A Character Assassin Caught in the Act
By Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill
At the source of the General Medical Council’s (GMC) investigation and trial of Dr. Andrew Wakefield lies a man named Brian Deer. In his first Sunday Times article on February 22, 2004, Deer accused Wakefield of launching a “public panic” over the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism by failing to disclose his conflict of interest and participation as an expert witness on behalf of a group of families involved in vaccine litigation against the British government. Since then, Deer has alleged many things. Among them are the following: that he is an independent, investigative journalist; that he is not a complainant in the GMC investigation; that Wakefield is guilty of medical misconduct; and that Wakefield and his co-authors committed scientific fraud.
According to documents obtained by Age of Autism (Melanie Philips of The Spectator reported on these documents last month, but we provide for the first time a copy of the key document HERE and new information on Dr. Wakefield’s complaint against Deer; a copy of Dr. Wakefield's original 3/13 complaint to PCC is HERE and the addendum is HERE. Deer’s claim that he is not the complainant in the GMC investigation is false. In a February 25, 2004 email addressed to Tim Cox-Brown of the GMC, Deer first listed the GMC reference numbers of Drs Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, and then wrote the following opening sentence.
“Following an extensive inquiry for the Sunday Times into the origins of the public panic over MMR, I write to ask your permission to lay before you an outline of evidence that you may consider worthy of evaluation with respect of the possibility of serious professional misconduct on the part of the above named registered medical practitioners”
This statement stands in stark contrast to claims Deer has recently made denying he was a complainant in the GMC investigation. On February 19, 2009, amid growing concern over claims that Deer had failed to disclose his conflict, Deer made the following statement on a public blog,
“the GMC’s procedures include monitoring media coverage for possible cases to be referred to fitness to practise committees. The GMC - following its own procedures – then approached me and asked if I had anything to substantiate what had appeared in The Sunday Times. I willingly supplied them with many of my files on the subject.”
In the copy of the document obtained by Age of Autism you can see for yourself that Deer is lying:
• He was not approached with an inquiry from the GMC, rather he approached the GMC himself and was “writing to ask [their] permission” to do so.
• He did not provide substantiation for an existing inquiry, rather he took the initiative himself “to lay before you an outline of evidence.”
• He did not presume that the GMC was following up on his article from three days before in pursuance of its own procedures, rather he urged they follow up on evidence “that you may find worthy of evaluation.”
• He did not merely respond to the GMC’s monitoring procedures, rather he sent Cox-Brown the GMC reference numbers for the three doctors, a clerical detail that only a complainant would think worthy of inclusion.
In her thorough report on Brian Deer’s role in the GMC trial, “A Deer in the Headlights”, Melanie Philips placed Deer’s introductory sentence to Timothy Cox nearly halfway through a lengthy article. We suspect that many may have missed this key statement. It proves clearly that while Deer has represented himself as an objective journalist, he has been reporting on a complaint that he made himself. Playing the dual role of journalist and complainant, Deer has misrepresented himself as an independent party. In the ultimate irony, Deer is guilty of the same offense—failure to disclose a conflict of interest—that he accuses Wakefield of committing. As one source close to the investigation commented, “that’s not just a smoking gun, that’s a video of Brian Deer pulling the trigger.”
In the years since his original article launching a widespread campaign of character assassination against Dr. Wakefield, Deer has written infrequently for The Sunday Times (before his February 8 articles accusing Wakefield and his co-authors of falsifying clinical records, Deer had written nothing for the newspaper since July 15, 2007) and has no other visible means of support. This previously unseen document demonstrates that Deer has lied about his role as a complainant in the GMC. It also raises a disturbing question.
If Brian Deer is lying about his role as a source of the GMC complaint against Dr. Wakefield, what else is he lying about?
Dan Olmsted is Editor and Mark Blaxill is Editor at Large for Age of Autism.
You are 100% correct how you see the situation.Deer is the hired gun to destroy anyone who stands in the way of this
36-40 billion dollar vaccine industry.With the words of BMJ
we "Should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare".
