The hypocrisy quite takes the breath away; the double standard towards Andrew Wakefield's 'failure to disclose' is breathtaking. Of course, Dr Fiona Godlee is editor of the BMJ and responsible for all it contains ... and doesn't. And of course Dr Godlee didn't declare the BMJ Group's income from Merck and GSK in the BMJ's venomous attacks on Andrew Wakefield's personal and scientific integrity,

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335/reply#bmj_el_251470

The editor has finally gotten around to publishing John’s short letter and responding to him and Vera Hassner Sharav’s highly pertinent questions … and declaring that …

... "we should have declared the BMJ Group's income from Merck as a competing interest to the editorial (and the two editor's choice articles) that accompanied Brian Deer's series on the Secrets of the MMR scare. We should also, as you say, have declared the group's income from GSK as a competing interest in relation to these articles."

Applying a signature to a letter of resignation must now be a very tempting … if not irresistible temptation ... for the editor of the BMJ.

John, Yes, but hidden in there is them handing liability off to vaccine manufacturers....

By the way, John, timely remark: Swine flu: learning from past mistakes
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/pressroom/content/20110308IPR15032/html/Swine-flu-learning-from-past-mistakes

The whole of North Africa is alight as the people regain their national interests, and it did not take much stimulus when people were already at tipping point. Bankers bailed out along with our corrupted PFI hospitals, extortionately expensive managagements, massive pay offs, pharmaceutical immunity including against loss of profit as they are immunised with the bankers, whilst massive poverty spreads around the country as people lose their jobs, houses, disability funding after realising how little concern their politicians show for them. So who knows, the wrath of our people could very soon turn against the corrupted medical infrastructure and such overt displays of conceit and arrogance that will be difficult to hide.

John Stone on the BMJ outrageous Wakefield MMR articles:-

'with the continuing assumption that it doesn't matter and they will never have to account for themselves: indeed, much of the time they seem to be taking insane risks.'

I expect the BMJ Editors have all been given 'immunity' from any consequences. An apparently bottomless public and pharmaceutical industries 'purse' has lulled them all into a false sense of security.

I would LIKE to think that SOME persons are now finding it hard to sleep at nights. The recent scandalous events surrounding the LSE and all those Gaddaffi links have exposed what happens when things go wrong and all those 'cosy deals' involving, amongst others, respected academics, politicians and even Royalty are exposed to public approbation!!

There is still a great deal of Gaddaffi 'fallout' to come, but it is entertaining to watch all those 'high heid yins' attempting to distance themselves from this!!

It's just a matter of time before the MMR vaccine scandal is publicly exposed. One in sixty children with autism in the UK and increasing, simply CANNOT be ignored forever.

'perhaps that's why the BMJ chose not to publish your letter'

How do you know Eindekker???? You must be part of the BMJ decision making process.

Step back a minute John: "Should not these competing interests be openly declared", exactly how much more open could the links be made, the references you gave make the sponsorship and links quite open, they're hardly hidden, perhaps that's why the BMJ chose not to publish your letter

It is notable that the articles slagging off Wakefield were free access, but the one discussing the false allegations about the payments from Barr is subscription only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1qd3bwv3N4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Jenny,

I doubt whether the difference is even semantic. Of course, BMJ are playing dirty and instead of behaving like a peer review journal they early threw down the gauntlet to sue

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/9167415

with such a myriad of false and unsubstantiated claims that it was very hard to know where to begin. They have also been reluctant to post direct criticism of Deer's research and he has been notably absent in response (instead during January placing little nuggets of his inimitable wisdom in different blogs about the web).

John

The following BMJ article reports a very interesting development in the UK. Paul Offit's new book called: "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All", has had to be pulped before a 'book launch' in the UK. (This book cover bears a striking resemblance to 'Vaccine Epidemic'. Coincidence? I DON'T think so!!

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1159.extract

From the BMJ above:-'Basic Books, the book’s publisher, has agreed to remove a sentence suggesting that Mr Barr personally paid money to Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who hypothesised that the vaccine might cause autism, to carry out a study for the purpose of the MMR litigation.'

From Brian Deer's BMJ article 'How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money' 11-01-11

'Nobody was aware that Wakefield was receiving substantial personal payments from Barr, but both the medical school’s dean and the hospital’s chief executive knew that his research was part funded through a lawyer.'

The only difference between these two statements is 'semantic'. Offit plainly used the Deer BMJ articles as 'source' material for his book. So WHY is the BMJ NOT also withdrawing these three disgraceful slanderous articles??