failed the challenge of providing the missing arguments they were scarcely in a position to challenge Mitting’s ruling.  Deer enters into absolute fantasy when he states:

The panel could have reconvened after the judge’s ruling, supplied its reasoning in more lengthy statements, and struck Walker-Smith off again.

Well, obviously it could not, firstly because  there was no reasoning and they had already failed to provide any when given the chance, but also because even by the GMC’s peculiar legal standards that would stand outside any normal process of law: its findings had already been quashed.

Deer waffles obscurely about legal precedents but at the centre of the collapse of the case is the absence of evidence, because either inadvertently or deliberately he had made the whole thing up and the GMC swallowed his nonsense hook, line and sinker.

The reality is that the whole British establishment knew the prosecution was mistaken and ill-founded, and in the end they were forced into covering up their own errors, in an increasingly unconvincing manner – not least the obscene manoeuvrings of the British Medical Jounal.

Brian Deer

May 5, 2017

@ Julian, # 204

The subtlety is that Walker-Smith was a clinician, so he could at least argue that clinical care was his primary motivation. In fact, it wasn’t. There are masses of documents, including his autobiography, and formal statements issued through the Lancet in response to my first reports, making is crystal clear that they were conducting clinical research.

However, the way the GMC operates, the doctors were able to change their story after the GMC prepared its case, and now the clinicians argued that the research project was never carried out. Walker-Smith then proceeded to retrospectively diagnose clinical indications for colonoscopy, even for kids he’d never seen before they were scoped. That’s why the hearing went on for so long, when it was originally scheduled for 16 weeks.

The GMC panel’s central failing (as the judge makes clear) was to fail to set out in their findings a clear train of reasoning by which they came to their conclusions. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t have reasoning, just that they failed to set it out, merely giving one-line decisions as the GMC had done for many years. There was a court of appeal ruling on precisely this point in between the time the GMC reached its conclusions and when it issued its strike-off sanctions.

There were a few factual things that Mitting disagreed with, some of which could have been appealed. For example, he concluded that, since the panel said that “consecutive” had a certain meaning for the “ordinary reader”, he, the judge was an “ordinary reader” and he read it differently. The GMC could easily have appealed on the basis that it had plainly meant the ordinary reader of The Lancet: which would be a doctor or scientist, not the ordinary “man in the street” that Mitting meant.

The panel could have reconvened after the judge’s ruling, supplied its reasoning in more lengthy statements, and struck Walker-Smith off again. However, he was 73 by this time, and there would be real issues concerning risk to his health by continuing to pursue him. The judge commended them for this decision.

None of this is true for Wakefield – a laboratory researcher with no rights to clinical practice – whose own legal team recommended that he not be supported in an appeal. Since he wasn’t a clinician, he had no analogous defences to Walker-Smith, and there were four charges of dishonesty found proven against him, and none against Walker-Smith. There was also him buying blood from children at a birthday party, and ordering tests on children when he was not authorised or qualified to do so.

The irony of Mitting’s judgment is that he fell into the same trap as the GMC. The material is so extensive and technical that he failed to set out the background to his own decisions, and rulings handed down from the court of appeal about the GMC’s approach to charges. By failing to cite any precedents whatsoever (which is very unusual in court judgments), he cut corners in such a way that non-lawyers would find it hard to understand quite what he was talking about: especially with regard to the reasoning issue. He would have done well to look at the work of more senior judges who have looked at such issues, and cited their precedents, so people could follow the thread.

Nevertheless, I’m a professional journalist, and am professionally obliged to respect courts (which have always been very good to me, never criticising me or my work in any way whatsoever). In this case, my respect includes certain knowledge (including with an opinion from leading counsel) that the Mitting judgment has no application to Wakefield, who would never be allowed his license back, no matter what. His striking off is final, irrevocable, and his conduct at the time and subsequently means the chances of him ever being readmitted to the register is less than zero.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

Comments

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

John Stone

Hi Isabella

Obviously, there were more important people involved in this than Brian Deer, shabby muck-raking journalist though he is. One person was Dr Evan Harris, who was both an MP (member of the Science and Technology Committee and a member of the British Medical Association ethics committee). This did not make it legal. Harris wrote a supporting editorial for Deer in the Sunday Times and later made allegations under privilege in a House of Commons debate he led. He also duetted making misleading allegations against Andrew Wakefield with Crispin Davis at the S&T Committee. (Crispin Davis was proprieter of Lancet, but he failed to disclose his own conflicts, being a director of GSK and brother of the judge who had just pulled the plug on the MMR litigation - I imagine Harris knew all this as well but did not say anything). Also in the role-call of dishonour were the then editor of the British Medical Journal, Richard Smith, who produced a gratuitous and insinuating sound-bite for the end of Deer's article, the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, and the Prime Minister Tony Blair who made further reinforcing and insinuating comments to the media the day after publication.

