AGE OF AUTISM

Open Letter to Sunday Times Editor John Witherow: ‘We wouldn’t do fishing’

By John Stone

Yesterday the editor of The Times of London, James Harding, was forced to issue an apology over evidence he gave to the Leveson Inquiry into media standards in the UK, to a High Court judge, Mr Justice Eady (whose name will be known to regular AoA readers) and to a Mr Richard Horton (a policeman, not to be confused with editor the Lancet). Age of Autism now requests that the editor of The Times’s sister Murdoch newspaper, John Witherow, answer equally pertinent questions about his evidence.

Dear Mr Witherow,

Following the admission of your colleague James Harding that he had given erroneous evidence to the Leveson Inquiry I am writing regarding your statement in your oral evidence to Lord Leveson on 17 January 2012 that ‘We wouldn’t do fishing’. This statement would appear to be contradicted by the Sunday Times hired journalist, Mr Brian Deer, concerning the inception of his investigation of Andrew Wakefield. Deer stated in an article in British Medical Journal :

'For me the story started with a lunch. So many do. “I need something big,” said a Sunday Times section editor. “About what?” I replied. Him: “MMR?”'

The editor in question, Paul Nuki, was apparently the son of Prof George Nuki who sat on the Committee on Safety in Medicines in 1987  when a known-to-be defective version of the MMR vaccine, Pluserix, was being considered for license  . Pluserix was not withdrawn till 1992. The younger Nuki subsequently went on to manage the National Health Service’s main website, NHS Choices .

Equally anomalous was the fact that Deer, with the permission of the newspaper, interviewed two litigant members of the public under a false name, although they were told that he was from the Sunday Times . This may be because of an earlier “investigation” by Mr Deer into Margaret Best, whose son was damaged by DPT vaccine, however it is hard to see why this would have been necessary unless Mr Deer had an agenda which could not be fulfilled by another journalist using their own name. What was at stake, given that this was not an ordinary “under-cover” type investigation?

Hacked Off Boss, Martin Moore, Sat on UK Government Panel with Editor who Hired Brian Deer

By John Stone

Martin Moore (left), the unresponsive boss of the organisation ostensibly set up to support members of the public who have fallen victim of the unethical journalistic practices of the Murdoch media empire in the UK (See Age of Autism "Write to Hacked Off.." HERE), sat on a panel set up by the UK’s Department for Business to plan the future of science journalism in Britain producing a report ‘Science and the Media: Securing a Future’. Moore has repeatedly refused to be drawn on a catalogue of apparent abuses in Deer’s MMR investigation, including Deer’s assertion that a Sunday Times news editor, Paul Nuki (right), had hired him to find “something big” on “MMR” (which sounds suspiciously like a fishing expedition). It now turns out that Nuki and Moore sat on the same government committee in 2009-10 to determine the future of British science journalism under the chairmanship of Fiona Fox. Fox, the head of Science Media Centre, has also recently given evidence regarding the MMR to Leveson Inquiry on ethics in British journalism.

Meanwhile, Moore’s organisation Hacked Off effectively sits as unofficial guard dog to the government appointed Leveson Inquiry, which has now heard a succession of witnesses including Fox condemn as irresponsible earlier media concerns about the safety of MMR, but has so far failed to hear witness statements based any of the submissions about Deer’s investigation.

To date Moore and Hacked Off have ignored documented concerns that:-

Sir Crispin Davis and James Murdoch No Longer on GSK Board

The Wall Street Journal reports that James Murdoch, son of beleaguered media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose empire is embroiled in scandal, has stepped down  from the GlaxoSmithKline board. See WSJ online HERE.  In addition, Sir Crispin Davis, former Chief Executive of Reed Elsevier, which owns The Lancet, which published the paper that included Dr. Andrew Wakefield's MMR information,  is leaving the board after a nine year tenure.

The heir to Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has quit the board of Britain’s biggest drugs company in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.

James Murdoch joined  GlaxoSmithKline less than two years ago.

He has come under fire from MPs who have questioned him about signing off out-of-court settlements to hacking victims without a full picture of what had gone on at the News of the World.

He was forced to deny misleading Parliament over the extent of his knowledge.

Glaxo said Mr Murdoch’s decision to turn his back on the £98,000 role was entirely his own.

Chairman Chris Gent said: ‘James has taken this decision to focus on his current duties as non-executive chairman of BSkyB and following his decision to re-locate to the United States as chairman and chief executive, international, of News Corporation.’

