Evan Harris Distances Himself From Brian Deer But His Position Remains Untenable
By John Stone
“… both Harris and Hacked Off/MST have to do a lot more to clear the air, if by now it is possible. In the first place Hacked Off/MST have accepted a false assurance from Harris, and both have to make clear their views on Brian Deer’s investigation, the ethical deficiencies of which have been thoroughly drawn to their attention. Their present actions pose more questions than they answer, including what exactly they are doing at the Leveson Inquiry”
I earlier today received the following characteristically tight-lipped communication Martin Moore of Media Standards Trust/Hacked Off
'Dear Mr Stone,
'Please see the statement below:
'The Hacked Off campaign have been reassured that Dr Evan Harris has never engaged in breaching patients' confidentiality nor was he involved in Brian Deer's MMR investigation. As such we see no reason to believe Dr Harris’ position as an advisor to the Hacked Off campaign has been compromised and he will continue to work closely with us.
'With best regards,
Martin Moore'
There is no historical doubt that Harris worked with Deer on his investigation, and Harris himself has previously boasted about it. It is hard to see how MST/Hacked Off could have accepted his word. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet wrote in his book ‘MMR Science and Fiction’ of the presence of Harris with Deer in the Lancet offices when Deer made his initial allegations recalling (p.3):
“The tension in that earlier meeting had been heightened by the shadowy presence of Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament.”
Dr Harris stated in the BMJ only last year that:
“Within a week [after receiving a telephone call from Deer] we were in the Lancet offices explaining to a stunned editorial team what lay behind that fateful 1998 paper.”
And indeed when Deer’s allegations appeared four days later in the Sunday Times it was with an accompanying editorial by Harris. BMJ reported:
“In addition to the two page investigation by Brian Deer, the Sunday Times also carried an opinion piece by Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat member of the Commons science and technology committee calling for an independent inquiry into the way the research was carried out. Dr Harris, a member of the BMA's ethics committee, said something similar to the Kennedy inquiry into the deaths of babies at Bristol Royal Infirmary was required.”
Barely two weeks later Harris was back again furthering Deer’s allegation under privilege in the House of Commons.
It is beyond dispute that Deer and Harris worked together, and it is very good news on the day when Andrew Wakefield’s libel action became publicly known that Harris wants to distance himself from Deer’s activities, but it has taken a very long time.
However, both Harris and Hacked Off/MST have to do a lot more to clear the air, if by now it is possible. In the first place Hacked Off/MST have accepted a false assurance from Harris, and both have to make clear their views on Brian Deer’s investigation, the ethical deficiencies of which have been thoroughly drawn to their attention. Their present actions pose more questions than they answer, including what exactly they are doing at the Leveson Inquiry:
I emailed Moore earlier (3.04pm):-
'Dear Mr Moore, 'I would be very glad if you could clarify your views on Mr Deer's investigation. Whether you view it with concern (and the particularly five issues I have highlighted) and whether Hacked Off and Dr Harris should not be encouraging the Leveson Inquiry to investigate the matter.
'Dr Harris was with Brian Deer when he made accusations against Wakefield and colleagues in the Lancet offices 4 days before the initial allegations were made in the Sunday Times (22 February 2004). He contributed an editorial in the Sunday Times accompanying the allegations (22 February 2004) and led a debate in the House of Commons based on the allegation on 15 March 2004. These accusations were to do with the children in the Lancet article. I quote the Sunday Times editorial:
'"At least four of the 10 patients paid for under legal aid were also apparently paid for by the health service."
