Brian Deer allowed to Bluff his way out of Trouble on BBC Radio4
By John Stone
“This is the child’s main health record and should be kept safe.” (UK Department of Health Statement about the Red Book)
Journalist Brian Deer, who has conducted a seven year campaign against Andrew Wakefield displayed his ignorance of basic medical protocol in a recent BBC Radio4 documentary (HERE). Deer alleged that Wakefield was “an incompetent doctor” because he relied on “baby books” rather than “GP records” in assembling the patient histories in the controversial ‘Lancet Paper’ (HERE), and dismissed the parent held developmental records as of being of no significance. Deer was wrong on all accounts.
1. Wakefield had nothing to do with compiling the patient histories which were taken by consultant Prof John Walker-Smith on referral to his paediatric-gastroenterology clinic.
2. While referrals are generally made with accompanying communications between GP and consultant it is not normal practice for GPs to forward all the patient’s notes.
3. The developmental records, Personal Child Health Record or Red Books, are routinely brought by the parents of young children to medical appointments of every kind and contain much essential information.
The dispute arises because Deer’s allegations of fraud against Wakefield are based substantially on alleged discrepancies between GP records and the patient histories as recorded in the Lancet, but while no one at the Royal Free would ever have seen the GP records at the time (HERE), Deer himself has never seen the developmental records which he now contemptuously dismisses as “baby books”, but which may very well help to confirm Wakefield’s case. British Medical Journal which published Deer’s latest raft of allegations in January have outside normal academic journal practice restricted comment in their columns and never required Deer to respond to any single criticism (HERE).
Deer’s astonishing claim was not in any way challenged by the programme’s presenter, Dr Adam Rutherford, who was also heard brow-beating Wakefield during the programme. Rutherford, who is an editor of the prestigious scientific journal Nature but not a medical doctor, further failed to identify another interviewee on the programme, Prof Mark Pepys, as being especially favoured by MMR manufacturers (and former defendants) GlaxoSmithKline. Pepys, who was recently hailed by GSK as an “academic superstar” heads a business partnership between University College London and GSK which was not mentioned on the programme, or disclosed by UCL when they announced an internal enquiry into the alleged fraud, which Pepys - an historical antagonist of Wakefield - is now apparently heading (HERE). Dr Rutherford has also failed to answer two emails enquiring what he knew of these matters.
This episode highlights the extent to which the medical establishment, in constructing its case against Wakefield, has at all times hidden behind the evidence of an investigative reporter with a complete absence of medical expertise. The literature supporting the importance of Red Books in UK medical practice is extensive and makes Deer’s outburst look particularly ill-informed and unwise.
An UK National Health Service website advises (HERE):
“Shortly before or after your baby is born, you’ll be given a Personal Child Health Record (PCHR). In most areas of England, this has a red cover and is often called ‘the red book’. This is a way of keeping track of your child’s progress. It makes sure that, wherever you are and whatever happens to your child, you’ll have a record of their health and progress, which can be shared with health professionals.
“When you visit a clinic, your GP or a hospital healthcare professional will use the red book to record your child’s weight and other measurements, vaccinations and other important health information. You can also add information yourself. It’s a good idea to record any illnesses or accidents and details of any medicines your child takes.
“You’ll find it helpful to keep the developmental milestones section of the PCHR up to date and to fill in the relevant questionnaires before the review. Don’t forget to take the book with you when you take your child for a review or vaccination. Try to remember it too if you have to go to accident and emergency or a walk-in centre.”
A recent Department of Health pamphlet states (HERE):
“* This is the child‟s main health record and should be kept safe.
* It should be taken with the child whenever attending:
- any Child/Community Health Clinic;
- the health visitor;
- the family doctor;
- the hospital emergency department;
- the hospital outpatient department;
- the dentist;
- the eye clinic or orthoptist;
- any allied health professional; or,
- if the child is admitted to hospital.
Professionals should note that they reinforce the importance of the PCHR by asking the parent to provide it for them to use at consultations.
This is the child’s record and it is for the parent to write in as well as professionals.”
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
Here's my point about Father 11. Deer makes a big deal about Father 11 pointing to something unknown in the Lancet paper and saying, "That's wrong." In his interview with Anderson Cooper, this was the only example of a parent objecting to anything in the Lancet paper that Deer cited. Deer puts a lot of his anti-Wakefield eggs in the Father 11 basket, the only Lancet parent he seems to respect.
But Father 11, according to Deer, thinks his son's regression was caused by his MMR vaccination. So is Deer saying Father 11 is wrong or is he saying that Father 11 is lying? If Father 11 is wrong (or lying) about such an important point, why is Deer putting so much stock in the other things says?
It's a fundamental inconsistency in Deer's analysis.
Posted by: Carol | April 04, 2011 at 04:01 PM
Father 11:
What actually happened to case 11 is confusing and as a professional I will not accept medical evidence from a journalist, so until Father 11 speaks up about the timeline of events concerning his son, no claims can be made about why he developed autism. It is quite possible that, if he really did regress two months before the MMR, that ANOTHER vaccine was responsible. Maybe one of the thimerosal containing ones. Perhaps we could be told when he had those and how he reacted... which brings me onto my next point...