As a research investigator all I can say that they are very,very desperate "to close the door",I never,NEVER saw in medical history
such a powerful fight to destroy a great doctor like Dr.Wakefield.I think the door is wide open.We need independent researchers to pick up where Dr. Wakefield left off and study gut inflammation and bowel Patho-physiology.
Save the children,save the future and find the answers.Ignore big pHarma scare-tactics,become independent.
Posted by: oneVoice | January 14, 2013 at 09:18 PM
the bottom line is this. because of Wakefield and krigsman a d thoughtfulhouse my son can sit
still long enough to learn to read. pooping takes him 5 minutes not 70. he no longer throws himself against walls. he can stay at school all day. he can ask amazing questions about Obama and Lincoln and tornadoes and the center if the earth. so if this is not true I guess what thoughtfulhouse did treating his theoretical autistic enterocolitis was simply magic. Wakefield krigsman rimland and The first DAN Drs deserve the nobelmprize.
Posted by: Carolyn coughoin | March 25, 2009 at 12:26 AM
This behavior of avoiding the issue is simply a passive aggressive approach unworthy of further response.
Posted by: sdtech | March 23, 2009 at 10:46 PM
tten and remove the camps
I believe you have conflated two separate issues. It has to be said that in 1983 the Sunday Times was a rather different newspaper, and it was sad that their advisor Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre) should have fallen for the hoax, which was made primarily for financial gain rather than to deny the holocaust.
Posted by: John Stone | March 23, 2009 at 09:48 AM
Many years ago I remember that the Sunday Times produced the 'diaries' of Adolf Hitler to prove that the holocaust never happened and presumably the Jews, the Gupsies, the autistic children, the Poles, the British inhabitants of the Channel Islands, many French men and boys etc etc etc all decided by osmosis to go to the East and all meet up in concentration camps, kill themselves, flatten and remove the camps and plant a forest there. And of course blame that Deer man Hiltler!
But there was no Holocaust!
It seems as if the Sunday Times is engaging in a new anti holocaust operation. This time no body actually has autism or damaged bowels, autism or cancer or MS etc etc etc.
They are all becoming ill in some way they all know about and nobody else does to scam the public health services in the Western world. And they all blame that deer man Deer.
Of course the idea that trebling the vaccinations to cover serious things like the occasional runs and putting the worlds most toxic brain destroying chemical in the vaccines and ignoring signs like crying for half a day after ten vaccines as being in any way a problem is evident to the US government, the US vaccine regulators and anyone with ZERO brain cells and who want to ignore the honest ZERO generation epidemiology report of Verstraeten and take the Fifth Amendment to it with the aid of GSK as the new 'diary' of an 'honest' epidemiologist who himself admitted:
I cant sya anymore as I have just landed the top salry at the top vaccine company GSK.
Posted by: tten and remove the camps | March 23, 2009 at 07:50 AM
"But it would be nice to get back to what the hell happened with the Omnibus case. To me it looks like the petitioners were the wrong cases, the experts were flakey, and the lawyers made a bundle. Maybe we should get angry about that."
Mr. Taylor - my daughter Michelle is one of the "test" cases. Our experts were not flakey. They are some of the most highly regarded in their respective fields. FYI Michelle's lawyers are being paid far below the rates an attorney working outside of the NVICP is paid. The US government sets their rate of pay. That pay comes out of the fund that makes up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. And while you are looking at who gets paid what, you should look at the amount the respondent paid the SEVENTEEN expert witnesses they hired from around the world to defend the vaccine program. "Looks like the petitioners were the wrong cases". I'm not real sure what you mean by that, but I'd be happy to address it if you'd care to clarify.
Regarding Brian Deer - his time is up. He's been found out. He's a liar.
ps: thank you Kathleen :)
Posted by: Theresa Cedillo | March 23, 2009 at 05:35 AM
look at this rude, uninformed principal commenting on an article about my family and saying we don't give "a rip about anyone else's kids" while quoting Brian Deer:
comment away if you so see fit!
