What Letter?
By Dan Olmsted
It is entertaining to watch Brian Deer try to wriggle out of trouble and end up slithering into even more of it. In what strikes me as a highly unusual move, Deer has not contented himself with letting his lawyers rebut Andy Wakefield's defamation suit against him and the British Medical Journal. No, Deer has filed with the court his own 101-page hagiography.
Brian Deer in 25,000 words or less. It's hard to squeeze in all the greatness, but someone has to do it.
Let me take just one little fact with which I happen to be familiar. Last March, the father of Child 11 in the Lancet study that is the focus of the court battle sent me a letter. It was just a few days after I interviewed him in California, an interview in which he told me Deer had made a big mistake. Deer had written that the child's autism symptoms actually began before his MMR shot -- a fatal blow to Wakefield's credibility. It was so important to Deer, that's how he started the article. He quoted the father as confirming the outrage. It became Exhibit A in Deer's cover story, "How the Case Against the MMR Vaccine Was Fixed."
Without this alleged manipulation -- which the BMJ said evinced an "elaborate fraud" by Wakefield -- Deer and the BMJ really have nothing to back up their explosive claim -- especially now that John Walker-Smith has won his appeal and the judge has affirmed the key elements of the Lancet report. The case series was manipulated and not consecutive? Gone. Wakefield turned routine gut problems into a new clinical syndrome? Poof. The kids didn't have pervasive developmental disorders? Uh, yeah, they did. Walker-Smith's medical investigations were uncalled-for and invasive, simply performed to aid Wakefield's Mengele-like research agenda? Nope.
So the MMR-manipulation thing had better be right.
But the father told me: “Mr. Deer’s article makes me appear irrational for continuing to believe that the MMR caused difficulties which predated its administration," a clear contradiction that called for a prompt correction.
Poor Deer. Relying on a mistaken discharge summary, and never checking his facts with the father -- the ordinary standard of care in journalism -- Deer went off the reservation with his claim that Wakefield had altered dates to implicate the MMR shot in autism. No, the father himself believed the MMR caused his child's autism and bowel disease. He wrote that in 1997. That's why he went to Wakefield in the first place.
When the BMJ editors -- who claimed they independently fact-checked and peer-reviewed everything, taking several months to do so -- learned of this fundamental, material, and inexplicable f-up, they must have been nauseous. (That is, if they understand the norms of the journalism profession.)
But in his 101-page declaration, in between encomiums to himself and his legendary role in British journalism, Deer says,
"Despite the plain falsity of the Lancet paper, by any account, Wakefield, relying on Olmsted’s material, alleges: 'Indeed, the child’s father has since written Deer and the BMJ to explain that Deer was misrepresenting facts about child 11, yet Deer and BMJ have printed no retraction, correction, or mention of this fact.'"
Deer asserts: "Neither I nor (to my knowledge) the BMJ have received any letter from this father accusing me of 'misrepresenting facts.'"
Really? We're going to bog this down with a silly attempt to quibble over whether making someone appear irrational based on incorrect and easily checkable information is different from misrepresenting the facts, and on that basis claim there was no such letter?
A few paragraphs later, Deer doubles down on whether he had "received any letter," stating:
"Last March, the father wrote to Olmsted and myself – effectively really copying me in to a letter he sent to Olmsted following their meeting ..." So you see, even if there was a letter, and even if that letter accused Deer of putting the father (and hence Wakefield) in a false light, and even if putting someone in a false light through knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth (actual malice) is an element of defamation of a public figure, and even if "misrepresenting facts" and making someone "appear irrational" are, in common usage, substantively the same allegation -- well, even then, the letter was not technically sent to Brian Deer at all.
What letter?
This semantic misdirection -- the kind of thing that defines Deer's Wakefield investigation over seven years -- reminds me of the joke about the boy who comes to a neighbor's front door and tells Johnny's mom, "I didn't steal Johnny's bike, and if I did, I didn't wreck it, and if I did wreck it, I put it back in the garage. Bye."
The letter begins:
Daniel Olmstead
Brian Deer
Dear Mr. Olmstead & Mr. Deer:
I have spoken with both of you regarding my son who may be one of the subjects in the Royal Free Hospital’s “research study” on autism summarized in the 1998 Lancet article.
--
So you be the judge. Did the Father of Case 11 write Deer (and me) a letter in which he said a key fact had been misrepresented by Deer?
Is a court in Texas going to go for that sort of nonsense?
And does Brian Deer, his own leading advocate, have a fool for a client?
Yes. No. And, oh good gracious, yes.
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism and co-author, with Mark Blaxill, of "The Age of Autism -- Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-made Epidemic," published in paperback last fall by Thomas Dunne books.
Deer has amended his peculiar declaration. He has taken out, for instance, the part about Elizabeth Birt (or "Liz" as Deer likes to call her).