'In a Science and Technology Committee meeting on 1 March 2004 he alluded to a letter of Wakefield in the Lancet for 2 May 1998 but did not mention that Wakefield had acknowledged in that very letter that he was acting as an expert in the court case - so it is hard to see how it was a revelation 6 years later. (BMJ: Editor in the Eye of a Storm)
'It is clear that Dr Harris collaborated with Mr Deer in any ordinary understanding of the term. I quote from an article in British Medical Journal only last year:
'"In February 2004 I got a call on my mobile from a journalist at the Sunday Timessaying he wanted to talk to me about the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism. I said firmly that I didn’t have any concerns about MMR, I didn’t want to assist a scare story, and if I did want to talk about public health it wouldn’t be to theSunday Times, given the paper’s record on HIV and AIDS coverage. “Too bad,” said the man. “I have an exclusive exposé about Andrew Wakefield’s undeclared conflicts of interest surrounding his original 1998 Lancet paper.” “Hang on a sec,” I said. “I’ll get Dr Harris on the line.” '
"That was when I first encountered investigative journalist Brian Deer. Within a week we were in the Lancet offices explaining to a stunned editorial team what lay behind that fateful 1998 paper.1"' BMJ After Wakefield: The Real Questions that Need Addressing
'If Dr Harris now has doubts about the way Deer carried out the investigation, which until recently he was please(d) to be associated with (and despite warnings), it would be helpful if he would say.
'Very best wishes,
John Stone'
You can read the first article in the series Hacked Off with Hacked Off HERE.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
Eindeker,
The link below is an interview between Mike Adams (Health Ranger) and Dr Suzanne Humphries.
She will explain:-Why vaccine industry research is extremely flimsy and ignores rigorous standards of scientific evidence. (Using improper placebos designed to minimize the appearance of side effects.
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F6323813CFAFB8338173FB11D429
Elizabeth Gillespie
Posted by: AussieMum | January 06, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Quite simply it never fails to amaze me when John Stone dissects the inuendo detail ofHacked Off ,Organisation Autism nightmare .
As John turns the screw EVAN and Mr Morris .. along with other claims are suspiciously absent with the critical detail to refute Mr Stones sensible stance.
Such as this is this Hacked Off fandango is, Evan being on the side of the hurt ...when really he is a liar and defending the hurters AKA Rupert Murdoch, and James Murdoch C.E.O.of GSK NO LESS ...WELLL THEN? .
When will anyone substantiate as claimed only by Mr Deer without evidence ?where are all the parents with autism to back Mr Deer’s side of the debate ?Dr Wakefield has thousands who back him , Mr Deer is a journo who cant even supply the Judge Eady letters of complaint ,never mind thousands hundreds of thousands of millions ,of parents supporting his unsubstantiated accusations ,?You shouldn’t need more than two hands and two feet to work out how many parents support Mr Deer and Evan partners in crime.
Bring it on Evan and Brian
Angus
Posted by: Angus Files | January 06, 2012 at 05:09 PM
Great article John .
As they say is “John Wayne a Cowboy” of course he is! Along with Clint a very good rider… ..is then Evan Harris a liar ?of course he is….. when Evan tries to distance himself from his best hand , Brian Deer ,when is it OK to call someone a liar?
We are circling the wagon and await our SCALP…
Mr Morris, Please if you will..our SCALP please..
Evan
Angus.
Posted by: Angus Files | January 06, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Jenny Allan
Amongst the sponsors of Media Standards Trust are Lord Sainsbury's Gatsby Charitable Foundation
http://www.gatsby.org.uk/
As a New Labour government science minister Lord Sainsbury showed a particular interest in GM food (although it isn't sold in Sainsbury supermarkets)
The Nuffield Foundation which is involved in Bioethics
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/nuffield-council-bioethics
(basically trying to extend the parameters of publicly acceptable in science)
Scott Trust Foundation ie the Guardian (surprise, surprise!)
http://mediastandardstrust.org/about/funding/
John
Posted by: John Stone | January 06, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Sorry for going off topic in the comments here Mr. Stone, but I would like to address information in the link Eindeker provided for the trial study as support for his comments.
The link to the COMPAS clinical trial provided by Eindeker reveals that though each group received a total of 10 injections each, there had to have been a different vaccination schedule (how they were combined) for each group. That would have unblinded the experiment in the sense that it would have been easy to figure out which group was getting the experimental vaccine and which one wasn't. Additionally, each group received a schedule of different vaccines for the other diseases they were vaccinated for. Not very scientific if one is trying to tease out any differences in reactivity/safety for an experimental vaccine introduced into a schedule when "all other vaccines being the same" isn't a part of the design of the trial.