Posted by: kim | March 22, 2009 at 08:45 PM
This is what I read in the link provided:
"After a year-long investigation by The Sunday Times, the doctors’ disciplinary body has ruled that allegations facing Wakefield and the others, if proved, would raise issues about their registration and fitness to continue to practise medicine."
This by no means covers what Andrew Wakefield documents in his complaint. If you cannot see the difference this would suggest serious shortcoming in your powers of analysis.
I also note the innuedo here:
"In February this newspaper’s revelation that the research began with an undisclosed £55,000 deal between Wakefield and a firm of solicitors attempting to sue MMR manufacturers led to public uproar and the retraction of research, published in The Lancet in 1998, purporting possibly to implicate the vaccine."
This maybe loosely true but does not tell you that the £55,000 was actually paid by the Legal Aid Board to a Royal Free Medical School trust. The reader is plainly being put at a disadvantage here.
Posted by: John Stone | March 22, 2009 at 07:35 PM
Arthur, you baffle me?? We have pointed out MANY things here where Mr Deer has been caught lying. You are choosing to see what you want, and that's OK...for you. Um, as for hating BD???? I don't. Funny, that is what you decide to write as if automatically putting me on the negative side and him as the poor injured journalist....okay.
You can keep saying the sky is green and thre grass is blue...but it is not.
Posted by: kathleen | March 22, 2009 at 05:52 PM
Kathleen, I just spent far too long looking into this this afternoon, but when I did a Yahoo search I found this article by Mr Deer where he seems positively to draw attention to his role. http://briandeer.com/wakefield/gmc-announce.htm
I really do wonder what this is about. There does not seem to be any evidence of him lying at all. Someone seems to have gotten their shorts in a twist over him saying he is not the complainant - and the doctors body and their lawyers say the same. If he is lying, then they must be lying too, which I just don't buy. Lawyers don't lie over something that folk here seem to think is so easily found out.
Okay you hate Mr Deer. Fine. But it would be nice to get back to what the hell happened with the Omnibus case. To me it looks like the petitioners were the wrong cases, the experts were flakey, and the lawyers made a bundle. Maybe we should get angry about that.
Posted by: Arthur Taylor | March 22, 2009 at 05:03 PM
There is a difference between reporting the story and creating it.
Posted by: sdtech | March 22, 2009 at 04:26 PM
(it does not look as if he is in any kind of retreat)
BD should not be in retreat, he SHOULD be seeking the truth for our children. What I noticed on his website is an action calling on parents in
America to "turn Wakefield in" for having a stethescope on his desk. I don't for one second believe that Dr Wakefield is a practicing doctor in America, but why are BD cross-hairs on him in Texas?? Isn't what BD suppose to be hoping for is a win in the GMC hearing so that the MMR vaccine can be vindicated (as YOU think with good science, I question the GOOD part in that)and Dr Wakefield will have been proven a fraud?? So why does BD website seem to seethe with hate for this man? More of a personal vendetta, and that is being kind. Is he still going after the makers of Vioxx? That would be NO, so what is so personal here? He was probably hailed as a hero during the Vioxx mess, now he stepped into the vaccine argument where he is NOT receiving the same amount of ego stroking as before.Or his ego stroking now comes from the WRONG side of truth and justice, and that is where BD has made his bed.BD is now a proven LIAR, so exactly what is it about him that you find so appealing? Appealing enough to come here and defend him. In fact, if I found out that someone I was defending was proven to be lying, I would be going to that person and wanting an explanation.
Posted by: kathleen | March 22, 2009 at 03:07 PM
For Dan Olmstead,
Just a crazy idea (maybe), but would it be possible to file a "crime against humanity" with the UN against Brian Deer and the GMC (we could do it against Paul Offit and the CDC too)? I think we need to take it to a political board that is not completely implicated in the vaccination mess (so US and UK political systems are out). I can't imagine of a worse crime than purposefully hurting children...
