Brian Deer and the BMJ: Letters Removed but Questions Remain
By John Stone
A sequence of letters appearing over the last two and a half weeks in on-line British Medical Journal, questioning how journalist Brian Deer could have had access to children’s medical records, have been removed following threat of legal action (See here ). The story was first reported on Age of Autism nine days ago (HERE). It is not clear what the basis of the legal action is, or from where it stems.
For the record, Deer states on his website in a notice regarding copyright and plagiary: "For reference, with regard to Brian Deer's MMR investigation, almost all of the key facts and documents are not public domain, and, such is the culture of plagiarism, he will act against authors who represent his writing, interviews, documents, or other research, as the fruit of their own inquiries, whether referenced or not." (HERE)
But what certainly is not public domain is how – six and half years on from the beginning of his investigation – he gained access to the confidential material, and why nothing is ever done about it, despite many complaints from parents. It is not alright for people to turn a blind eye over patient confidentiality because it is politically expedient, because that is the whole reason for patient confidentiality. This is particularly sensitive in the UK at the moment as the government plan to place everyone's records on-line in the new National Health Service database within months.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
GennyGC
I have only just come across your reference to Brian Deer and NPD as I was Googling this very possibility.
If one also watches - if you can bear to - Deer´s video interview with the US TV programme "Dateline" with Matt Lauer: http://briandeer.com/solved/dateline-nbc.htm
Deer gives it all away in his body language, his attitude and his words. Here is an individual consumed by his own sense of righteous authority and contempt for Wakefield.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions about this "award wainning Journalist", my opinions would no doubt be called defamatory if I indulged in them here.
What I did find very interesting was watching the reaction of the interviewer in the second of these 2 videos during his meeting with Andrew Wakefield. It is obvious to see the doubt beginning to creep into Lauer´s mind when he is finally faced with the patent honesty of Dr Wakefield, after listening firstly to the rantings of Brian Deer.
Posted by: patricia pratt | April 17, 2010 at 05:33 AM
Journal Checker
No, Deer himself reproduces it:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/eady-children.htm
Posted by: John Stone | March 28, 2010 at 12:14 PM
"I am referring to Judge Eady's pronouncement on 1 November 2006, which seems to be the relevant one."
This pronouncement doesn't seem to be on the official court record at bailii.org/. Is it there and if not where can we see the original court judgement?
Posted by: Journal Checker | March 28, 2010 at 09:22 AM
Journal Checker
I suspect this is not very germane. The parading of material began long before Judge Eady's ruling and he professed himself unable to comment on it (at least in the case of parent 3 and their child). What his ruling did do was enable the defendants to use material in their defence which they may already have had access too, but might not have been able to produce before the court. So, you would have to prove that Deer was only able to use the material because Eady gave it to him - and that might be pretty useless. That's my initial impression anyway.
Posted by: John Stone | March 28, 2010 at 08:53 AM
The question to my mind is have any court orders been breached, has there been contempt of court and if so when are those directly affected going to approach Justice Eady for a remedy. Others can write and complain publicly but it's only those whose names or records have been improperly obtained and publicised who can take direct action.
All they have to do is write to the judge. If it's as serious as has been presented here then they should act soon if they haven't already. It only needs one to set the ball rolling.
Posted by: Journal Checker | March 28, 2010 at 05:58 AM
I am referring to Judge Eady's pronouncement on 1 November 2006, which seems to be the relevant one.
Posted by: John Stone | March 27, 2010 at 07:53 PM
Journal Checker
"How Brian Deer and others obtained the names of families is public domain and has been since December 2006."
No, I don't think it tells you how Deer obtained the medical records (not to mention the names) only how Channel 4 and Deer obtained limited legal access to the documents for the purpose of their defence in a case which has long ago lapsed. It is evident that their access to this material according to the judgement should have come to an end with the case.
Eady also mentions material reproduced on Deer's website and says it doesn't lie within his remit in the case to adjudicate on it.
Posted by: John Stone | March 27, 2010 at 07:27 PM
How Brian Deer and others obtained the names of families is public domain and has been since December 2006.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
21st December 2006
B e f o r e :
THE HON. MR JUSTICE EADY
____________________
Between:
Andrew Wakefield
Claimant
- and -
Channel Four Television Corporation
Twenty Twenty Productions Ltd
Brian Deer
Defendants
____________________
Desmond Browne QC and Jonathan Barnes (instructed by Radcliffes Le Brasseur) for the Claimant
Adrienne Page QC, Matthew Nicklin and Jacob Dean (instructed by Wiggin LLP) for the Defendants
Timothy Dutton QC (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the GMC
Hearing dates: 29th November 2006
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Posted by: Journal Checker | March 27, 2010 at 01:01 PM
I hear that the Times and the Sunday Times (Deer's newspaper) are to charge for their online version!!!