Original declaration: http://tinyurl.com/7oa5379
Amended declaration: http://tinyurl.com/7ts4wn6
Posted by: Carol | July 14, 2012 at 08:17 AM
If Deer had written "Olmsted was let go from United Press International, a news agency owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church," that might be a fair comment, more or less. (Still plenty enough insinuendo in there.)
But for Deer not to include the name of the news agency at all? That's really tipping his mitt.
It's a strange document, containing tidbits such as Wakefield not bothering to attend Liz Birt's funeral.
Did Deer not have one trusted friend who could be bothered to read this bizarre submission for him?
Posted by: Carol | July 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM
"Washington Times" is also owned by the moonies.
Bang away Carol. I am listening.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 10, 2012 at 09:36 PM
I'm not sure I made my point in my earlier post which is right below.
Deer, in my view, is free to make any argument he wants to about UPI and Sun Myung Moon, but he only identifies the news agency as a "Moonie" organization. Why doesn't he inform the court that the news agency he's talking about is known as UPI? Because Deer doesn't think that that sounds bad. And he wants it to sound bad.
This is a guy who, at best, is only going to give readers dribs and drabs of the truth.
Posted by: Carol | July 10, 2012 at 06:36 PM
I apologize for banging away on this, but I just read Deer's declaration a couple of days ago. Deer's predilection for distortion via cherry-picking is like a Barneys window display. For instance, Deer writes,"Dan Olmsted was let go from his job with the news agency of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church (popularly known as the 'Moonies')." Deer's talking about United Press International, purchased by News World Communications in 2000.
Nobody needs to know anything about the merits of the case to see what Deer is doing here. And to suspect that he does this all the time. In everything he writes.
When disparaging an opponent, one needs to be a little subtle about it. The idea is to convey a certain idea about the other guy without revealing what a schmuck you are yourself.
Posted by: Carol | July 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Deer is transparently disingenuous when writing about Child 3. There had been much discussion in the GMC hearing about Dr. Shantha's referral letter to the Royal Free which begins:
"Thank you for asking to see this young boy who developed behavioural problems of an autistic nature, severe constipation and learning difficulties after MMR vaccination. The batch incriminated was D1433 incidentally which was the discontinued batch following adverse reactions."
Again from the transcript, Walker-Smith's response to Dr. Shantha:
"Many thanks for referring this child. As you say there is a clear history of the child being completely well until the age of 14 months when he had MMR. On the second day after the injection he developed a fever and a rash and since then his mother noticed dramatic change in his behaviour...."
Wow, that's something! His GP tells the Royal Free that an MMR hot shot gave Child 3 a fever and a rash and behavior problems thereafter. That would be catnip to any journalist....Hm, not so much, I guess. Is it so obviously a lie that Deer just couldn't be bothered to mention it? Well, no again. In Deer's table of adverse reactions occurring within days of MMR, Child 3 rates a rare "?," possibly true.
Instead here's what Deer chooses to ho-hum about in the body of his BMJ article:
"This leaves child 3. He was 6½ and lived on Merseyside: 200 miles from the hospital. He received MMR at 14 months, with the first concerns recorded in the general practitioner’s notes 15 months after that. His mother—who 4 years later contacted Wakefield on the advice of JABS—told me that her son had become aggressive towards a brother, and records say that his vocabulary had not developed.
'We both felt that the MMR needle had made [child 3] go the way he is today,' the parents wrote to a local paediatric neurologist, Lewis Rosenbloom, 18 months before their son’s referral to London. They told him they wanted 'justice' from the vaccine’s manufacturer, and that they had been turned down for legal aid. 'Although it is said that the MMR has never been proven to make children to be autistic, we believe that the injection has made [child 3] to be mentally delayed, which in turn may have triggered off the autism.'
I visited this family twice. Their affected son was now a teenager and a challenge both to himself and to others. His mother said his diagnosis was originally 'severe learning difficulties with autistic tendencies' but that she had fought to get it changed to autism.
As for a connection with MMR, there was only suspicion. I do not think his family was sure, one way or the other. When I asked why they took him to the Royal Free, his father replied: 'We were just vulnerable, we were looking for answers.'
What was unquestionably true was that child 3 had serious bowel trouble: intractable, lifelong, constipation...."
Posted by: Carol | July 08, 2012 at 11:47 AM
It's obvious from his letter to Wakefield that Father 11 himself views the sequence MMR-persistent viral infection-autism as a continuum. If he didn't, why would Father 11 be convinced that his child's MMR at 15 months produced autism 3 months later? Why is Father 11 outraged at the Royal Free doctors making an association in the Lancet paper that he himself drew attention to?