Posted by: Anna Ceberio | March 22, 2009 at 01:52 PM
I have to admit that this whole thread baffles me. So what if Mr Deer is a complainant, informant, entertainment, Catholic celebrant? Everything turns on whether the information he has given to this doctor's body is true or not. I would have to imagine that it must be, since otherwise it would not be holding hearings that have gone on so long. Having looked at Mr Deer's website http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm it does not look as if he is in any kind of retreat, and if what he said in the Times was not true, then the lawsuit it would face would be beyond calculation. Dr Wakefield would not be complaining to a press watchdog. I deduce that what Mr Deer says is true.
What he said would have been checked and checked again by trial attorneys, before they ever mounted their case. They must have spent years on preparing the case.
As for his 'conflict of interest', I don't get it. Surely it's no different to Dr Wakefield continuing his enquiries, after making a complaint against the Brit Government for not allowing single vaccines. Is he now banned from further investigations.
The whole thing seems like a kind of hysteria. What I see is a quite old-fashioned news reporter whose onto a story. Nothing wrong with that.
Time will tell whether he has got it right.
[Editor's note: Perhaps you've missed the point Arthur, so allow me to make it plain for you. The point is that Brian Deer is a liar and has lied about his role in the GMC hearing in a way that calls into question his journalistic integrity. And if you take the time to read Dr. Wakefield's responses, it is also abundantly clear that Deer has misrepresented every fact of substance in his stories. As to the hearing, the reason it has gone on so long is not because the government (and Deer's) case is so strong, it is because it is breathtakingly weak. Strong cases make short trials. This trial is not about the truth, it is an inquisition, plain and simple.]
Posted by: Arthur Taylor | March 22, 2009 at 11:07 AM
The pride and joy Brian Deer expressed in his blogging of having played a part in the demise of Michelle's case ...
I noticed that, too, and it was sickening. He was so prideful about striking down a child. I am not sure if I truly believe that the truth wins out in the end, but Toady (love that btw)will have to answer one day, it may be a dream to hope that he pays before he stops drawing breath in this world, but one CAN hope. He will have to ultimately answer one day....and certainly no sane person would want to be in his shoes at that time.
God bless you and your family.
Posted by: kathleen | March 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM
The pride and joy Brian Deer expressed in his blogging of having played a part in the demise of Michelle's case (his having been contacted by HHS attorneys) will be nothing compared to the satisfaction I will feel to see this phony Industry toady fall, as he most surely will.
Posted by: Theresa Cedillo | March 22, 2009 at 12:27 AM
The powers-that-be needed someone to initiate the case against Wakefield (they could not do that themselves now, could they) and found a village idiot to do the dirty job for them.-quote
You know, that is exactly what I was thinking while reading the 57 page amendment by Wakefield. Deer loves himself enough to fooled easily as long as someone is stroking his ego.
Posted by: kathleen | March 21, 2009 at 06:37 PM
Even if Brian Deer goes down, like so many do in conspiracies (yeah, I said it) they still got their wonderful story of "Wakefield is terrible, vaccines don't cause autism" and reported it ALL OVER. More complete crap to report to serve their purpose, BUT STILL NOT THE TRUTH.
Posted by: Amber | March 21, 2009 at 06:35 PM
Makes one wonder if this could simply be the case of the poor idiot Brian being nicely used by the GMC?
The powers-that-be needed someone to initiate the case against Wakefield (they could not do that themselves now, could they) and found a village idiot to do the dirty job for them.
Lets hope they turn on him now to cover their backs, and that he drags them down while drowning.
Posted by: Natasa | March 21, 2009 at 05:17 PM
Jerry has been escorted out of the building. So has another genius who compared Deer to Woodard and Bernstein.
Posted by: Mark Blaxill | March 21, 2009 at 02:13 PM
It is very clear from the other documents in Wakefield's second complaint to the PCC, as well as the letter published here, that Deer was trying to exercise pressure to prosecute Wakefield. He was making the running, as several remarks suggest.
For instance on 1 July 2004:
"I trust that you will notify me, in whatever way is appropriate, of how my concerns are progressed."
