Deer doesn't surprise anybody. He is a new age pagan.

"We will wash off the Christian veneer and bring out a religion peculiar to our race" - Joseph Carr - The Twisted Cross p. 203

"It's the economy, stupid!"

The behavioural economists who work for the vaccine-industrial-complex have truly come of age in this wacky world wide era of greed, corruption, and stupendous stupidity.

The recent vaccine junket at Annecy provided pudding proof of those pathological behaviours.

http://www.vaccinestoday.eu/vaccines/why-do-some-parents-shun-vaccination/
From above:-
"Next week’s Fondation Merieux conference on immunisation policy promises to go beyond traditional approaches to vaccine acceptance by drilling down into the science of behaviour and the psychology of decision-making."

"What can be learned from social media tools and cutting edge research in fields like behavioural economics?"

This EXCELLENT professional BMJ Rapid Response from John Smith, in response to Brian Deer, has highlighted some of the GMC sworn testimony of Professor Walker Smith.
This is what these childrens' guts were REALLY like. But of course, as Isabella points out, neither the GMC, nor the BMJ, nor Deer have ever shown the slightest interest in the childrens' ongoing gastrointestinal problems and suffering.

http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6823?tab=responses
"Professor John Walker-Smith gives an erudite and detailed explanation of many of the aspects of the bowel pathology at the General Medical Council Procedures from day 75 and on (Thursday 17 July 2008 and on ...)"

How could the GMC and BMJ, ignore the professional clinical evidence of a highly qualified and experienced world renowned paediatric gastroenterologist, and instead prefer the evidence of Brian Deer, a journalist with no qualifications in either medicine or science?

As Deer states on one of those excruciating filmed episodes outside the GMC premises:-
'They didn't have bowel disease!'

We wish Mr Deer. Oh how we WISH!!

Tuesday 19th April 2011
Sent by e-mail to Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE):-

I e-mailed complaints to the British Medical Journal’s complaints department on 4-02-11 and 17-02-11. As yet I have not had so much as an acknowledgement out of them, in spite of sending a reminder on 16-03-11. The complaints were in relation to the BMJ’s editorial and article by Brian Deer:-
‘Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent’ 5-01-11’
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief, Jane Smith, deputy editor, Harvey Marcovitch, associate editor
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full
‘Secrets of the MMR scare: How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed’
Brian Deer 5-01-11
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

I think this is a disgraceful way to treat complainants and, as I pointed out in my e-mail to the BMJ on 17-02-11, this also contravenes the BMA’s own protocol of acknowledging e-mail complaints within 3 days and a definitive response within two weeks.
I should also point out that my original formal complaint e-mailed to the BMJ on 4-02-11,was answered ‘collectively’ on a US autism site, and I am not now pursuing that complaint, but instead I have superseded it with another complaint indicating my dissatisfaction with BMJ Editor, Fiona Godlee’s responses.

I note that BMJ Editors Fiona Godlee and Harvey Malcovitch have both been involved with COPE before, so should be conversant with what constitutes ‘ethics’ in publishing. Dr Malcovitch also has an important role within the GMC. I find it unethical for him to be involved in making spurious unproven ‘fraud’ assertions against Dr Wakefield and the other Royal Free clinicians and researchers involved with the 1998 Lancet Article, two of whom were ‘struck off’ the medical register by the GMC.

I can forward copies of my complaints if requested.I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully
Brian Allan

From: [email protected]
To: BAllan
CC: [email protected]
Sent: 19/04/2011 15:29:40 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: FW: British Medical Journal complaint
Dear Brian,

Thank you for contacting COPE. I am forwarding your email to our Operations Manager who will contact you in due course.

As you are no doubt aware, COPE is primarily a forum for editors and publishers of peer-reviewed journals to discuss issues related to the integrity of work submitted to, or published in, their journals. COPE does not judge on authorship disputes or editorial decisions such as acceptance or rejection of papers or choice of reviewers. Advice to COPE members is mainly provided via its quarterly Forum meetings. General advice on publication ethics is available on our website [http://publicationethics.org].