If the law on medical confidentiality was smashed, the orders to do so perhaps came from the highest level.

Maybe one day Deer will just be seen as fall-guy.

Isabella Thomas

Brian Deer has information on my children and others in the Lancet study. Professor Simon Murch stated at the GMC hearing his worries about this.


https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26719415/Daily/Day_114.pdf
n
GMC hearing re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Day 114 page 7 is where Professor Simon Murch is also worried about Brian Deer having confidential information on my boys.

A It was profoundly disturbing. I had feelings of anger about the unfairness, feelings of
great concern that the lengthy documents with which I was trying to deal showed very clear
evidence, to my eye, that the Data Protection Act must have been broken, that in order to
effectively break the code of an anonymised table, sufficient to identify patients and then to
provide dates of investigations, that went beyond the level of knowledge that a journalist
might reasonably have. I felt just jangled by the whole business. I did feel rather taken aback
when asked by Professor Hodgson to take this on. I actually said to Mike Thompson at the
time, “That is a bit of a hospital pass”, which is rugby term, and he rather agreed. So I did
feel under great pressure and I did not quite know how to deal with such a lengthy document.
Was one to go through it point by point? So I was in some difficulty in getting my emotions
under control, my head straight to draft a reasonable reply, and it clearly is the type of letter
you would really want a few days just to sit down, sort things out, and ideally in the end
extract concise points and give a brief response. I was rather overwhelmed by the
responsibility.
This is Simon Murch's account to the GMC hearing (Day 114, pp4-7) of how he had to identify the children in the 1998 Lancet paper Brian Deer was presenting as part of his evidence to Dr Horton of The Lancet. This was 19 February 2004. Brian Deer published his first article in the Sunday Times on 22 Feb. This is Simon's account of how he and his colleagues had to work back from anonymised test results to Brian Deer's data on the Lancet 12 (minus the US child). WE CAN THEREFORE ASSUME THAT BRIAN DEER HAD DATA IDENTIFYING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ON THE CHILDREN, ie he had broken the "code of an anonymised table, sufficient to identify patients and then to provide dates of investigations" This is a breach of the Data Protection Act. Later Brian Deer would go onto post on his website the names of the children, including surnames of 5 children which included my sons.


John Stone

Hi David

Obviously Deer ducks a number of points. With regard to Paul Nuki, according to Deer's own testimony he approached Deer saying he needed something "big" on "MMR". Indeed, it was a fishing expedition. Deer also stated that he started with "an empty notebook" So, why? Perhaps, it was nothing to do with Nuki senior who sat on the body that licensed GSK's Pluserix, but anyhow Nuki junior went on to direct the UK National Health Service's main website "NHS Choices". Nuki was in there at the Lancet office for the ambush of doctors along with Evan Harris whose father was also a CSM veteran, and member of the critical ARVI (adverse vaccine reactions) sub-committee. Another member of ARVI was Prof Denis McDevitt, who was appointed to chair the panel at the Wakefield hearing but recused himself after press enquiries. He was replaced by Surendra Kumar who it turned out sat on the CSM in 1996-9, at the time (2007) sat on two licensing authority sub-committees (the CSM having been disbanded) and owned shares in GSK. Kumar's conflicts did not come to light till after the hearing started. So nothing to see here folks - move along please!

The statement:

"All of his co-authors - including Walker-Smith - who have made statements, have denied access to the full results, or to have written the text of the paper."

is itself obviously false or disreputably misleading. All 13 had to agree the text although 10 distanced themselves from the interpretation that MMR was implicated under pressure from the Lancet in 2004, but as to reporting of data none of them to date has said that there was mis-reporting. As Deer well knows the two histopathologists Amar Dhillon and Susan Davies directly denied and disproved his claims in BMJ Rapid Responses. The defence of Profs Walker-Smith and Murch hung on the reporting in the paper being correct, and it was not and could not be a defence in Walker-Smith's appeal that he somehow did not know what was going on - it was his job to know what was going on. As usual with Deer it is hot air. Above all it was Deer who made up the central allegation of the GMC, and Mr Justice Mitting comprehensively unpicked it. It's rubbish, it's a lie.

Obviously also the man habitually conducts himself in abusive and unprofessional way.