Eindeker included this quote, "Argentina’s drug regulator, ANMAT, said in a statement Tuesday that “all of these patients had been given a placebo — that’s to say, something that appeared to be the vaccine but that had no active ingredients." What placebo? Is this regulator even speaking of this trial?
Posted by: Donna K | January 06, 2012 at 03:27 PM
John Stone writes to Martin Moore:-
"Hacked Off appeared apparently from nowhere to guard the interests of citizens at the Leveson Inquiry, but it seems to be about the least accountable organisation I have ever encountered. You can't/won't answer anything much, which is both mystifying and dismaying."
Yes, John is right. These persons are unelected, unaccountable and appear to have assumed some kind of 'God given' right to 'instruct' UK citizens concerning their evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.
I would like to know exactly whom or what is providing funding to 'Hacked Off' and just what this sinister organisation's REAL objectives are. I asked Mr Moore this question in my latest communication to him. As yet I have not received a response.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 06, 2012 at 03:10 PM
My letter to Martin Moore director of Science Media Trust and Hacked Off, just sent:-
Dear Mr Moore,
I am perplexed by Hacked Off's unconditional acceptance of Dr Harris's re-assurance that he was not involved in Brian Deer's MMR investigation. I note for instance his discussion (undoubtedly inaccurate) of the ethical circumstances of the treatment of the children in the Lancet paper in the Commons debate on 15 March 2004:
" According to papers released toThe Sunday Times by the strategic health authority, the research ethics committee did not appear to ask an independent outside expert—that is, someone who is independent and outside and expert—whether the battery of tests could be considered of therapeutic value to the children. In fact, after publication of the paper, the research ethics committee tried to claim that it was not even its job to 131 make a judgment about whether procedures were in the children's best interests. That in itself is a shocking admission of incompetence, so the Department of Health should investigate every ethics approval that the committee has ever given for research on children, to see whether anything else was allowed through—in effect, on the nod.
"The published paper stated that the investigations had been granted clinical ethical approval by the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free, but the research ethics committee says, in a letter from the chairman to the dean, dated 24 July 1998: ‘On 9th July you wrote to me for my comment on the letter of Professor David Hull. In his letter Professor Hull states: 'I see that the investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust.' This is, of course, incorrect. We did not approve the investigations.’ However, the paper says clearly that the investigations were approved by the ethical practices committee of the Royal Free hospital. They cannot both be right. I suspect that both are wrong, in some ways, but one at least is wrong.
"As it happens, the researchers had submitted their application in a form to which approval might have been given, even if the research ethics committee had looked at it properly. The researchers asked for permission to carry out the tests on 25 children with a condition known as disintegrative disorder, which is also known as disintegrative psychosis or Heller's disease. DD is a much worse form of developmental disorder than autism, and the researchers stressed in their application that it is separate from autism. They said, in paragraph 5, "Scientific background", that ‘disintegrative disorder differs from autism in the loss of motor and self-help skills and usually, too, in the lack of more complex stereotype behavioral patterns".’ The researchers were clear on that point, and it is still the accepted view today. DD is of later onset and involves significant loss of acquired skills. DD is rare and, in a few cases, can be caused by a metabolic disorder that can be detected by high lactate levels in the cerebrospinal fluid. It could be argued that doing spinal taps on such children would allow doctors to diagnose a metabolic disorder, or to rule it out. Since such diseases are not treatable, generally speaking, the benefit is limited, but at least a benefit can be argued. However, no major group of doctors in the UK argued at the time, or argues now, that spinal taps be performed on children with autism for any clinical benefit, and certainly not as an excuse to obtain cerebrospinal fluid for private research contracts...."