Posted by: Carol | April 22, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Re heart problems, I would just point out that iron in the heart is THE big source of these. One just measures serum ferritin which has to be under 50 ng/mL. A classical example was Boris Yeltsine in whom iron overload had to be treated abroad. Iron can be removed from the heart!! And the consequences can be fascinating and rewarding.
Posted by: Hans Raible, Stuttgart, Germany | March 17, 2012 at 02:57 PM
I have learned TONS about mainstream media and how they "spin" stories in the last 10 months in regards to articles about my center. NEVER, have they reported on the most important factor of what we do, helping families find the resources to best help their children, too alternative! We are always portrayed as a "fluff" play space........we are so much more! So i totally get it now!
Posted by: Lisa Kelly | March 17, 2012 at 12:52 AM
When Brian Deer was going through the Lancet kids was his stance that MMR cannot injure? What would that look like? Most cases of injury from MMR would probably come up as "not true." Were I to rate a case as "possibly true," then I would expect to find Deer arguing that association with MMR was coincidental by virtue of the child having a pre-existing condition. That's what I assumed until I got to Child 3.
In the Deer comparison table, Child 3 rates an exceedingly rare "?," indicating that just perhaps Child 3 had symptoms within 14 days of MMR. Child 3 for Deer is a "possibly true." But, contrary to expectation, Deer doesn't argue that the child had problems before. (Is living in Merseyside a pre-existing condition? Doubtful.) Though Deer makes it plain that Mr. and Mrs. 3 are looking for a pay-out, they don't get the shellacking other parents get. And if the "first concerns" were 15 months after MMR, why is this child "possibly true"? Parental belief in MMR injury isn't enough in the Deer universe. Besides, he interviewed the parents and the parents, he says, aren't sure.
There's nothing in the BMJ article to explain this highly liberal ranking by Deer. You have to go to the GMC transcripts and _Callous Disregard_ for that. Child 3 got a fever, a rash and started head-banging two days after vaccination with a batch of MMR vaccine discontinued, the parents discovered, after adverse reactions. In the transcripts, doctors testify that the parents are quite certain about what triggered their son's regression. And what are the chances that the parents didn't tell Deer what happened to their son after he got MMR?
Posted by: Carol | March 16, 2012 at 09:31 AM
Dan
Deer is playing with words. He is playing with you. He did indeed receive a letter from the father of child 11. But he is in effect, in his own inimitable way, also saying that this letter did not contain the word "misrepresented". Like all NPD characters he enjoys these kind of word games.
Posted by: Patricia | March 16, 2012 at 06:05 AM
Thank you, Zed.
Of course, the whole preposterous 'Life of Brian' is exposed in that ludicrous 101-page 'declaration in support of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss'. Here is another hilarious sketch - and my favourite - from Monty Python's Life of Brian,
http://youtu.be/p_dWMy47Bmk
The eponymous buffoon in this clip reminds me of one of St Brian's beastly British buddies, not otherwise currently being sued in Texas. Any thoughts on identity?
Clue: He's the clown that retracted the original Wakefield et al paper
Posted by: Mark Struthers | March 15, 2012 at 06:25 PM
Great parallel, Mark! Can't wait to see the day. Sniveling, cursing, protesting, crying like a baby....oh, excuse me. I got carried away.
(But it's so entertaining in my head. )
Posted by: Zed | March 15, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Deer's "101-page hagiography" reminded me of Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'. Here is one of my favourite sketches,
http://youtu.be/IIAdHEwiAy8
I'm now looking forward to some suitably Latinized sentences to be handed down by the court in Texas ... to Brian and his beastly British buddies.
Posted by: Mark Struthers | March 15, 2012 at 07:54 AM
Deer's game is to rummage through a child's medical records for anything that can be represented as a developmental issue occurring before MMR. Whether or not the Royal Free had access to these particular records is immaterial. Those are the rules. Illness and behavioral changes days or weeks after MMR are skipped over and Wakefield has to go directly to jail without passing Go.
But the concept strikes me as strange even by the rules of this game. Let's say you fall off your bike and get a concussion. Sometime later you get hit by a car and get another concussion. Does that mean the car didn't injure you because you've had a concussion before?
It's more that that: in the Deer game the car cannot injure you. That's the most important rule of all.
I'm getting the hang of this now.
Posted by: Carol | March 15, 2012 at 07:54 AM
The BMJ is consistently relying on the general public and even their own profession not checking the opinions presented in their commentaries and news articles. One would do it a disservice to the medical and research community to call them scientific articles.
There are many inconsistencies , disinformation , redacted documents , incomplete statements, cherry picking , misinterpretation, undisclosed conflicts of interests , ethical breaches ... each one exposed slices another portion off the credibility of the editor and author responsible.