The Red Book:
The Red Book is a crucially important medical record.It provides contemporaneous notes and measurements about a baby at the time of examination and observation.
In many cases I have compared the vaccine record with notes from the Health Visitor (at different places in the book) in which there is very clear information about that child's pre and post vaccine status. Subsequent entries provide detail on that same child's ongoing speech and language, social and motor development etc. In one case, as an example, seeing quite clear regression from the Red Book, I asked the parents if they had any videos from that period. In our time and age, of course they had many. The child could be seen to be normally eating, laughing and playing on the day of her vaccine - the time and date on the video screen matching the time and date of her vaccine in the Red Book - then flat out, non responsive and boiling hot later in the day. The next day she was a changed child, she projectile vomited out the same type of egg custard she had happily eaten the previous day and her mouth appeared changed. Days later video showed her eyes had changed. She regressed into autism which is when she was referred to me.
Here is a link to an article on the tragic Sally Clark case,whose two boys died following vaccine reacions and at page 5 you will read about this child I have just described.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/30630/part_5/what-killed-sally-clarks-child.thtml
The Red Book gave me the clues - in this and many other cases of reaction to vaccine. It is an invaluable source of original material and I am appalled that the BMJ - and how many medics? - and it seems also the once revered BBC -can turn a blind eye to Deer's ignorant comments about this material.
Lisa Blakemore-Brown
Psychologist
Specialist in Autism
Posted by: Lisa Blakemore-Brown | April 04, 2011 at 02:16 PM
Since Deer is such an emotionally insecure person... who uses ego and arrogance to compensate... I figure (as I always have) that the only way he would continue in this arena where he makes himself one of the most hated journalists around... is that he loves money more than his own self worth. That's why he's able to sell our kids up the river.
Erik "Nasty" Nanstiel
(I wear his nickname for me with pride...) LOL
Posted by: Erik Nanstiel | April 04, 2011 at 09:17 AM
Denning,
Your comment is interesting because, according to Deer, Father 11 thinks he's Father 13, that is, he doesn't think his son should have been included in the Lancet case series.
Posted by: Carol | April 04, 2011 at 06:43 AM
Why does Mr Deer continue to get his facts wrong yet continue to be believed i believe the incompetence of himself and people who succumb to these distortions should be brought into question , no one seems to have pushed him on the fact that he lied to a parent to gain information telling her his name was Brian Lawrence , i do believe he has an unhealthy obsession with Dr Wakefield that has distracted his life , but there again he is going around the world talking about the GMC hearings , and he has the cheek to say that Dr Wakefield is in it for the money , isnt this a case of the pot calling the kettle black , thankyou John for your writings , always enjoy reading your insights
Posted by: Debra | April 03, 2011 at 06:16 PM
Well said John. Anyone who is a parent should realize that BD knows nothing about bringing up a child, let alone, the importance of the 'CHILD HEALTH RECORD BOOK', (which I keep with all my other important documents). Put that with the fact that he knows nothing about gastric problems or developmental regression and you wonder who gave him the right to make money out of other people's misery. Of course he has shown he is an expert at that.
BD would otherwise be considered a strange 'bedfellow' for the likes of Ms Godlee and the BMJ.
"Bedfellow" - Partner or associate!
Posted by: Deborah Nash | April 02, 2011 at 03:55 PM
Thank you, John. It was one thing when Deer was spinning this crap about altering medical records for the American audience post BMJ-- Americans have no clue about the British medical handling of patient records and the fact that it would have been impossible for Lancet researchers to alter them. But the fact that he's brazen enough to tell these whoppers to a British public shows the public is not the target audience here. Instead his spin is simply a template of soundbites for government and industry policy makers to serve some particular policy-making end. It's also his own continuing oath of loyalty-- the display of willingness to tell any lie in service to industry. It's not meant to convince the public because, in the end, the public will have no say in whatever comes next.
Posted by: Gatogorra | April 01, 2011 at 04:29 PM
Hey!! How about this in Today's UK Daily Mail, (one of the FEW UK newspapers prepared to provide FAIR coverage of the Wakefield et al MMR and autism issues).
Britain goes to war on bribery
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1372075/Britain-goes-war-bribery.html
"Britain has taken a step towards shaking off its global reputation for being soft on corruption with the release of long-awaited guidelines on bribery and graft."
The article states that lavish corporate hospitality will be outlawed under this new law which also forbids payments to persons in order to promote the commercial interests of specific companies.
Surely the entire Deer, BMJ and UCL Professor 'pharma superstar' Pepys blatant financial links to MMR manufacturers GSK absolutely reeks of 'bribery and graft'!!
Could this new law possibly result in a 'clean up' of the pharmaceutical industries?? I DO hope so!!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | April 01, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Carol
Of course, we only have Mr Deer's word for the views of Mr 11. We cannot be certain whether he exist at all, or if he does, whether he is the real parent of child 11 or perhaps of some other child seen at the hospital.