We will respond to your enquiry as soon as possible

With kind regards

Administrator

From: [email protected]
To: BAllan
Sent: 21/04/2011 11:02:51 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: RE: British Medical Journal complaint
Dear Brian

Thank you for your clarification. However, unfortunately, based on this we would be unable to take you complaint any further at this stage. COPE's remit is to support editors and publishers with managing publication misconduct in their journals. If a journal becomes a members of COPE then, as part of their membership, they agree to abide by the COPE Code of Conduct (linked to here; however, please note that the code of conduct also includes the more aspirational best practice guidelines which journals are NOT required to abide by.

http://www.publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct).

You can bring a complaint against a member journal if it can be shown that they have not abided by the Code of Conduct but, constitutionally, we are unable to investigate individual cases nor are we able to investigate editorial decision-making as it is the editor who has the final decision on what is, or isn't, published in their journal. We can only investigate whether an editor has followed recommended processes (according to the Code). If you can show us where the journal has not followed the Code of Conduct, by providing the information as requested below, then we can look into whether we can consider this as a complaint according to our complaints procedure (as seen here: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/u2/08_Editor_complaint.pdf).
I hope that is of some help.

Kind regards
Operations Manager

I have decided to post my complaints and the replies from the BMJ on here because I want to show the public the way parents of sick children and young adults are treated by them.

My e-mail to Fiona Godlee below:

Dear Fiona Godlee,

1st complaint sent to you and H. Marcvitch on 20th January, 2011 by e-mail and tried to comment on the BMJ page.
2ND complaint sent to you on 8th April 2011
3rd complaint sent on 18th July2011
4th complaint sent today 2nd August 2011

According to your complaints procedure below:

http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj/bmj-complaints-procedure

All complaints will be acknowledged (immediately on the phone, within three working days if by email or post).

To date I have not received a reply from you.
I have e-mailed you many times and tried to put a comment on the BMJ asking you questions about how you commissioned Brian Deer to write the article below making very serious accusations of fraud.


http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

I would also like to ask where Brian Deer got hold of an e-mail Richard Horton sent to me and which he quoted below in the BMJ.
This information was given to the courts and Justice Eady had strict rules on information from the parents being used outside the hearing by Brian Deer.
"Electronic chatter, once again, tells the tale. “The role of Brian Deer mystifies me,” he sent from his Blackberry to the mother of two children in the paper, two and a half years before he took the witness chair. “My own view is that the GMC is no place to continue this debate. But the process has started and it will be impossible to stop.”"
This was recognised by parents and media alike as my boys were the only two brothers in the Lancet study.

This article includes both my boys and gives details taken from some of their medical files. This information was ‘handpicked’ for your article and does not tell the full facts.

Why was I not informed about this article before it was published? Why did you not check the details with the families concerned?

"As made clear in the article, the core data on which the findings were based were evidenced, except in the case of one child, by the transcript of a General Medical Council fitness to practise hearing which sat between July 2007 and May 2010."

Does the transcript of oral testimony available from the GMC contain medical records , medical data , biopsy material , blood samples , pathology slides , MRI film or any other clear data in regards to this issue ?

If not how is it possible to put forward to the general public a clear and unequivocal argument for research fraud without reviewing the evidence in entirety ?

"It is primarily based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free from GPs and consultants."

What ethical processes were there to ensure patient confidentiality ?

How were these records released to the BMJ for the undertaking of the peer review process and editorial checking ?

I want to know what documents were in your possession to make a claim of fraud when the GMC did not.
I have sent a complaint to The Committee on Publication Ethic last week but I am not sure how independent they are but if I do not get a reply will take this further.

I am told many parents also complained to you but their comments were not printed. I am also told that some doctors also complained but these was not placed under the comments page. I have that correspondence if needed from these people.

Please reply within the next seven days or I will take further action.

I will not go away. This involved my family.
I have sent a copy of this e-mail to COPE.