John Stone has written about both Murdoch and Davis and their proximity to the Dr. Andrew Wakefield MMR Lancet Paper BMJ topic.

James Murdoch Still Supported by GlaxoSmithKline ran last July:

Lancet Boss Failed to Disclose Own Conflicts to Parliament While Denouncing Wakefield

Both posts run in full following the jump:

In Memoriam Paul Foot: Private Eye in an Ethical Tangle Over MMR

By John Stone

The editor of the British satirical journal Private Eye, Ian Hislop, told the UK’s Leveson Inquiry into media ethics on Tuesday concerning the MMR controversy:

"Yes, we got it wrong. I was advised by our MD not to pursue it and I should have listened to him. The story went on too long. Mea Culpa."

Private Eye’s columnist ‘MD’, otherwise known as TV presenter, comedian and doctor, Phil Hammond has close pharmaceutical connections and has campaigned (with ultimate success) through Private Eye and British Medical Journal for the Merck/Sanofi HPV vaccine Gardasil  to be preferred in the UK to GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix. Although this may not be known to Private Eye readers Hammond has disclosed in BMJ that he “has been paid to speak at dinners by many drug companies (including GSK and Sanofi Pasteur).” Sanofi are also partners with Merck in Europe: Merck, GSK and Sanofi Pasteur are the three former defendants in the MMR litigation. He also presided over a grand industry award ceremony in 2007, in part sponsored by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, in which the host journal, Scrip World Pharmaceutical News  - which caters for pharmaceutical industry executives - paid tribute to him in glowing terms:

“Those not up for an Award shared an enjoyable evening with the nominees, one that balanced business and pleasure for all concerned. Host Dr Phil Hammond, a writer, broadcaster and qualified GP, captured the mood with his light-hearted critique of the healthcare sector that the 750 guests enjoyed greatly. Dr Hammond is well known mainly in the UK, yet his often-provocative address successfully struck a chord with the Awards’ international audience. In particular, he sympathised with some of the difficulties facing the industry, especially in this era of reimbursement challenges. "I'm looking forward to the day when I can actually prescribe some of the drugs that win Awards," he told the audience. Julie Walters, CEO of MediaSpeak, and representative for shortlisted company Synosia, spoke for many when she said: “Our guests from the US loved the Awards, especially Dr Phil Hammond. Book that man for next year!””

Private Eye began to retreat from its support for MMR families after the death of its leading investigative reporter, Paul Foot, in 2004 and the no doubt increasing influence of Hammond. However, MD Hammond’s review of the science post GMC verdict in 2010 is less than convincing (Private Eye 5-18 February 2010). He cites four sources – including the notorious Madsen study - which do not tell a clear story either individually or collectively and which he does not appear to understand beyond the spin which has already been put on them.

Harry Horne-Roberts Death Ruled Heart Attack

Managing Editor's Note: For background on Harry Horne-Roberts' death please read Harry Horne-Roberts's Parents Welcome Probe into Death While in Autism Care Home . I was recently at a therapy center and noticed a huge weight gain in two teen boys with autism who are each now grossly obese and have difficulty walking. What of their health?  Again, our condolences to Harry's family.

By Sarah Collins of Ham & High

Harry Horne-Roberts was just 20-years-old when he died two years after moving into Hillgreen Care home in Haringey.

There had been no indication that anything was wrong and just days before his death he went walking with his parents in Epping Forest and was his usual bouncy self.

But on December 16, 2009 at 7am he was found face down on his bedroom floor and pronounced dead at 10.30am.

Coroner Dr Andrew Walker of Barnet Coroner’s Court ruled the 22-stone teenager’s death was due to a heart attack linked to obesity at an inquest on Wednesday last week (January 4).

But Harry’s parents, Jennifer Horne-Roberts and Keith Roberts, claimed strong anti-psychotic drugs he was given without their knowledge were responsible.

They claim his three stone weight gain during 15 months in care was due to the drug chloropromazine and that the boisterous 6t-teen was given the drugs without their knowledge.

Before he moved to the care home, Harry had been exuberant and regularly took part in sports and outings.

His parents took the “heartbreaking” step to put Harry into care to increase his independence, but claimed during the inquest they were instead locked out of his treatment with “catastrophic consequences”.

They only learned that he was on the drug when a carer let the information slip in March 2009 and then wrote four letters to Harry’s psychiatrist without receiving a reply.

During the inquest psychiatrist Dr Sujeet Jaydeokar said: “There was a breakdown of communications.”

He added: “With hindsight it would have been better if we had copied you into the letters. We have now changed our practice and now copy all letters to family members.”