Posted by: Denning | April 01, 2011 at 12:08 PM
"Time for some HONEST answers, Dr Godlee!"
Actually, it's high time the good doctor walked the plank.
Posted by: Cybertiger | April 01, 2011 at 11:26 AM
Wendell Potter has said that he could only do APCO's bidding while he was drinking to excess. I bet he's not the only one who has embalmed his conscience to get through the day.
I wish the father of child 11 would step forward and explain what, if anything, his beef is with Andrew Wakefield. I have read Deer's article many times and I still can't figure it out. This father, according to Deer, is one of the parents who blamed (and blames) MMR for his son's autistic regression. But Deer says that child 11's regression started before MMR, apparently because the discharge summary says developmental milestones were normal until 13 months, two months before the MMR. Is this father, then, just crazy? Why does he think MMR's responsible? It seems to me that "before" and "after" would be crystal clear even if you're not exactly sure about the month.
Deer doesn't even try to explain.
Father 11, come forward, speak up.
Posted by: Carol | April 01, 2011 at 11:05 AM
It is a bit amusing that Brian Deer and Dr. Thorsen are the best people that pharma can come up with to defend the vaccine industry.
20 billion dollars in annual "liability free" vaccine sales, and Brian Deer thinks Dr. Wakefield was mostly interested in some sort of personal gain.
Brian Deer has spent seven years trying to discredit a 5 page paper on 12 children, not to mention the 200 similar cases that Dr. Wakefield observed after the paper was published.
Posted by: cmo | April 01, 2011 at 10:49 AM
I already complained to the BBC about this 'Science Betrayed' programme. I ticked the box on the form asking for a response from them, but as yet I have heard NOTHING. I strongly suspect the BBC programme producers will attempt to use 'stonewalling' tactics, exactly the same tactics used by the BMJ complaints department.
I will give them another week, before informing the BBC Trust. Thanks for the link Angus Files.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | April 01, 2011 at 07:15 AM
There are humongous people out there in the world who might believe what Brian Deer has to say, well more fools them. I know in my heart and soul and every ounce of my being that he is a liar and a cheat and one of the nastiest people I have ever layed eyes and hands on.
Please view a video my husband and I made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_jRpqLcLbE&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
I try and stay positive that the work I do and the work that John Stone and so many others who I know concerning vaccine damage will some day come to fruition. Cryshame and Jabs group were some of the first groups in the UK to show the plight of us parents whose children were vaccine injured and to support theDr Wakefield, Murch and Walker Smith. http://www.cryshame.org/
Posted by: Joan Campbell | April 01, 2011 at 07:14 AM
No doubt Brian Deer (Beer Drain) is thinking of the times gone by, when ambush tactic’s were deployed on unsuspecting victims who came onto radio /TV programmes in good faith were ripped apart. As this great article by John shows that collusion at the highest level including the BBC went on in the making of this programme .
Thanks to John for bringing this transparent pharma ambush to our attention a complaint can be issued to the BBC.
Let's all bombard the BBC over this!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
For what its worth, the Director General is accountable to the BBC Trust.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/complaints_appeals/index.shtml
Angus Files
Posted by: Angus Files | April 01, 2011 at 06:34 AM
The time was March 1999, many months after THAT Lancet article was published.
My grandson has an appointment with Professor Walker-Smith at the Royal Free Hospital in London; he is to undergo a diagnostic colonoscopy, having been PROPERLY referred by his GP. The NHS paid for this and for ALL of my grandson's subsequent treatment and care at the Royal Free.
The letter of appointment addressed to his parents states:- 'PLEASE BRING YOUR CHILD'S HEALTH RECORDS WITH YOU'
So according to the 'gospel of Brian Deer', world renowned Paediatric Gastroenterolgist and consultant, Professor Walker Smith must be an incompetent doctor for relying on the childrens' developmental records or as expressed in Deer's colourful terminology 'baby books'!!
(Fiona Godlee, Editor of the BMJ, in her AOA responses to a list of questions put to her regarding Deer's recent slanderous BMJ articles specifically states:-
'Contrary to other suggestions contained in your e-mails, we made no allegation of dishonesty against Andrew Wakefield's co-authors, or indeed anybody else')
In view of the fact that Dr Wakefield and his laboratory staff had NO ACCESS to the GPs records, and it is doubtful whether they would have been allowed access under UK confidentiality records anyway; only treating clinicians are normally allowed access to such confidential material. (Brian Deer with NO medical qualifications seems to have been given illegal copies of ALL of the Lancet 12 children's GP notes and it is THESE records which Deer has based his 'dishonesty and now fraudulent' allegations on).
Time for some HONEST answers, Dr Godlee. The 'fraudulent' allegations against Dr Wakefield either have to be expanded to include all of the treating clinicians involved in the research or else withdraw them completely. The decent course of action would be for the BMJ to withdraw all 4 of those 'commissioned' Brian Deer articles and issue a FULL APOLOGY to Dr Wakefield and his research colleagues.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | April 01, 2011 at 06:28 AM