Or 12 February 2007:
"I’ve several times previously written to the GMC, or to its solicitors, Field Fisher Waterhouse (FFW), regarding my investigations for the Sunday Times and Channel 4 into the serious professional misconduct in which the above named practitioners were involved, between mid-1996 and late 2001, while they were employed at the Royal free hospital, Hampstead. My first email was dated 25 February 2004, summarizing my findings as of that date. I’ve made my submissions as a matter of public duty.
"Although, quite properly, I’ve received no information from FFW, or from the GMC directly, it’s clear from open sources, such as court proceedings and press coverage, that some considerable investment has been committed to looking into the matters I’ve raised."
After all, it is one thing to have an investigation (as proposed by John Reid and supported by Wakefield who did not believe he had anything to hide) and another to mount a prosecution.
Posted by: John Stone | March 21, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Aye to the troll call.
Time to move on.
Posted by: sdtech | March 21, 2009 at 02:07 PM
One thing that you are very obviously missing is a simple fact; Brian Deer is guilty of what you accuse Dr. Wakefield of. I'll capitalize it for you so you can get the picture into your miniscule and obtuse little mind.
BRIAN DEER LIED! PLAIN AND SIMPLE; HE LIED!
You and the rest of the vaccine-gestapo deify him almost as much as you worship Pauly PrOffit, and your little golden boy has been lying the whole time. He was the one that placed the original complaint (something he denies), and he is the one who is smearing his own journalistic integrity by NOT disclosing this to the public. If he lied about this, then how much of his "investigation" into Dr. Wakefield did he also lie about?
He is phony, he is a fabulist, he is a cheat and a con artist. And you and the rest of your "science-based" idiots all fell for his bullshit hook, line and sinker. Something you accuse us of doing with Dr. Wakefield.
Your hypocrisy has been noted. You may move along.
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | March 21, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Gee, it does make one wonder, doesn't it? I mean, spending all his days in court, not many articles published. How is the poor man paying his rent? Does he live in public housing? Or is he subsidized by Glaxo?
Posted by: Garbo | March 21, 2009 at 01:59 PM
The boss of Mr Deer has just been enrolled onto the board of the biggest vaccine company in the world at a fat, huge, enormous salary for little, no or nothing to do for his money.
I think disclosure laws are currently being passed and next year all sums over 5 GRAND will have to be publically declared.
Funny this move to regularise payments have resulted in a flurry of people being regularised onto the pay packets of the vaccine companies.
I wonder how much was paid to Deer's employers before this regularistion? We may never know now unless they are honest and divulge the ZERO sums they have received from the vaccine companies in secret payouts.
As a thought; if I got paid say half a million a year in secret payouts and then had to stop receiving them as disclosure was coming I think I would opt to "out" myself so the money could still come rolling into my pocket. Thanks you very much GSK.
Posted by: John Fryer | March 21, 2009 at 01:51 PM
Let's not forget that neomycin, the antibiotic in MMR vaccines does in fact potentiate the effects of ethyl mercury compounds such as thimerosal which does actually contain an amount of methyl mercury impurity to put it at over the limit of reference for toxic methyl mercury which in itself can only come down as we know more of the harm. (The effect is DESTRUCTION of the brain)
There is no reason why neomycin on its own is harmful but the fact is that vaccines have gone up in use enormously causing adverse effects when used several at once and in this case with mercury compounds which linger in our brains for 20 years and more.
While we argue about who is right or wrong between Deer and others we are seeing 50 babies a week or more around the world developing autism and other illnesses to save the odd person getting a vaccine preventable disease.
And if honesty instead of obfuscation was to return to science we might even get safe vaccines so there are no autism cases and no people getting vaccine preventable illnesses.
In the mean time every regulatory authority in the world knows what toxic compounds don't cause autism but have no clue as to what toxic compound does cause it.
It would be good to do double blind control tests with vaccines as used in the field on the age groups under consideration but that might not be costly in the sense of being expensive for the vaccine companies to do but expensive as it might prove vaccine harm from untried combinations and age at use of vaccines today.
In the mean time deaths from vaccines alone must now be in the millions.
All to help the already fit child get ill and die?
What a liberty! And no one much seems to be able to stop this mayhem?