As to Deer's claim not to be connected with the pharmaceutical industry:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/11/brian-deer-lords-it-at-a-pharmaceutical-conference-in-france.html

David Foster

Ladies and Gentlemen behold the professionalism of Brian Deer. He called me a "dickhead", I wear that as a badge of honor.


http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/andrew-wakefield-dishonest-attempt-self-justification/#comment-2685244864

Hi Brian.

I've tried this numerous times before and you have never answered directly, but let me try again.

Were you or were you not the person who submitted the initial complaint to the GMC against Dr. Wakefield? Answer carefully...

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer1st_complaint1.pdf

Who payed you to write about this? Were you supported by Medico-Legal Investigations, a company owned and controlled by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, whose purpose it is to getting medical doctors prosecuted by the General Medical Council?

Is the following true?

“Deer was hired to investigate Wakefield by Sunday Times editor Paul Nuki, who is son of Prof George Nuki, who was on the Commitee on Safety of Medicines when MMR and Pluserix were introduced.”

How did you obtain medical records of the 12 Lancet children (this would seem to be illegal), and why have the parents of these children (you know, the children you are supposedly the "defender" of) repeatedly complained about your writings and about your personal conduct with them, including misrepresenting your identity?

How could Wakefield, or other Royal Free doctors for that matter, have altered the medical records of these children when the Royal Free did not even have access to these records? And again, how could you compare these records with data from the study if you yourself did not have access to their records (again, this would be illegal)?

Answer carefully.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html

Dave Foster


https://disqus.com/home/discussion/skepticalraptorblog/andrew_wakefield_dishonest_attempt_at_self_justification/newest/#comment-2685832636

Brian Deer • 11 days ago

Great. Here we go again. I was paid for my journalism by The Sunday Times, Channel 4 and the BMJ. I was not supported by "Medico Legal Investigations", which is not "owned and controlled by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry". In fact, I interviewed a doctor, who was a specialist in medical ethics, who was associated with Medico Legal Investigations. Believe it or not, journalists do interview people. "MLI" as it called itself, had nothing to do with the GMC proceedings, and contributed nothing to me or to my investigation. So, a journalist interviewing somebody, is turned into a filthy smear by people like Foster. Just a filthy smear.

I have no connections with the drug industry, apart from having investigated a number of them, to their discomfort. But such is the desperation of Wakefield to try to explain away how he came to destroy his own career, he fabricates allegations against me - the latest of which is the filthy, filthy, smear that I have some kind of deal with Merck - a company I have had no contact with in 30 years, apart from a call to a press officer a decade or more ago.

I believe that Paul Nuki's father was a rheumatologist, who I learnt many years later, was indeed a member of the CSM. The point of this being what? Evidently this man Foster thinks that somehow, he was so contrite or anxious that he contacted his son to get his son to write about MMR to, what? uhm, make things better or, what, you dickhead, Foster. What? Or are you saying, even back then, the guy knew Wakefield was a crook, and tipped off his son at a newspaper? What?

And Wakefield altering the records. Yup. Proven beyond question. But let's make this clear. He didn't take the records out of the files, rub things out and put new things in. He fabricated during translation into the 1998 Lancet paper, behind the veil of anonymisation. All of his co-authors - including Walker-Smith - who have made statements, have denied access to the full results, or to have written the text of the paper.

It was once a claim of Wakefield's that he didn't have the records which I later relied on. Pure deception. All of the critical information which he changed, misreported and misrepresented, was in his hands when he did it. Nevertheless, such is his modus operandi that he can rely on creeps and cranksites to bat his falsehoods back and forth until the people he lives off believe it.

Next, I read the children's medical records pursuant to a court order, obtained against Wakefield. The particular parents who have complained against me are, by and large, those who fabricated claims of vaccine damage, or who were misled by individuals who I've named elsewhere into thinking that I had something to do with their failed legal claims. Those individuals wish me ill, and they don't tell the truth.

Bill Smith

Brian Deer does an incredible service. All any person who wants to know what is going on and what happened has to do, is get to know Brian and his writings and they will see what a bunch of lies and coverups perpetrated against the doctors at the Royal Free can do. Thankyou Brian for being an amateur and pointing directly to the people you sold out to. Thanks to you, any bloke on the street can see what happened and why. And they are.

Jeannette Bishop

More from The Hollywood Reporter:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-vaxxed-distributor-inks-production-pact-chinas-datang-1005923

Jeannette Bishop

Not a lot of fantasy here...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/controversial-anti-vaccine-doc-vaxxed-gets-secret-cannes-screening-1006018

GH

A couple of weeks ago a friend posted a link to the recent vaxxed / unvaxxed study on facebook, and got a series of comments of a kind that will be familiar to readers of AoA including the 'Wakefield is a fraud' line. I rarely write much on facebook but nonetheless posted a series of links to science on the subject, and then a link to the full GMC verdict, which appears only to exist now on Brian Deer's website, and the appeal transcript.