Who will be foolish enough to actually pay £2.00 a week for the Murdoch brand of propaganda, lies and distortion I wonder?!
Posted by: GennyGC | March 27, 2010 at 08:46 AM
On his web page, Brian Deer encourages people to contact him at [email protected]
Go for it! Tell him what you think of him! He is indeed one of the most despicable people I have ever heard of.
Posted by: Twyla | March 26, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Ray
I should not assume that parents have not done anything - I know in specific instances that they have - but getting anybody inside the state to act is quite a different matter, as I pointed out below.
John
Posted by: John Stone | March 26, 2010 at 04:57 AM
If I were one of the 12 parents who Brian Deer betrayed regarding
confidentiality I would go to the local authorities and file felony
charges against Brian Deer. Since I'm not, I cannot do it.
If any of these parents would like to contact me regarding this matter,
email me in confidence at:
[email protected]
In the case of Poul Thorsen, since there was theft and fraud involving a Federal agency and the Aarhus University in Denmark, I can do something as a US taxpayer. I contacted my Congressman in NJ as well as contacting US Federal authorities as well as the Danish Police.
Posted by: Raymond Gallup | March 25, 2010 at 05:00 PM
"Cat and mouse, cat and mouse. But which is the cat and which is the mouse?"
I feel certain I've seen this movie before! Which one do you suppose Deer is -- Leopold or Loeb?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_%28film%29
(P.S. They got caught too.)
Posted by: Garbo | March 25, 2010 at 02:26 PM
I think you've got it, GennyGC. Now, how can I get a copy of Brian Deer's psychiatric records, to confirm our suspicions of narcissistic personality disorder? I'd like to write an article about it.
Posted by: Kristina | March 25, 2010 at 01:26 PM
The term "patient confidentiality" has been breached. Were the NHS party to it? The only way to clear that question up is to name names. They have a duty to investigate via an appointed Cauldicott Guardian there to protect the patient - not the reputation or identity of the person who handed over the information. How many patients who have attended The Royal Free Hospital have had their notes handed over to, and retained by a newspaper journalist without permission from the parents? Data Protection Act should be enforced here. MP Mike O'Brien is the Minister responsible for Summary Care Records. Perhaps we can see him become a people's champion and act on behalf of the public in this instance and look into who did this to child patients attending The Royal Free.
Posted by: Allison Edwards | March 25, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Quote from Osler (below):-
'By providing childrens' medical records to an unauthorised party a criminal act was committed. Heads will have to roll.
Some very senior medical careers are about to end in disgrace and dishonour.'
I've just seen some pigs flying overhead!! (It makes a change from those with their snouts in the troughs).
Sorry Osler-I wish it could be so here in the UK, but we will not get rid of all the double standards and corruption overnight.
Please keep trying though. We need all the support and publicity we can get!!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | March 25, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Question
No children were named at the hearing but several were named before the hearing on Deer's website. He has also bragged about his access to documents.
Incidentally, every medical person I have spoken to has has said the children's party story is a piece of nonsense - and even Michael Fitzpatrick (who is normally venomous about Wakefield has said this):
"The GMC’s judgment on the now notorious ‘birthday party’ incident – in which Dr Wakefield took blood samples to use as controls from guests at one of his children’s birthday parties and subsequently told the tale as a humorous anecdote in one of his conference speeches to parents – could stand as a symbol of the medical establishment’s inept handling of this affair. Instead of dismissing this trivial episode as a lapse of judgment and taste, it drew the sternest rebuke of the judgment when Dr Wakefield was castigated for his ‘callous disregard’ for the children involved. As the video clip of Dr Wakefield telling the ‘birthday party’ story has gone around the world via YouTube (and has even featured on the BBC News website) this now appears to many as his greatest crime. In fact, its inclusion in the GMC judgment merely demeans the wider case against Dr Wakefield and diminishes his real offences."
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8030/
I still don't know what Wakefield's real offences were but this otherwise seems to be the normal reaction to that matter among medical professionals.
Posted by: John Stone | March 25, 2010 at 10:18 AM
Natasa
I think it is fairly obvious that someone does not want it highlighted at the moment that Deer has access to confidential records, without explanation. Publishing this does not further breach confidentiality.
There is evidence that the posts were taken down in a hurry, but everything is vetted before it is posted. It is very unusual for BMJ to take down posts however embarrassing (usually this has involved impersonation). I am bit surprised that they assessed that there was a real threat in this instance.
Posted by: John Stone | March 25, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Could the GMC hearing have caused the medical histories of these kids to be exposed to the public in some way, and if so, was that not a greater injustice then voluntarily giving blood at a party to benefit science?