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2004/mar/15/mmr-vaccinations-and-autism
So, Harris is working from papers supplied to him by Deer and the Sunday Times, and supplied to them by the Stategic Health Authority, illegally as it happens because the Freedom of Information Act had not come into force. He also does not mention in the debate Deer's name or the fact that he accompanied Deer to the Lancet offices and were evidently working together. But I am not sure why we should believe any of the claims that Dr Harris made when he now makes the blatantly false claim that he was not involved. Nor, do we know what to make of Hacked Off if they support that claim in the face of the evidence, which is a matter of conspicuous public record.
Here, also is Dr Harris addressing Wesminster Skeptics last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSt5W8h67hE.
I also note that you have still not responded to my email of 10pm Tuesday 3 January, 'Re:Evan Harris and the accessing of children's private medical record (s)' in regard to the closely documented ethical license of Deer's MMR investigation, with its 5 specific points which are also detailed in my artice yesterday Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off Director, Martin Moore, Stonewalls on Evan Harris and Brian Deer's MMR Investigation .
Hacked Off appeared apparently from nowhere to guard the interests of citizens at the Leveson Inquiry but it seems to be about the least accountable organisation I have ever encountered. You can't/won't answer anything much, which is both mystifying and dismaying.
Yours sincerely,
John Stone
Posted by: John Stone | January 06, 2012 at 01:37 PM
Eindeker, our gullibility left ages ago. Yours should, too, unless you enjoy the idea of children being needlessly harmed. How about if YOU get back to us with proof that these deaths occurred in the placebo group. (No fair if you quote the fox-guarding-henhouse.)
Shouldn't we all be demanding to know the real story? Didn't the Avandia victims deserve it, too? Did those Vioxx deaths teach us nothing? Forgive our skepticism and get to the bottom. Details Please. And don't "speculate", as you've already said that's unwise.
A good starting point might be: What's the placebo they used?
Posted by: Zed | January 06, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Eindeker
"almost certainly these kids died of Streptococcal pneumonia, but lets see, in the mean time use a modicum of common sense deaths in the non-active comparator arm do not indicate falsification of the data and certainly not that pharma "killed" the children, they almost certainly died of pneumonia."
What do you base the cause of deaths on? Links please.
Do you have any comment on these statements from the article linked below:
"The charges included experimenting with human beings, falsifying parental authorizations so babies could participate in vaccine-trials conducted by the laboratory from 2007 to 2008."
“These doctors took advantage of many illiterate parents whom take their children for treatment by pressuring and forcing them into signing these 28-page consent forms and getting them involved in the trials.”
“Once a picked patient arrived, it would automatically disappear to be taken somewhere else in order to be treated by those doctors specially recruited by GSK. These kind of practices are not legal and occurred without any type of state control, plus they don’t comply with minimum ethical requirements.”
Marchese also remembered that “laboratory trials on human beings are not legalized in Argentina.”
"Furthermore, the pediatrician explained that “it is also known that in various particular cases, the doctors who had conducted the trials did not answer the calls made by the worried parents after witnessing their babies’ reactions to the vaccines.”
"Julieta Ovejero, great aunt of one of the six babies who died in Santiago del Estero, said that “A lot of people wanted to leave the protocol but they weren’t allowed; they forced them to continue under the threat that if they leave they won't receive any other vaccine.”
Do you think these are the type of trials people here are calling for? Seriously? And again I ask you: Have you ever enrolled yourself (or your children if you have them) in a clinical trial for vaccines? If not, why not?
Posted by: Put your name on the list | January 06, 2012 at 01:16 PM
may i ask if Mr Harris was not involved with Mr Deer and this MMR mess why was he attending the GMC with Mr Deer he was in conversation with Mr Deer and he also spoke to the press outside the GMC Mr Harris needs to make it very clear where he stands , although i was there myself this screams government interference , and the support for Dr Wakefield has never wilted and it wont
Posted by: Debra | January 06, 2012 at 01:01 PM
Here's the details of the "COMPAS" trial for you to trawl over with full disclosure of the experimental arm and the comparator arm:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT00466947?term=compas&rank=4
Can't see there's a lot hidden there, you tell me what more you'd like to know, (BTW CAP = Community Acquired Pneumonia & AOM = Acute Otitis Media), apart from the final results of course, including any AEs
I suggest you wait until all the data are available before you start spreading unfounded and inaccurate scare stories, but as reported the deaths occured in the arm without the Streptococcal vaccine, almost certainly these kids died of Streptococcal pneumonia, but lets see, in the mean time use a modicum of common sense deaths in the non-active comparator arm do not indicate falsification of the data and certainly not that pharma "killed" the children, they almost certainly died of pneumonia.
