Best of AofA: Lancet Boss Failed to Disclose Own Conflicts to Parliament while Denouncing Wakefield
Listen to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Clifford Miller and Isabella Thomas on The Gary Null Show


Paul Bergstrom

Would be good if the real documents could be published somewhere.


After recently fighting (and winning) a 3-year legal battle with a brian deer-esque individual who was intent on destroying my reputation, let me say that the emotional, financial and professional cost is enormous. This individual (via countersuit)was eventually found liable for libel, slander, harassment, tortuous interference, illegal trespass and attempted extortion. His rantings were exactly as deer's: Allegations Without Basis. While I was required to pay extravagent legal fees for defending the charges he made, he acted as his own attorney, with only minimal costs to himself. (while he laughed and mocked throughout the ordeal.)

If the austism community didn't already suffer from lack-of-funding for services, research, treatment, and recognition, it could garner funds to bolster Dr. Wakefield's legal representation. But we must realize that his ability to practice his specialty, work in his former institute, even live in his home country has been compromised. His effort to have any future research published has been crippled, as well. Where would he come up with the necessary funding for fighting the (good) fight against his detractors?
While it would "feel" wonderful for all of us to see deer's false legitimacy destroyed, "we" do not have the financial means to see this fight to the end. And perhaps Dr. Wakefield doesn't either. I understand that the UK has a 'loser pays' structure, but after seeing the corruption of the GMC process, there is certainly a risk for him to pursue any further slander/libel charges through the courts. Any suggestions on how we might be able to help?


AoA should lead a campaign for the firing of Lauer, Cooper and Stephanopulous if they don't retract their stories. Until they are taken to the matt, this sort of pitbull journalism will continue. 1 in 100 kids has autism. Surely there are enough families to write enough letters to get their attention.


Is this info getting to the repeaters? Lauer, Cooper, Stephanopulus??? And so many more.


Please, Dr. Wakefield, sue Brian Deer and the BMJ! Only then will the average person learn the truth about all this.

I know lawsuits are incredibly hard and stressful, and you've been through so much already, but I think this is the only way to officially clear your name and stop the lies that are hurting you and so many sick children and their families.


Dear Lord, for our children's sake, continue to give Dr. Wakefield fortified strength and resolve to stand up to Brian Deer, BMJ, the American media, and the pharma machine. I hope he sues everyone of those a-holes for slander and libel.

John Stone


It can't be stressed enough - it's a try-on. At no point have BMJ permitted discussion of Deer's data, its intepretation, its sources, its gaps. They are not acting like a respectable academic journal in any way. If they did the claims would disintegrate in seconds. Anyhow, the information is now available on the web for any disinterested party.


Brian Deer's best evidence that Child 1 at 9 months old had the type of hearing problem symptomatic of autism (as opposed to a hearing problem caused by a plugged up ear) must be the boy's November '93 visit to his doctor mentioned in the BMJ article. If Deer had better evidence, it stands to reason he would have presented it.

The medical record for that visit is cited in a footnote, but you can't click through so you have no idea what the medical record says. In fact, what the record says is that the mother complained that the boy had a discharge from his ear.

Why didn't Deer tell us about that discharge? Child 1 is important for Deer's fraud charge against Wakefield. In an online post, Deer says that Child 1's case was among those which showed the most evidence of "midnight oil." Thus Deer is duty-bound to mention that Child 1 might have merely had a childhood ear infection. And I mean duty-bound to mention it in the BMJ article, not in a blog after he's been found out.

The child's family doctor thought the boy's hearing was normal. His health visitor records say his hearing was normal. His GP referral letter says the boy reached his normal milestones until he was 15 months old and then "regressed" and was "diagnosed with autism."

I do smell midnight oil, but it's not coming from Wakefield and the Royal Free.


I do hope he is going to sue the journal and Brian Deer for libel, as well as ALL the American news organizations that reported this story without first checking the facts themselves.

I think he has a very strong case.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)