Posted by: John Fryer | March 21, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Re: Jerry at 12:51pm
Jerry, this is silly. Brian Deer brought a complaint about Wakefield et al to the GMC, which holds hearings on medical matters. He was/is a complainant in this matter.
Unless you have something more substantive to offer in this matter, please stop wasting our time. There are important issues to be looked at here. We need to move on to them; otherwise it is as if this thread is being hijacked. I believe the word is a 'troll'.
Posted by: Stan | March 21, 2009 at 01:42 PM
Consider this example. A professor on staff at a nearby university blogged against a US Senator during a recent election. There was clear and repeated identification on the blog that the professor was teaching students at a nearby University. He posed as just a curious and investigative sort of guy that had the publics’ interest in mind due to his profession.
After a flurry of very critical remarks and stories by the professor and others on his blog, the incumbent lost the election. One big problem though. After the election, it was uncovered and revealed by others that the professor had been paid all along by the political party opposing the incumbent.
If a reporter only submits evidence and accusation to the GMC, then there is no conflict of interest. But clearly when there was a public accusation by a reporter in the press as well as a private accusation to the GMC, with no disclosure to the public of this private role, then this person is a hired character assassin as well as a paid reporter. One conflict of interest is the promotion of the story! And another is the motivation for the accusation!
And back to the professor’s story. He was paid a nice fee for his attack services and then left teaching to go to work for the newly elected Senator. It was prepayment and postpayment for a job well done. Obviously he crossed the ethical line by not revealing his financial interest in the fray. He was a hired gun.
Posted by: sdtech | March 21, 2009 at 01:39 PM
You are still playing "the name game" and not addressing the bigger picture.
According to the GMC website:
..."We have strong and effective legal powers.."
does show that the GMC has power and those who present *a complaint* do so expecting an investigation...so your continual play on words is without merit and getting tiresome.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | March 21, 2009 at 01:19 PM
"Please check the GMC web site. The GMC is a registered charity and is not a court of law. Therefore your point is moot--of no value."
Okay, so if the GMC is not a court of law, how in the world is he a 'complainant' at all? If it's not a court of law, why are you accusing him of being a complainant? If it's not a court of law, accusations of being a complainant are completely useless, i.e. your entire post is moot!
Such disregard for facts! Are you not ashamed, sir?
Posted by: Jerry | March 21, 2009 at 12:51 PM
To put it another way round: as a reporter Deer had an interest in the case against the 3 doctor progressing, but if he took the lead this as he manifestly did, and did not report this, his journalism was compromised.
As we know it was stated in a high court ruling by Judge Eady that Deer had made at least 3 complaints against Wakefield to the GMC in 2004. Whether or not he was named as a complainant by the GMC he did a lot more than just be interviewed by the GMC as background to the case. He actively pursued the prosecution of a case in which he had a professional interest (as the newly puplished letter demonstrates), and he did not report this.
We also know that the GMC lawyers sought to clarify Deer's role as "informant", because his status in the case had put him in professional difficulty (letter of Matthew Lohn (partner Field Fisher Waterhouse) to Deer, May 25, 2005. This, of course, does not clarify the ethics of the issue but just makes everything more opaque.
Posted by: John Stone | March 21, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Brian Deer is hanging by a thread -- hoping that the difference between being a "complainant" and some other artfully and heavily nuanced word for "complaint-bringer" will save him from journalistic infamy. Nice try. It's like Paul Offit, whose career is hanging by the fact that he thinks methyl mercury is toxic but ethyl mercury is a "gentle bacteriostat." i would have to be hanging by either of those threads, journalistically or scientifically. they are distinctions without a difference and show the fundamental ignorance of both of 'em.
Posted by: dan olmsted | March 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM
"I'm sorry, but none of this proves he is actually a complainant. A complainant in a court of law is one who stands to gain from the conclusion of a case, i.e. a plaintiff."
Please check the GMC web site. The GMC is a registered charity and is not a court of law. Therefore your point is moot--of no value.
I want to hear both sides of any issue and wish that you had something to offer here, but it does not seem as if you do.