Why in poor 3rd world countries, quite simply because the disease is endemic and will give an objective measure of the vaccines efficacy.
Just suppose the data show there were lives saved where does that leave your preconceptions? as I wrote previously:
"there is no horror story here of "vaccines killed babies", the horror story is "inactive placebo killed babies!!!!" (Just for the avoidance of doubt endemic Community Acquired Pneumonia (probably) killed the babies in the non-active comparator arm)"
Posted by: Eindeker | January 06, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Eindeker,
"The deaths were in the PLACEBO arm, not the vaccine arm"
So what was the placebo? Oft times, it is another vaccine or as in the Gardasil trials, a component of the vaccine-aluminum.
Poor and illiterate people are being taken advantage of by the pharmceutical companies and their own doctors who get paid to enlist patients. Why do the early vaccine trials seem to always take place in developing countries amoung people who do not understand what it truly means to give fully informed consent?
Eindeker, do you have children? Have you enrolled them or yourself in vaccine trials? If not, why not?
Posted by: Put your name on the list | January 06, 2012 at 10:23 AM
To Eindaker: Although I haven't read further into the details of the children dying in the Glaxo drug trial, other than the articles listed and linked to on Pharmalot, neither can I take you at your word, because I am sure it comes directly from information disclosed by the manufacturer of the product and/or those who permitted the trial to occur as it did, who now have a vested interest in protecting themselves. And even if that wasn't the case, can you tell us what was contained in the "placebo?" There has been a lot of work in the past several years about how the contents of the placebos in trials can be specifically chosen so that the results of the safety or efficacy of the product being tested will appear more beneficial than it actually is, when it comes time to decide how to publish the results. Or, in other cases, according to the comparative contents of a product vs the "placebo" it can make the product appear less beneficial than it really is, like when an agency wants to downplay the healthy affects of good nutrition or nutritional supplements, because the placebo happened to contain some of the same "inactive" ingredients as the tested product contains. And lets not forget that the same people who set up the product for trial, in some capacity are also responsible for the placebo, so if the children who died all received the placebo, and the placebo killed them all, the people conducting the trail, in my mind, are still responsible for those deaths. I hope there is a separate trial for the deaths, and that this is not the end of the whole affair.
Posted by: Jenny | January 06, 2012 at 09:43 AM
Here it is:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/author-of-discredited-vaccine.html?ref=ra
Posted by: ottoschnaut | January 06, 2012 at 09:04 AM
"very good news on the day when Andrew Wakefield’s libel action became publicly known "
Has Dr. Wakefield filed for libel?
Posted by: ottoschnaut | January 06, 2012 at 08:56 AM
JenP
It might be worth reading a bit more deeply into the shock horror story before you jump to conclusions....
"no links between the drug and the deaths of 14 babies who participated in the trials. Argentina’s drug regulator, ANMAT, said in a statement Tuesday that “all of these patients had been given a placebo — that’s to say, something that appeared to be the vaccine but that had no active ingredients. The vaccine is safe.”
The deaths were in the PLACEBO arm, not the vaccine arm, and yes isn't that what contributors here so often ask for, a vaccine v placebo study, guess that's the answer why it won't happen.
Criticsm of the trial is justified for the procedural irregularities, which is what the fine was all about and, I would argue, doing the study with a placebo arm when an active vaccine, Prevnar, is available.
But there is no horror story of "vaccines killed babies here", the horror story is "inactive placebo killed babies!!!!"