Posted by: question | March 25, 2010 at 09:55 AM
It’s outrageous that Brian Deer can claim the right to publish anything he likes on his website – and threaten punishment to any one who dares to quote him!
Doubly outrageous that he should make public, confidential details from the medical files of children! And it’s adding insult to injury that BMJ rapid responses feel justified in removing parental complaints about this shameful affair. Our system here in UK is ridden with double standards and hypocrisy. It is the privacy of the children that should get protection, not the finer feelings of a certain journalist.
Posted by: Seonaid | March 25, 2010 at 09:55 AM
"Following a legal complaint several responses have been removed, including this one of yours. "
Meaning that someone has filed a legal complaint regarding Deer having access? Or that he has threatened BMJ in some way??? Or that they are making up the whole thing?
Posted by: Natasa | March 25, 2010 at 09:42 AM
Looks like you struck a nerve with those comments, which is why they were removed. I hope that you continue to pursue this.
Posted by: AnneS | March 25, 2010 at 09:03 AM
I have no doubt that if I said this social services would be round tomorrow to take my children away. I need a police check to read to my own kids at school and he can get away with this!
"Perhaps this is immodest of me, but I’m very proud of this accomplishment, which will always be a highlight of my professional career. I’ve got some great tables comparing the Lancet paper with the children’s actual histories and diagnoses. Eventually I will publish them."
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/02/wakefield/#comment-56943#ixzz0jByxB6qW
Posted by: mark | March 25, 2010 at 08:59 AM
Dear Ms Campbell,
Following a legal complaint several responses have been removed, including this one of yours.
Yours sincerely,
Sharon Davies
Letters editor
Please see below:
Re: Re: Patient Confidentiality 13 March 2010
Joan Campbell,
Teacher
I would also like to know how a journalist like Brian Deer is allowed to see children's medical records never mind having a list of the MMR/MR UK Group Litigation children whose legal aid was cruelly taken away.
I sent an open letter that was published in the Scottish Daily Mail to Tony Blair asking him did he give Leo his son the MMR and his secretary replied saying that the Prime Minister could not answer that question as Leo's medical files were confidential.
It is a crying shame the way children who were damaged by the MMR have never had their day in court. This is a total disgrace when the citizens of this country deserve the truth regarding the MMR vaccine and why it is harming hundreds of thousands of our children.
Competing interests: Mum of MMR vaccine damaged son
Posted by: Joan Campbell | March 25, 2010 at 08:41 AM
On telephoning my 17 year old autistic son's GP here in England, I was told that as he was over 16 they could not discuus his records with me as his mother, without him giving written consent first!
How the hell Brian Deer was able to get confidential records therefore is amazing. Unless of course it is the case of- It's not what you know but who you know! A criminal act at the very least.
Posted by: Janice Percival | March 25, 2010 at 07:39 AM
Amazing how many 'blind eyes' have been turned regarding a 'journalist' who even to a layman has behaved in a criminal manner
and of course becomes a medical expert, totally unqualified! just beggars belief,
Mike.
Posted by: michael boult | March 25, 2010 at 07:38 AM
And the saddest fact is ,its the records of the most vulnerable members of society disabled children...SHAME ON THE UK AGAIN!!
Posted by: angus files | March 25, 2010 at 07:34 AM
Schwartz
We have lots of systems in the UK, but none of them seem to have assisted the parents here - it may be what our former visionary leader, Tony Blair, called "joined-up government". It will be recalled how Blair stood on his dignity about patient confidentiality in regard to his son Leo's MMR vaccination status. It will also be recalled how Blair commented the day after Deer published his first raft of allegations against Andrew Wakefield:
"I hope, now that people see that the situation is somewhat different to what they were led to believe..."
The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson said:
"Now a darker side of this work has shown through, with the ethical conduct of the research and this is something that has to be looked at."
And a National Health Service website 'MMR the Facts' linked to BrianDeer.com, and had its own Brian Deer webpages.
John
Posted by: John Stone | March 25, 2010 at 06:37 AM
By providing childrens' medical records to an unauthorised party a criminal act was committed. Heads will have to roll.
Some very senior medical careers are about to end in disgrace and dishonour.
The parents are at long last starting to win this grossly uneven battle. The tide is turning.
Posted by: Osler | March 25, 2010 at 06:19 AM
Oh dear oh dear, this Brian Deer looks like a bad case of NPD.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms
Posted by: GennyGC | March 25, 2010 at 05:46 AM
Does the UK not have a privacy commissioner similar to Canada?
http://www.priv.gc.ca/
Posted by: Schwartz | March 25, 2010 at 01:20 AM
Good job our UK friends! It is about time that little evil man is held responsible for illegal maneuvers. Let's hope that this is the start of true legal ramifications and not some sort of hand slap by yet another GSK ghoul parading as a judge.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | March 25, 2010 at 12:16 AM