Isabella Thomas

REPLY TO MY E-MAIL:

From: Fiona Godlee [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 03 August 2011 14:48
To: Isabella Thomas
Cc: 'William Gore'
Subject: Re: Brian Deer's article in the BMJ

Dear Mrs Thomas,

I must apologise for not replying to your earlier emails. There was some confusion at this end as to who was going to draft a reply and it seems to have fallen through the cracks in our system.

In response to your earlier questions, no, Brian Deer did not show the BMJ any confidential documents or medical files relating to your children or family. The information was drawn from the transcripts of the GMC hearing, which was a statutory tribunal sitting in public.

The GMC hearing was set up to decide on Andrew Wakefield's fitness to practice. It found him guilty on four counts of dishonesty, including research dishonesty, but was not explicitly designed to investigate research fraud.

The BMJ reserves the right to decide which responses to publish on bmj.com. Editorial and legal considerations are taken into account when making these decisions.

I hope this is helpful and addresses your concerns.

Best wishes, Fiona Godlee

Dr Fiona Godlee FRCP
Editor in chief, BMJ
BMJ Group
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9JR

Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6002/+44 (0)1223 872084
Fax: +44 (0)207 383 6418
BMJ Group: http://group.bmj.com

Personal Assistant, Julia Burrell
[email protected]
Tel: +44 (0)207 383 6102

MY REPLY BELOW:

Sent: 04 August 2011 10:06
To: 'Fiona Godlee'
Cc: William Gore
Subject: RE: Brian Deer's article in the BMJ

Dear Fiona Godlee,

Thank you for acknowledging you received all my complaints but I am a bit puzzled about your reasons why I did not get a reply. It is interesting that copying my complaint to the PCC resolves that confusion. I am not satisfied with your reply. You have not answered all my questions which need to be answered urgently.
You say the information was drawn from the GMC transcripts but I have to point out to you that my private e-mail from Richard Horton was not part of the GMC transcripts and should not have been published in your journal. It is your responsibility to check the GMC transcript before allowing a journalist to vent his obsession regarding DR. Wakefield ant the lancet children in your journal. I assume patients come first and not journalists. I need you to investigate this point most urgently. I was informed why the GMC was investigating Dr. Wakefield and went to some of the hearings as my boys were involved but thank you for reminding me. Did you go to the hearings? Did you read the transcripts before making the allegations of fraud. Did you just take Brian Deer’s word for it? I ask this as Brian Deer has said that I was part of that fraud on other blogs which is another serious allegation that a parent of the Lancet study was involved when in fact my children were referred to the Royal hospital because they were and still are in a great deal of pain.

Please show me in the transcripts where in indicates fraud?
The BMJ does not reserve the right to come to the conclusion of fraud relying on a journalists understanding of the GMS transcripts who has no qualifications to do so.
I am shocked you paid a journalist and accepted his piece in your journal without checking the full facts.
You state in your last paragraph that the BMJ reserves the right to decide which responses to publish on bmj.com (meaning parents and qualified doctors) and that Editorial and legal considerations are taken into account when making these decisions yet none of that was taken into consideration when allowing a freelance journalist to publish an article with private e-mails to me without my permission.
Fiona, who are you protecting because it is certainly not the children or the families?

Many thanks,

Isabella Thomas

NO RESPONSE SO SENT ANOTHER ON:

From: Isabella Thomas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 04 August 2011 13:00
To: [email protected]
Cc: William Gore; Isabella Thomas ([email protected])
Subject: Brian Deer and the BMJ

Dear Dr Godlee,

Further to my last email, I would also like to point out that the findings of the GMC are currently under appeal by Prof John Walker-Smith, and if the High Court finds for Prof Walker-Smith this will have considerable bearing on the findings against Andrew Wakefield. But also those findings are not at all the same as those currently being made by Mr Deer and yourselves. Prof Walker-Smith gave evidence in his own defence at the GMC regarding his central role in the diagnosis of the children and it is a documentary fact that he took the histories of children, not Andrew Wakefield. Your central allegation that Andrew Wakefield somehow single-handedly fabricated the data in the Lancet paper sits uncomfortably with the fact that none of the other 12 signatories have ever repudiated it, and when last year Mr Deer mis-reported the evidence of co-author Susan E Davies she was very clear about the matter: she stood by the clinical findings in the paper . This is why your allegations are fundamentally flawed, and your behaviour intolerable. Please answer where in the GMC hearings did Brian Deer find an e-mail sent to me by Richard Horton?