Haringey Mental Health Trust acknowledged its failure to implement a dietician-led weight loss programme.

The trust has now implemented new processes to improve the outcome for obese patients with learning disabilities.  Read the full article in Ham & High.

Evan Harris Distances Himself From Brian Deer But His Position Remains Untenable

By John Stone

“… both Harris and Hacked Off/MST have to do a lot more to clear the air, if by now it is possible. In the first place Hacked Off/MST have accepted a false assurance from Harris, and both have to make clear their views on Brian Deer’s investigation, the ethical deficiencies of which have been thoroughly drawn to their attention. Their present actions pose more questions than they answer, including what exactly they are doing at the Leveson Inquiry”

I earlier today received the following characteristically tight-lipped communication Martin Moore of Media Standards Trust/Hacked Off

'Dear Mr Stone,

'Please see the statement below:

'The Hacked Off campaign have been reassured that Dr Evan Harris has never engaged in breaching patients' confidentiality nor was he involved in Brian Deer's MMR investigation. As such we see no reason to believe Dr Harris’ position as an advisor to the Hacked Off campaign has been compromised and he will continue to work closely with us.

'With best regards,

Martin Moore'

There is no historical doubt that Harris worked with Deer on his investigation, and Harris himself has previously boasted about it. It is hard to see how MST/Hacked Off could have accepted his word. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet wrote in his book ‘MMR Science and Fiction’ of the presence of Harris with Deer in the Lancet offices when Deer made his initial allegations recalling (p.3):

“The tension in that earlier meeting had been heightened by the shadowy presence of Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament.”

Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off Director, Martin Moore, Stonewalls Over Evan Harris and Brian Deer’s Investigation

By John Stone

The director of the UK Media Standards Trust  and its purported public support arm for the Leveson media standards inquiry, Hacked Off, is stonewalling over Brian Deer’s MMR investigation, and former MP Evan Harris’s involvement in it - Dr Harris is also an advisor to Hacked Off. Moore’s last word on the matter after an Age of Autism article two days ago was:

‘To date we have not found evidence that Dr Harris’ previous activities compromise his role as an advisor to the Hacked Off campaign.’

These are the points that have been made to Moore and his colleagues on Hacked Off, Brian Cathcart and Thais Portilho-Shrimpton, about Deer’s investigation and it is not clear what their real role in the matter is  if such practices are acceptable to them:-

Deer published on the web without permission the names of children included in the Wakefield 1998 Lancet paper, only available from confidential medical records. Web pages were provided to Hacked Off dated 29 November 2004, 16 February 2006 and 11 November 2006.

Deer has stated also that he has read confidential legal documents relating to the MMR litigation belonging to families:

'Call me old fashioned, but I think JABS should know better than to invoke poor Ms ….. saying - presumably out of ignorance - that "legal aid was mysteriously taken away". There was no mystery, as Jackie surely knows. It followed the exchange of reports. In fact, having read them, I defy anyone with an IQ greater than their waist measurement to study those documents and not come to the conclusion that the Wakefield case was a bust.'

'Even in 2003, my investigation was very time consuming. I hadn’t then looked into Ms Kessick and I didn’t then know that talking to her amounted to talking to Wakefield. The pair of them were in it together. However, I did get from her a detailed account of what she said happened to her son (which broadly squares with her case in litigation), and it was at total variance with what was recorded in the Lancet.' (HERE)

Hacked off with Hacked Off: UK Citizens’ Support Organisation Features Brian Deer's Accomplice Evan Harris as Advisor

By John Stone 

Write today to Hacked Off asking them to explain the presence of Evan Harris as an advisor to their organisation and asking for their support over Brian Deer’s MMR investigation before the UK’s Leveson Inquiry. Write to Hacked Off founders Martin Moore (martin.moore@mediastandardstrust.org) director of Media Standards Trust and journalist Brian Cathcart (B.Cathcart@kingston.ac.uk) as well as Thais Portilho-Shrimpton the organisation’s employee at the Inquiry (thais@hackinginquiry.org).

‘Hacked Off’, the support organisation formed in the wake of the Murdoch media hacking scandal in the UK has so far failed to come up with explanation of the presence of former MP Evan Harris as an advisor. Dr Harris – who was also a member of the British Medical Association ethics committee at the time - worked closely with Brian Deer who accessed confidential medical and legal information, notoriously publishing the names of participants in the 1998 Wakefield/Lancet paper on the web. Three weeks after I first contacted Hacked Off about this matter they remain tight-lipped, and have made no public attempt to distance themselves from Harris. Nor has Harris made any attempt to distance himself from Deer’s investigation.