When I checked back the next morning (I was in the US and my friend in South Africa so it was a slow burning discussion) I found that all of my posts had been deleted except for the link to Brian Deer. As I rewrote everything I found that my posts were deleted within minutes, and continued to be deleted as quickly as I could repost them. I tried again in the afternoon, and the following day, with the same outcome.

A few days ago the BBC wrote:
'Mr Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register after fraudulently claiming there was a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) and autism and bowel disease in children.'

The level of censorship is now truly staggering.

Carol

When Dr. David Lewis's attorneys confronted Deer about re-posting on his website a withdrawn biosludge-industry paper smearing Dr. Lewis, Deer replied that if the attorneys "looked carefully" they would see that the "f" in "pdf" had been omitted, thus the file couldn't be read and it had probably been that way for a long time, maybe forever. Unknown to the boy reporter, Dr. Lewis's attorneys had been archiving Deer's website for quite some time and could see that someone had recently removed the "f." Hm. Who could've done that?

What more do you need to know about Brian Deer?

Christina Waldman

When the law says "ordinary reader," surely it means "ordinary reader," not "ordinary reader of the Lancet."

Deer's smug satisfaction in the wreckage he has wreaked, and his continuing efforts to present the facts re Wakefield in the light most unfavorable to Dr. Wakefield (as with the birthday party) bespeak volumes. High journalistic standards are concerned with presenting the truth, which means both sides of an issue. To meet those high standard requires an objectivity which requires humility.

Jake Crosby

He dumped that pile of bullshit after I engaged him earlier on the same thread. He just doesn't stop lying, that's why I called him "Lyin' Smear."

angusfiles

Have had the bad experience of meeting him a couple of times..

I remember Martin Walker did an apt piece on BD at the hearings ...Brians psycho-rants replied to.

BD rants...
Your article begins:
With the collapse of the anti-MMR vaccine crusade in the UK, leaving its champion
Andrew Wakefield facing charges of serious professional misconduct before the
General Medical Council, there's not much left, apart from continuing public fear
and a rump of embittered individuals.


An anti-MMR vaccine crusade in England is a fiction; there has never been an antiMMR
vaccine crusade in the UK. There has been a pro-MMR campaign hard fought
by the NHS, the government and the vaccine manufacturers. Those parents and
doctors who have criticised MMR and campaigned in support of Dr Andrew
Wakefield have done so on the basis of both scientific research and parental
experience. Their case, at it's simplest, has been that the combined MMR vaccination
has produced serious adverse reactions in a relatively small sub-group of children
who were evidently vulnerable to some aspect of the vaccine.
This sub-group – whose sickness was described by parents and confirmed by
evaluation of histological samples and clinical assessments by a number of doctors,
mainly at the Royal Free Hospital - suffered in varying degrees from inflammatory
bowel disease and 'regressive' autism. Many of the parents of affected children linked
the onset of these conditions with the receipt of their child's MMR vaccination.8
If there are 'embittered' individuals - and I have never met any - they would be parents who had suffered the physical and emotional stress of caring for vaccine damaged
children without a modicum of help from the NHS, the government, the majority of
GPs and most consultants. However, these individuals could never be called a 'rump',
they are part of the considerable campaign that has grown up in Britain and North
America attempting to highlight vaccine damage.

http://www.dmi.unipg.it/mamone/sci-dem/nuocontri_1/walker_deer.pdf

Pharma for Prison

MMR RIP

Jenny Allan

My autistic grandson was a patient at the Royal Free 1998-2002. The Consultant in charge was Professor Walker-Smith for the first 2 years. My Grandson was NOT one of the Lancet 12, but was part of a wider group of around 50 children treated for bowel problems.

The following was the standard consent form for parents of children who had already been referred to the 'university department of paediatric gastroenterology' at the Royal Free for colonoscopies or endoscopies. My Grandson's parents were happy to sign to allow the Clinicians to take 2 extra biopsies for research purposes.

The form was a standard form, issued 'To parents' This is what it says:-

'Your child has been referred for diagnostic colonoscopy and/or endoscopy. Several small pieces of tissue (biopsies) are taken during the procedure for diagnostic purposes. Clinic inflammatory bowel diseases are still little understood and their cause is unknown. It is therefore of great value for laboratory research to have such biopsies available to study how inflammation in the bowel develops and is influenced by treatment. Your permission is asked to agree for two extra biopsies to be taken for these purposes.