Posted by: Eindeker | January 06, 2012 at 08:40 AM
We parents will never shy away from making a stand against and exposing those who continue to shield and promote the unethical practices of the pharmaceutical companies, just look at the latest exposure this week of GlaxoSmithKline fined after 14 babies died from experimental vaccinations in
Buenos Aires.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/88922/gsk-lab-fined-over-vaccine-tests-that-killed-14—babies
A total of 7 babies died in Santiago del Estero; 5 in Mendoza; and 2 in San Juan.
Pediatrician Ana Marchese, who reported the case through the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals (FESPROSA in Spanish), and was working at the Eva Perón children's public hospital in Santiago del Estero when the studies were being conducted, said this morning in conversations with Continental AM radio that “GSK Argentina set an protocol at the hospital, and recruited several doctors working there.”
“These doctors took advantage of many illiterate parents whom take their children for treatment by pressuring and forcing them into signing these 28-page consent forms and getting them involved in the trials.”
“Laboratories can't experiment in Europe or the United States, so they come to do it in third-world countries."
I don't know how these people sleep at night. I suppose instead of counting sheep they count their money!
Posted by: JanP | January 06, 2012 at 06:41 AM
Hi Elizabeth
From Inquiry website:
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/
'The Prime Minister announced a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal, on 13 July 2011.
Lord Justice Leveson was appointed as Chairman of the Inquiry. The first part will examine the culture, practices and ethics of the media. In particular, Lord Justice Leveson will examine the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians. He is assisted by a panel of six independent assessors with expertise in key issues being considered by the Inquiry.
'The Inquiry has been established under the Inquiries Act 2005 and has the power to summon witnesses. It is expected that a range of witnesses, including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, policemen and politicians of all parties will give evidence under oath and in public.
'It will make recommendations on the future of press regulation and governance consistent with maintaining freedom of the press and ensuring the highest ethical and professional standards.
'Lord Justice Leveson opened the hearings on Monday 14 November 2011, saying: “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”'
Posted by: John Stone | January 06, 2012 at 03:01 AM
John, can you answer:- at the end of the day what is the Leveson Inquiry trying to achieve?
Elizabeth Gillespie
Posted by: AussieMum | January 06, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Delighted to hear that Harris is running scared. He was so smug outside the GMC whilst the hearing was going on. We drowned out his remarks to the press and he was not too impressed. We will wipe the smiles off all those people who agressively defend the pharmaceutical companies and their cronies.
Posted by: Joan Campbell | January 05, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Perhaps Harris will start to claim next that he wasn't a member of the Liberal Democratic Party. And maybe Mr Moore will believe him!
Posted by: Glax Britannicus | January 05, 2012 at 08:12 PM
HANSARD Commons Sitting
MMR Vaccinations and Autism
HC Deb 15 March 2004 vol 419 cc128-36
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD)
I wish to discuss issues around clinical ethics and research ethics in the work done at the Royal Free hospital by the inflammatory bowel disease group since 1995. Before I start, I would like to declare my interests. I was a member of an all-party group that recently visited the American society of clinical oncology conference for four days in Chicago, which was organised and funded by the pharmaceutical company Aventis. I am a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee, although I am not speaking for that body. I also spent a number of years as a member of the central Oxford research ethics committee, which gave me direct experience of many of the issues that I will deal with tonight. I am a member of the all-party group on autism, and my father is a recently retired professor of paediatrics.
--------------------------------
Dr Evan Harris does not reveal to parliament that he attended with Brian Deer a meeting at Richard Horton's office.
Nor that this indicates clearly that he had prior meetings/communications with Brian Deer on this matter.
Nor does he indicate his request for material (confidential or not) to be faxed to him.
Nor does he reveal to parliament whether he has ever had access to material that may have been confidential in nature, such as medical records. Which I believe would be probable as Richard Horton would most certainly have complied with fax request.