But this was not the editor’s mood before the hearing began. Electronic chatter, once again, tells the tale. “The role of Brian Deer mystifies me,” he sent from his Blackberry to the mother of two children in the paper, two and a half years before he took the witness chair. “My own view is that the GMC is no place to continue this debate. But the process has started and it will be impossible to stop.”

The two articles below are of great concern to me and I feel need to be investigated as a matter of urgency also.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/08/the-full-monty-a-review-of-brian-deer-and-british-medical-journals-competing-interests-in-the-wakefi.html#comment-form

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/07/james-murdoch-is-still-supported-by-glaxosmithkline.html

Isabella Thomas

REPLY:

From: Fiona Godlee [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 12 August 2011 15:31
To: Isabella Thomas
Cc: William Gore
Subject: RE: Brian Deer's article in the BMJ

Dear Mrs Thomas,

With regard to your query about the email from Richard Horton to yourself, we have referred this to Brian Deer who says that he cannot think of any reason why such an email would have been disclosed by and inspected in the case of Wakefield v Channel 4, but he thanks you for the information that the email was given to the courts and as such was distributed to third parties. More than that, he is unable to help. As I am sure you are aware, respecting the confidentiality of private sources is a central ethical tenet of investigative journalism.

The transcript is available on request from the GMC.

I can assure you that editorial and legal issues were fully considered in our decision to publish Brian Deer's articles in the BMJ.

We consider this correspondence closed.

Best wishes, Fiona Godlee

How the BMJ can get away with this I do not know. They only show contempt for the children and their families as well as the doctors who try to help.

They must be getting desperate banding together to determine other strategies to sell more vaccines.

With the latest evidence leaning to proclaim Dr Wakefield's innocence, evidence (according to them)that should have been shut away for at least 100 years.

In the meantime, look at what we Aussies have to put up with from our own government. More money than sense (cents)!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/parents-get-jabbed-on-vaccination-20111124-1nwwm.html

Elizabeth

If James has to take it so will Deer as night follows day. good riddance to the lot of the B`s 40 years since Murdoch controlled the news in the dis -united UK of England and lets say the Pharma news that got out ,bad news was sat on ...as we all know to well

Angus

P.S.

JK Rowling 'felt invaded' at note put by press in daughter's schoolbag

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/24/jk-rowling-invaded-press

Weeks after GSK paid $3 billion in fines for illegally marketing a drug that killed or injured millions, it is telling that Brian Deer joins pharmaceutical shills like SETH KALICHMAN at the French Chateau.

If Deer were a real investigator, the obvious conflict of interest would have prevented his attendance. He - like those in attendance - clearly support this ongoing criminal enterprise.

Thank gawd with...with no medical training...& seven years of research on a 5 page paper... Brian Deer was able to save the 20 billion dollar, liability free, vaccine industry and restore confidence to millions of parents around the world.

I believe he is also a keynote speaker at the "Flat Earth Society" conference coming in 2012.

@ Jenny

" By now, like the Sunday Times, they will have belatedly realised that Deer is simply NOT an asset."

Not only is Deer no longer an "asset" .. he has become a very dangerous "liability".

Which places Deer at the same risk of corporate retaliation from "the lot .. who were infamously caught out on e-mail stating their intention to 'seek out' dissenting scientists and 'destroy them where they live'.

Drip, drip, drip .....

This conference is not about health or medicine, it is an "Edward Bernays" propaganda type brain-storming session to find new ways of understanding the much exploited "human behaviour", bending people's wills and lying to them. The vile Brian Deer is invited as the "de rigueur" scarecrow that's called upon to demonstrate how to smear and frighten those, especially in the medical profession, who not comply.
A sentence struck me in the link that you gave John -

"By recognizing that the two groups that know the most about immunization are the policy makers on the one hand and the anti-vaccination lobby on the other, we see that information alone can be polarizing, rather than simply driving positive opinion."