Posted by: David Taylor | March 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Jerry has trashed Jake Crosby here too. I don't think we need to pay him much attention.
Posted by: Stagmom | March 21, 2009 at 11:18 AM
So he was just a "material witness"?? How many NY Times reporters get to cover trials in which they are a witness? How many do so without disclosing that fact? The answer is the same as Deer's regard for the truth: ZERO
Posted by: Buna300 | March 21, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Jerry's comment is a classic of fact free mud-slinging and clearly shows he did not read the addendum posted here, so I will pull out a few salient facts for the benefit of our readers.
A defendant in a trial is typically permitted to face his accusers, that's one of the bedrocks of the Western legal tradition. The GMC process is a bit unusual, but Wakefield did receive the following letter on April 8, 2004 that plainly indicated that there were specific complaints being brought against him. The letter stated, "“I am writing to confirm that we have received complaints about you from a number of sources."
As part of the hearing process, Wakefield and the other defendants had the right to "discovery", a process whereby they gained access to documents that would otherwise have remained private. Obviously, they asked for the source of the complaints. That is how they obtained the Deer email to Tim Cox-Brown. As for the identity of any other complainants, they received reports of only two others, and here is what the addendum reports on these.
"The two additional complaints included one from an R. Sarkel of 21st Feb 2004 in which the only named doctor being complained about was not one of the Defendants in the current GMC hearing. James Walsh of the GMC responded on 26th Feb 2004 saying that the GMC “will not be taking any further action at this stage”. The second ‘complaint’ was anonymous, purportedly from the Royal Free Hospital. In a memo of 18th March 2004 Tim Cox-Brown of the GMC wrote, “I don’t think there’s much we can do with it, but it looks as though it should probably be kept with the Wakefield papers.”"
Clearly, Brian Deer is the only named individual to file a formal and specific complaint naming the defendants in the trial. Yet Deer asserts that "I did not lay the initial complaint against Wakefield." The evidence is now available for the first time on AoA and is clear and uncomplicated. Deer is a liar.
Posted by: Mark Blaxill | March 21, 2009 at 10:56 AM
The GMC - following its own procedures – then approached me and asked if I had anything to substantiate what had appeared in The Sunday Times.--Brian Deer
Jerry, as you can see this, in your opinion, does not make BD the plaintiff, but these documents do, however, make him look like a big, fat liar:) And when someone is a big, fat, liar once.....well, you can fill in the rest....
Posted by: kathleen | March 21, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Arguing semantics in this case is just someone trying to go off topic. Brian Deer should have NEVER been allowed to continue as the journalist to this story. PERIOD! Brian Deer should have been man enough to disclose his connections honestly and openly, PERIOD. How this is all playing out speaks volumes for him as a person.
Has anyone sent this to Keith olberman (SP?)
Posted by: kathleen | March 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Whatever you want to call it -- him -- the correct term, "instigator of the latter", "intigator of the former", "complainant", "i.e. a plaintiff", "a material witness", some here are defending a guy who made the complaint, and has continued to report in a maniacal and obsessive manner as if someone else made the complaint, with no visible means of financial support, and who may (disclosure?) very well benefit/profit from his original complaint in a financial manner that as of now, has yet to be shared or discovered. If money is not the issue and again, how does one make a living by being maniacal (?), but instead this is a personal vendetta or some kind of fantasy about saving mankind from those who question vaccine safety -- then maybe Brian Deer needs an evaluation as to his ability to know truth from fiction, legal from illegal, and the simple fact of going to the GMC rather than the GMC coming to him...ie being approached vs doing the approaching.
So to those who like to dissect every word in the autism truths -- "autism vs autism- like" , "autism vs PDD" and now "complainant vs a material witness" -- you guys are getting SO desperate and really need to change these feeble tactics.
However this is sliced, there is a shady and questionable person making allegations that are being shown to be false.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | March 21, 2009 at 10:43 AM
"In the ultimate irony, Deer is guilty of the same offense—failure to disclose a conflict of interest—that he accuses Wakefield of committing. As one source close to the investigation commented, “that’s not just a smoking gun, that’s a video of Brian Deer pulling the trigger.”"