Harris wrote an editorial in Murdoch newspaper, the Sunday Times, accompanying Deer’s first allegations against Wakefield on 22 February 2004, led a debate against Wakefield under the cloak of privilege in the House of Commons on 15 March 2004, and took part in a Science and Technology investigation of  Wakefield on 1 March 2004 in which he failed to acknowledge that Wakefield had publicly disclosed his role as an expert in the MMR litigation in a letter published in the Lancet as early as 2 May 1998, although the impression given in media reports at the time was that he had never done so at all. Harris, himself, had a host of potential conflicts in the affair which have only ever been partially acknowledged. He also accompanied Deer to the Lancet offices on 18 February 2004 to ambush Wakefield and colleagues, and to the first day of the GMC hearing against them on 16 July 2004.

This was also agenda journalism. Deer was initially approached in 2003 by a Sunday Times news editor who told Deer he needed “something big” on “MMR”: this editor Paul Nuki, like Harris, apparently had a father who sat on the Committee on Safety in medicines during the Pluserix episode (1987-92), and who was also to leave the paper to run the UK National Health Service’s main information website (NHS Choices) in 2007. A new wave of allegations from Deer was unleashed in the Sunday Times in 2009 immediately following proprietor James Murdoch’s appointment to the board of MMR manufacturer (and former defendants) GSK.

Hacked Off popped up seemingly spontaneously in Summer 2011 to represent the public interest in the media hacking allegations, and is supposed to support members of the public acting as witnesses to the Leveson Inquiry. The position, however, may be a little more complicated as the organisation is an off shoot of the Media Standards Trust which has behind it a roster of powerful international media and science industry sponsors . All this would be fine if they were committed to fair play and did not run for cover the moment anything politically sensitive appeared on the horizon. The manifesto states: :

“Hacked Off was founded to campaign for a public inquiry into illegal information-gathering by the press and into related matters including the conduct of the police, politicians and mobile phone companies. Only a full public inquiry, we argued, could put the truth of the hacking scandal before the public and ensure that necessary lessons were learned.”

It is obviously easy for Hacked Off to lend support in a cases where the invasion of privacy is the only issue but much harder where a journalistic investigation has involved the patronage of the highest echelons of government, including the public endorsement of the Prime Minister and the Chief Medical Officer  and relates to the protection of both government policy and powerful industrial interests. In such a case it is more than ever important for such a body to express concern on behalf of members of the public whose lives have been ransacked. Deer’s investigation included the accessing of private medical and legal records, blagging (the use of a false identity to conduct interviews), and a secret agreement with the GMC not to disclose that he was the complainant against Wakefield and colleagues so that he could continue reporting as a disinterested party.

Best of AofA Scientists and Drug Companies Scheme to Avoid FDA Scrutiny and Exploit US Vaccine Programme Immunity Against the Public Interest

Managing Editor's Note: We ran this post last May. Seemed relevant today.

By John Stone

Just eight days after the Supreme Court of the United States ruling granting vaccine manufacturers virtual immunity over prosecution ( Bruesewitz v. Wyeth) , scientists and company representatives met at a congress in Baltimore to  “Understand the Changes in the National Vaccine Plan to Maximize Government Sponsored Funding and Avoid FDA Scrutiny”.  The “workshop” which took place on 2 March 2011 was the first event in a Vaccine Business Congress  held under the auspices of the Institute for International Research USA . Amongst the many participants  at the congress were representatives of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Roche,  the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,  the Wellcome Trust, and the National Cancer Institute (NIH) (IIRUSA Welcome, IIRUSA Agenda).

Despite frequent bleating from industry apologists that vaccine manufacturers do not make money the pre publicity for the event showed the industry in rampant mood. The on-line brochure states:

“VACCINES are the continuing success story, earning over $27 billion in 2009 alone, despite difficult economic times for the pharmaceutical industry.  By 2012, vaccines are expected to bring in more than $35 billion in revenue.”

The brochure demonstrates the utter negligence of  the US Congress, administration and courts in leaving its citizenry subjected and exposed to an industry, forced to inject its products by mandate into their children, forced to pay for them through taxation and finally to do so without any sanction against manufacturers should damage occur. Is it any surprise then that instead of regarding the manufacture of safe and effective products as a solemn ethical duty, they just turn round and brazenly discuss how to milk the contemptible system to the uttermost?  Please send this article to your Congressmen and women, and ask them what they intend to do about it.