Well-well! the anti-vaccination lobby is one of the two groups that know the most about immunization!!! Although I'm not sure that the word "lobby" is actually applicable here. As for the policy makers, we know what drive$ them.

Isabella-Take comfort from the fact that Brian Deer is a NOTHING, a NOBODY, whose malign press and media campaign against Dr Wakefield and his colleagues, has from the start been aided and paid for by corporate interests, his access to confidential material, including information about your sons and the other 10 Lancet study children, including names and addresses, willingly supplied by sources within the medical establishment and GMC, against all established rules of data protection and confidentiality. For Deer to publish the Lancet childrens' names on his website was outrageous!!

James Murdoch has now stood down (or been pushed)from his directorship of News Corporation, and it is rumoured, from all future involvement in newspapers. I think you will find that without James Murdoch's protection, the Sunday Times lawyers will soon be issuing another 'disclaimer' effectively disowning Brian Deer. Remember, this happened after THAT CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, where Deer claimed to be 'employed by The Times of London'.

James Murdoch's directorships of media companies BritishSkyBroadcasting and MMR manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline are also looking precarious; the latter was recently fined $3billion in the US for dishonest promotion of harmful drugs including Avandia. MMR manufacturers Merck have also been fined for much the same things, including that killer Vioxx. This lot were infamously caught out on e-mail stating their intention to 'seek out' dissenting scientists and 'destroy them where they live'.

I think that by now both GSK and Merck, both of which were involved with paying for the 'lavish hospitality',(Deer's words), accorded to Deer at that French conference, will be drawing up secret plans to distance themselves from Deer. By now, like the Sunday Times, they will have belatedly realised that Deer is simply NOT an asset.

Isabella, you have inspired us all with your bravery and persistence to promote the TRUTH. You WILL be compensated in the fullness of time, maybe not with money, but you WILL have justice, for yourself and your boys, the love of your family, and the admiration of the world.

Deer has NOTHING. If he goes down in history at all he will be portrayed with CONTEMPT!!

Of course, Hugh Grant was absolutely right when he referred to the likes of Deer, the BMJ, and other elements of the Murdoch press culture, as "cowardly, bullying, shocking".

I have tried to post on the BMJ complaining about Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee and the fact that they did not contact me or the other Lancet children's parents. They have not published my complaints.
They do not know how the bowel disease has progressed in the children. It still does not seem right that a reporter can use confidential information on the children and take it out of context not understanding what this bowel disease is all about or the pain the children suffer every day of their lives. He is not an expert in this condition yet he is allowed to attack the experts who are. Brian Deer has access to private e-mails from Richard Horton to me and has published some in the BMJ again taken them out of context. Where did he get hold of them? Has he got access to my e-mails? Did he get them from another court case where he would not be allowed to have them? I asked Fiona Godlee why she allowed him to publish them in the BMJ and her reply was:

With regard to your query about the email from Richard Horton to yourself, we have referred this to Brian Deer who says that he cannot think of any reason why such an email would have been disclosed by and inspected in the case of Wakefield v Channel 4, but he thanks you for the information that the email was given to the courts and as such was distributed to third parties. More than that, he is unable to help. As I am sure you are aware, respecting the confidentiality of private sources is a central ethical tenet of investigative journalism.
I can assure you that editorial and legal issues were fully considered in our decision to publish Brian Deer's articles in the BMJ.

We consider this correspondence closed.

Disgraceful

I asked a barrister who was at that court if Brian Deer can use information from that case and the reply was:

My clear perception of this is that any documents revealed to the Court were for that purpose only, and otherwise confidential. That is normally the case in litigation

I cannot afford to sue Brian Deer or the BMJ and they know this and can get away with using my children at the expense of their health. If it was not for the fact that my boys need a home to live in I would sell my house and fight them in court about the fact that my boys do have a bowel disease and a form of Autism. I would challenge Brian Deer on one of his blogs where he states that:

Ms Thomas, of course, is one of the individuals who KNOWS FOR A CERTAIN FACT that data on children was changed and misreported in the Lancet.