Whether or not you agree to this will in no way influence your assessment or treatment.
(My daughter agreed to this and signed the form; the date was 14-03-99, AFTER the Lancet article. )

The form is headed with the names:- Professor Walker-Smith (Head of Dept), Dr Simon Murch and Dr Alan Phillips (Sen Lecturers) and Dr Mike Thomson (consultant)

Dr Wakefield's name DOES NOT APPEAR on this form.

I think this form exonerates Professor Walker-Smith from any suggestion that children were recruited purely to feed research and subjected to unnecessary tests and procedures. My Grandson is STILL receiving treatment for his bowel disorder and he is still autistic. Neither Brian Deer nor the GMC have had access to any of my Grandson's notes, but Deer DID obtain copies of the above consent form, issued to the Lancet 12 children.

John Stone

One of the things that Deer won't understand is very often if people are ill they get referred to hospital (usual procedure through the GP in the UK) and undergo investigations, not infrequently invasive. Not even the greatest expert proposes to diagnose before having the results of blood tests, biopsies etc.: it is routine for such things to happen. Obviously, if you are dealing with mentally, physically impaired young children you have to be even more careful, but obviously no one was more careful than JW-S. It also does not mean that they are part of a scientific project.

Jenny Allan

Just to remind everyone of Lord Justice Mitting's ACTUAL conclusions and the reasoning behind them, following the successful High Court appeal by Professor John Walker Smith, against the GMC verdicts and removal of his license to practise medicine.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html
Conclusion
1. For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.

Miss Glynn submits that the materials which I have been invited to consider would support many of the panel’s critical findings; and that I can safely infer that, without saying so, it preferred the evidence of the GMC’s experts, principally Professor Booth, to that given by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch and by Dr. Miller and Dr. Thomas. Even if it were permissible to perform such an exercise, which I doubt, it would not permit me to rescue the panel’s findings. As I have explained, the medical records provide an equivocal answer to most of the questions which the panel had to decide.

The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously. The GMC’s approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary – an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel’s determination flowed. It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination.

2. The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.

John Stone

Hi Bob,

No the situation is described in the fine article by Melanie Philllips "A Deer in the Headlights" which is actually one of the embedded links above:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120306180541/http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3362116/a-deer-in-the-headlights.thtml">http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3362116/a-deer-in-the-headlights.thtml">http://web.archive.org/web/20120306180541/http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3362116/a-deer-in-the-headlights.thtml

Deer, of course, lurked at the hearing and I recall one receptionist in my earshot instructing another that "Mr Deer does not sign the visitor's book". Martin J Walker also described an eye-balling incident with Simon Murch. But he was never called as a witness. I remember once when there was reference to him at the hearing the chair archly asked for some clarification of who he was (this would have been during Richard Horton's evidence).

Basically - unknown to the public - Deer made a succession of secret formal complaints the GMC while continuing to report on the story, and for their mutual convenience the GMC agreed not to name him as party to the action, though he certainly had interest in it. A tale, perhaps, of everyday corruption.

John

Bob Moffit

@ John

Deer:

"Nevertheless, I’m a professional journalist, and am professionally obliged to respect courts ...."

Was Deer called as a witness in the General Medical Council case? If so .. is there a transcript of his "sworn testimony"? If not called .. why not?

Bill

I went to Brian Deer's website, read extensively, and am no more clear on his many statements than I was before. It's clear to me that Brian Deer is serving to obfuscate, confuse, distract, etc.,.... He reminds me of a British version of a cross between Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones....

Jenny Allan

This is not the first time Deer has dared to criticise the judgement of Lord Justice Mitting in the Walker-Smith v the GMC High Court appeal, though the pharma friendly columns of Orac and LB/RB.
Quote from above:-
"By failing to cite any precedents whatsoever (which is very unusual in court judgments), he cut corners in such a way that non-lawyers would find it hard to understand quite what he was talking about: especially with regard to the reasoning issue. He would have done well to look at the work of more senior judges who have looked at such issues, and cited their precedents."

Lord Justice Mitting is a very senior and experienced judge. As for properly convened Court of Law 'precedents', there aren't any, since the GMC is NOT a UK Court of Law. Apart from the complete exoneration of Professor Walker-Smith, one other good result from this appeal was the GMC has been forced to abandon those ridiculous 'court' medical misconduct hearings, in favour of more informal tribunal style hearings.

Brian Deer's above comments would be unacceptable in a UK news outlet. Deer is a complete fool to denigrate the judgement of a UK High Court Judge. His comments almost amount to 'contempt of court'.

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.)