This man seems to be troubled. If you look on youtube you will find that he has taped a train journey through London which smacks of a serious "why in the world would anybody want to do that" especially since there is no commentary worth the name. Its not touristy either. Its just strange.
Posted by: Weirdly bizarre scary behavior | March 21, 2009 at 10:18 AM
“Making concerns known, and formal complaints are not the same process.”
Weasel words at best!
Read the Queen’s English at
“I write to ask your permission to lay before you an outline of evidence that you may consider worthy of evaluation with respect of the possibility of serious professional misconduct of the part of the above named registered medical practictioners.”
Posted by: sdtech | March 21, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I don't think Jerry is Brian Deer.
Posted by: Stagmom for Jerry's friend | March 21, 2009 at 09:38 AM
Jerry has it down correctly.
Making concerns known, and formal complaints are not the same process. Many NHS services, professional registers, as well as third sector services, have seperate policies and preceedures for both, as making concerns know can be dealt with without having to esclate it to a complaint each time.
The GMC would be rare to not treat the two as seperate processes; even though the former can lead to the latter, it does not mean the intigator of the former is the instigator of the latter.
With the ease of information about this on the GMC website, this attempt at a 'Gotcha' on Deer should have been seen as weak from the start
Posted by: Dave | March 21, 2009 at 09:36 AM
Brian Deer is posing as Jerry! Hi Jerry!
Posted by: Jerry's Friend | March 21, 2009 at 09:33 AM
This is an administrative procedure and according to Merriam-Webster, a complainant is “the party who makes a complaint in a legal action or proceeding.”
Posted by: sdtech | March 21, 2009 at 09:30 AM
This scenario demonstrates a clear lack of integrity on the part of the reporter, the paper, and the recipient of the complaint--the General Medical Council.
First he reported. Next he submitted a complaint. And then he reported again with no disclosure that he submitted a complaint. Then the recipient of the complaint proceeded to prosecute the case without disclosure.
This conflict of interest allows the GMC/prosecutor, and the reporter/complainant, and the paper/employer/complainant to collude and become the “Ministry of Truth.”
Perhaps the editor and GMC skipped that author in their literature course.
Posted by: sdtech | March 21, 2009 at 09:15 AM
I'm sorry, but none of this proves he is actually a complainant. A complainant in a court of law is one who stands to gain from the conclusion of a case, i.e. a plaintiff.
All you have managed to do is prove that he is at best a material witness. Please conduct minimal research on basic legal terms before making such hyperbolic assertions.
Character Assassination caught in the act indeed!
Posted by: Jerry | March 21, 2009 at 08:52 AM
Off to work smiling BIG TIME this morning seeing these new articles on AoA.
This is exactly how I wanted to start my day!
Posted by: kathleen | March 21, 2009 at 07:09 AM
Great work. I still do not understand how this became the reason every parent believes their child was vaccine injured. I came to the conclusion before I had ever even heard of Dr. Wakefield. I think the medical establishment world could not handle truth out loud by one of their own. This is all a smoke screen to avoid the real questions... Why are our children continuing to be injured? How do we help the ones who are?
Posted by: Tanners Dad | March 21, 2009 at 06:46 AM
Are we to believe that surgically repairing Offit's Disease is ethically and morally A-OK and collecting suspicious samples from the damaged guts of autistic-like children is diabolical?
It reminds me of the story once told by Stringbean.
A guy cut his nose off with a straight razor. In the panic he dropped the blade and it cut his toe off.
The ambulance came. The guy was rushed to the hospital and surgery was performed by a doctor who'd been out drinking all night.
When the poor guy woke up he couldn't believe the doctor had made a terrible mistake.
His nose was stitched to the place where his toe goes, and his toe was stitched to the place where the nose goes.
Very upset, he called for the nurse. She came in, looked at his clipboard and told him that everything was fine.
The doctor came in and called the surgery a miracle success. He said, "Your nose can still run and your feet smell more than ever before."
Posted by: Oligarchy Busters | March 21, 2009 at 03:23 AM