On an other issue the BMJ state they do not have any contact with the Lancet parents yet Brian Deer had their names on his web-site long before the GMC trial when the study was blinded so who gave him the names of the children? The study was blinded and the names of the children removed to protect them.
Brian Deer comes out with other bits of information taken out of context on blogs which could only come from medical notes on the children and not said in the GMC hearing.
The decision was made to destroy these good doctors before the GMC hearing began even at the expense of sick children who do not have a voice or money to fight back.
If anybody has any ideas of helping to set up a fighting fund let me know.

@Jenny Allan

Deer Brian's monstrous scribblings, to the BMJ and beyond, make a truly fascinating study in diabolical psychology. It would be endlessly amusing if it were not all so serious. The pathological material offered by Deer, and those other little monsters at the BMJ, must provide endless amusement for the worldwide forensic fraternity of psychologists and psychiatrists.

Brian Deer's latest BMJ Rapid Response seems to drop one of his own quoted 'experts' in the sh*t.

"Five ileocolonic biopsy series from age-matched and site-matched controls whose reports showed histologically normal mucosa were obtained for comparison."(From the original 1998 Lancet Wakefield et al paper)

From Deer's BMJ Response, (with my comments!):-
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6823?tab=responses

BD "The paper acknowledged Paola Domizio of the London hospital (not the Royal Free) for controls, but she denies the methods described. Not an author":-

Me- So how can Paola Domizio possibly have known ANYTHING about the methods used by the researchers at the Royal Free? Her involvement was simply to provide the control tissue samples.

BD "She says she supplied ten, not five, normal biopsies."

Me - It is normal practice for researchers to requisition more control tissue samples than are actually used. This is because some samples might prove to be unsuitable for comparison purposes.

BD (The biopsy samples were)"unspecified for age or site"

Me - OMG!! This is just plain WRONG. I have worked in a medical research lab, albeit long ago. The researchers would have been VERY SPECIFIC in their request to Paola Domizio, and would certainly have asked for age matched tissue samples from specific named intestinal regions. For Deer to state that these samples were not even labelled for their intestinal origins, or the age of the person sampled, reflects VERY BADLY on Paola Domizio. I would be willing to bet that she is FUMING right now as a result of Deer’s ridiculous assertions!!

BD "and a draft of the paper confirms her figure. In any event, the right controls would have been from constipated neurotypical children, not selection-biased, pristine samples"

Me - OMG again! This just demonstrates Deer's COMPLETE IGNORANCE about scientific research procedures and the role of control samples in particular. Deer is talking ‘through his silly head’ about ‘right’ controls coming from constipated neurotypical children! In other words, Deer seems to think that constipated autistic children should be used as controls to compare with... er... constipated autistic children!!

As Brian Deer says on his BMJ Rapid Response to Lewis, 'You couldn't make this up.' The BMJ Editors should tell Deer to 'zip it' before the sh*t engulfs them too!! But maybe it's already too late. The sh*t is already hitting the fan!!

Deer also mentions the Loch Ness Monster! He seems to have a bit of a fixation with 'monsters' as his Guardian blog testifies. The locals living beside Loch Ness are all aware that the Loch Ness Monster is alive and kicking and eats Deer for it's breakfast!!

Dan, I sincerely love your comment. The visual was AWESOME. John, you are most profoundly excellent. And may I just also observe the wit and wisdom of A of A commentators?!?! Spec. tacular. Happiest of Thanksgivings! Best, lj

Deer constantly confesses about his own character, actions and conflicts, only he does it in the form of accusations against others. There's a bit of a "catch me if you can" pathology to the whole thing, sort of like cat burglers who compulsively shit at the scene of the crime.

Addendum

I missed while I was writing this the curious fact that while Deer's recent letter to BMJ appeared at some time after midday on Wednesday it is dated as published on Sunday. Presently BMJ are sowing much confusion with their correspondence by mixing up the hour of submission with that of publication, which means that unfavoured posts never get to the top of the stack (if they get published at all).