With thanks to Hilary Butler  and others.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

 

BBC Trustees Stand By Groundless Insinuations Against Andrew Wakefield in Radio 4 'Science Betrayed ' Programme

By John Stone

The decision of the BBC's Editorial Standards Committee - whose six members are also Corporation trustees - fails to take account of emerging facts, and hides behind Brian Deer's flawed and logically untenable account of events. We publish UK Editor John Stone's final submission to the committee.

I am responding to the document from Part 4... It is important to note that Mr Deer’s claims have unravelled very substantially in the past 5 weeks as the result of a report on Nature News, and further correspondence in BMJ Rapid Responses including statements made by the BBC’s expert advisor on this complaint, Prof Ingvar Bjarnason, by BMJ editor Fiona Godlee, by Brian Deer himself and by Dr Amar P Dhillon, the senior histopathologist co-author of the Lancet paper. These events demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the original recklessness and unfairness of the programme in March.

Point 1

I note that progress with the University College London Inquiry stalled after the programme, a source of frustration to the editor of the BMJ at least, who complained to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee [1].

The ESC’s attitude to Conflict of Interest is dangerously whimsical: it leaves the BBC free to waive concern about people it likes and crucify people it does not. Unless they decide on objective, citable consistent criteria they will make arbitrary decisions. Anything else is touchy-feely, self-referential nonsense.

I also note that the committee failed to take account of evidence I provided that Andrew Wakefield had embarked in the documentable shape of published papers on “a wider study to replicate findings in the Lancet paper” so it is quite hard to know what Prof Pepys was complaining about. Some people want these papers withdrawn, but they are quite certainly there and their existence factually contradicts Prof Pepys’s claim in its present form.

Point 2

I refer to my previous comment in relation to CoI.

Point 3

Once again this is an arbitrary judgement. It is saying that Mr Deer is such a fine person and dedicated journalist that normal ethical constraints do not apply in his case. But it has already been conceded that his unusual arrangement with the GMC was not explained in the programme (which also reflects on the ethics of the GMC). I note that the Committee now cite his current disclosure in BMJ, which also does not explicitly describe the arrangement, but it is also inconsistent on the part of the ESC because it is argued elsewhere in the document that what may have been said in the BMJ is no direct concern of the BBC. Indeed, it is evidently the BBC’s choice not to disclose this embarrassing matter. There is, nevertheless, a serious inconsistency running throughout the response that one minute the BBC is leaning on BMJ, the next saying that programmes claims stand on their own (though they plainly don’t).

Point 4

A discussion is obviously not fair in the context of a programme which persistently gives more weight to one person than another (and by the way fails to get to the bottom of what is being discussed). I note the ESC’s concluding remarks:

“The committee said that it was clear that it was the reliance of Mr Wakefield (Dr??) on the red books as of evidence of “the child’s prior normality” which Mr Deer was criticising. Accordingly, the Committee did not uphold the complaint on this point.”

This is both a false alternative and an historically unfounded insinuation: as well as the red books Dr Wakefield was reliant on GP correspondence, the medical histories taken by Prof Walker-Smith, and the parent consultations with the neurologist Dr Harvey and the psychiatrist Dr Berelowitz. While this may be Mr Deer’s opinion it shows no respect for factual accuracy. It is not correct and it is not fair comment.

Point 5

I quote:

“The Committee noted for the most part, allegations made in the programme had been challenged in the course of the GMC tribunal”.

This is a false statement. These allegations first saw the light of day in a Sunday Times article by Mr Deer in February 2009, and were repeated in BMJ in January 2011. The defence at the GMC hearing which began in 2007 never had to address these allegations.

“The committee note that the tribunal has the same standing as a court of law: and its findings on fact were entitled to be relied upon by the producers of the programme.”

However, all the findings that were remotely relevant to the programme are still under appeal by Prof Walker-Smith, and this was not said, and the absence of any warning regarding this is surely a serious lapse of procedure on the part of the Corporation.

With regard to the evidence of Susan Davies, it is evident that what she is saying is the results of the biopsies were both consistent with significant inflammation and with normality. I note that after the recent intervention of Dr David Lewis as reported in Nature News Prof Bjarnason, Dr Godlee and even Mr Deer had to retreat substantially [1]:

“But he (Bjarnason) says that the forms don't clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records. "The data are subjective. It's different to say it's deliberate falsification," he says.

“Deer notes that he never accused Wakefield of fraud over his interpretation of pathology records…

“Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, says that the journal's conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children's records and the claims in the Lancet paper…”