Posted by: For the Record | January 05, 2012 at 07:42 PM
Gett it o-n-n Andy no wonder, Evan is running..but you will never be allowed to hide...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/05/andrew-wakefield-sues-bmj-mmr
Angus
Posted by: Angus Files | January 05, 2012 at 06:36 PM
GMC Transcripts - Day 84 - pages 34 - 35
Q I think in February 2004 you had contact with Dr Richard Horton?
A Dr Horton telephoned me and told me that Mr Deer and Evan---
Q --- Harris, I think.
A Even Harris, the Member of Parliament, had accompanied him and that he had made serious allegations against me, and Dr Horton wanted to convene a meeting of all the senior co-authors in his office, I think it was the next day.
Q Did that meeting take place?
A It did, yes.
Q Who was present
Q Dr Horton and a female assistance, whose name I cannot remember. There was Andy Wakefield, there was Simon Murch, there was Peter Harvey and myself and Michael Thomson had been invited but he did not come.
Q Did you see at that meeting the allegations which had been made by Mr Deer?
A Yes. Dr Horton summarised those for us.
Q I would like you to look at a document, if you would. I think this is D20.
THE CHAIRMAN: This green document, “The allegations are…” is D20?
MR MILLER: Yes. Were you given a document by Dr Horton with the allegations set out?
A I believe this is the document he gave us, yes.
Q And there are six allegations in it. What was decided upon or agreed to as to how those allegations were to be met?
A It was decided that the various people involved should deal with different parts of the allegations. I cannot remember whether that was solely the decision of Dr Horton, or whether the vice-Dean, Professor Humphrey Hodgson, the following day contribution to that decision, but we were allocated to different tasks.
Q Was this going to be approached the next day? Were you going to take this task on?
A Yes.
Q The next day?
A Dr Horton rang Humphrey Hodgson. He felt it was a matter of urgency that there should be a meeting held in the University Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology. Of course, I was long retired at this stage and did not normally go to the Royal Free and I had had no involvement with the clinical care of any of these children for some years.
Q We have heard from Professor Hodgson, but was he the vice-Dean of the Medical School?
A He was the vice-Dean of the Medical School, yes.
Q Did you meet up again the following day?
A Yes, it was sequential. Richard Horton came and had a long talk to the vice-Dean at which he produced all the letters and documents that Brian Deer had given to him, and they were looked at in detail by himself and the Dean. Then he had a private meeting with me, when he gave the rather disturbing information that Mr Deer was threatening to report Simon Murch and myself to the General Medical Council, and then after that we all convened – the vice-Dean, Richard Horton, myself, Mike Thompson, Simon Murch – in the university department to consider dealing with these and how we would plan the afternoon and evening as it turned out to try and marshal the facts with some degree of urgency.
Posted by: For the Record | January 05, 2012 at 06:30 PM
Meanwhile Fiona Godlee is no doubt wondering who will stand by her.
Posted by: GH | January 05, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Fantastic revealing articles and actions by John Stone. It's good to see Evan Harris's attempts to distance himself from both Brian Deer and his own colluding pro-pharma stance. He even used his privileged position as an MP to further denigrate and undermine Dr Wakefield and his colleagues.
John's evidence reveals that Evan Harris was inextricably involved with Brian Deer's so called Murdoch Sunday Times investigation, and has been since the start. Official denials and obfuscation cannot prevent the truth from being revealed now that this entire scandalous business is going to be heard in a PROPER court of law. (The GMC is quasi judicial and seldom strikes off dangerous doctors these days, only whistleblowers).
Professor Walker-Smith's appeal against the GMC verdict is also going to judicial review in the High Court next month. The High Court has overturned a large number of unfair GMC verdicts in the past.
The tide is turning and the rats are leaving the sinking ship and running for cover. We MUST make sure that they have nowhere to hide. Please EVERYONE keep writing to Martin Moore & Co, even if you have already written.
It is important to keep up the pressure. John Stone says of the 'Hacked Off' lobby:-
"Their present actions pose more questions than they answer, including what exactly they are doing at the Leveson Inquiry”
So ASK them folks and keep on demanding ANSWERS.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 05, 2012 at 05:26 PM