Posted by: Check and check again. | March 15, 2012 at 05:28 AM
Reply to Carol
"One of the things that Deer relies on is the Lancet paper's apparent conflation of physical and behavioral symptoms. For instance, in Table 2 Child 11's precipitating event (identified by doctor or, in this case, parent) is MMR at 15 months with his first behavioral symptom occurring 1 week afterward. The feature associated with the precipitating event is "viral pneumonia" for 8 weeks after MMR. (In contrast, some of the other children have features listed like "disinterest" or "self-injury.")"
Well spotted Carol this is the type of skewed analysis that the general public need to be aware of. It is prevalent across the skeptic commentary I have seen...
The clinicians and researchers were trying their best to understand a puzzling connection between what must have been quite disparate elements at the very start of their research.
It should be noted that this was a paper undertaken by many and a consensus reached.
The science in the Lancet paper is far more complex than what is presented and the clinicians ans researchers need to be given the chance to annotate each of the findings they made.
The amateur opinion of someone without either a background or experience is medicine is obviously fundamentally flawed and is of little worth.
Posted by: Reply to Carol | March 15, 2012 at 05:18 AM
Tim
Lawrence is a troll from Leftbrainrightbrain. He gets all his info from there. The letter has been reproduced there in full and I'm sure Dan knows this.
Posted by: Patricia | March 14, 2012 at 06:12 PM
Lawrence,
You say you "believe there is a lot more pertinent information in there that shines a rather revealing light on the subject". Using the adjective "shines" would strongly indicate you have read the letter already. A letter written privately to Dan Olmsted and Brian Lawrence Deer.
Have you seen the letter itself already? Are you going by Dan's earlier article series about the letter? Dan, did you send the article to Lawrence?
Inquiring minds would like to know how you come to such a positive conclusion about the letter........
Posted by: Tim Kasemodel | March 14, 2012 at 05:56 PM
http://www.esquire.com/features/third-person-1108
Talking about yourself in the thirsd person....
There's a lot out there on this interesting NPD characteristic. If proof were needed...?
Posted by: Patricia | March 14, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Mr. Olmstead - any chance you could print the letter in full? I believe there is a lot more pertinent information in there that shines a rather revealing light on the subject.
Posted by: Lawrence | March 14, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Patricia
Surely not - 'reckless self-regard' perhaps?
Glax
Posted by: Glax Britannicus | March 14, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Two words for Brain Deer..
Reckless Disregard....Reckless Disregard.
Posted by: Patricia | March 14, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Barry! Thanks for your comment. I have lived so long with the things you describe that I have adjusted as a tiger does to the cage at a zoo. Digging into the details of how certain things happened is, in a way, a release of my frustrations. But my main concern is that there are voices out there that call on the public to expose Brian Deer who stands for much more than just his own pathetic little self. There are others. Anderson Cooper is among my pet peeves. I can go on. Meanwhile I do my best to change people's mindset one letter to the editor at a time.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | March 14, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Glax,
I respectfully disagree about Brian Deer. I think that he tries hard to make sure that when challenged he can point to a word or phrase to justify the construction he places on events. For instance, in the case of Child 1 he cited GP records to argue that a hearing problem antedating MMR was the child's first autistic symptom. But he omitted a following line which noted a discharge from the ear and subsequent evidence from the Royal Free and health visitor records that Child 1 had recovered from his ear infection and had normal hearing.
Deer does something no journalist should do, something Justice Mitting rebuked the GMC panel for doing:
"....I am entitled to and do, apply the familiar canon of construction used by judges in construing documents: to read and construe the whole document, not just selected words."
Posted by: Carol | March 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Glax Britannicus and Carol;
The BMJ and Deer must not be drinking their silicon based "Vovex" mineral water,along with their injected ala-min-num and that has lead them down this crooked path of forgettenfulness and possible neurological diseases.
Carol thanks for giving us a link to Dr. Wakefield's speech in Jamaica at the Safety Vaccine Conference.
I stayed up untill 3:00 watching them. Only in this day and time can I stay home and watch all this knowledge given from a little box!
Barbara actually had a speech with real true fire and anger in it. Her main concern (and it should be because it has become 100 times worse since she started the Vaccine Information Center) is that our right to refuse will be taken away. I see this morning that Age of Autism has written several articles trying to meet that challenge.
A mere university took my daughter's right away - if she wanted to follow a career in nursing/now with bipolar. I see a flight attendant lost it in mid-air to her bipolar on the news.
The Frenchman - had some really important things to say that I could barely just grasp. I would love to see someone help him translate his findings into English writings. He was talking about small particles AL included going to the lymph nodes, the spleen, the bone and to the brian?? I believe he was telling us that there are some people out that have genes that can be turned on in the presents of aluminium. I will listen to him again tonight.
If Deer had done his job and not made up stuff he would have found that "AFTER" "AFTER" vaccination there is a lot of viral pneumonia and ear infections in all the kids that had reacted to vaccines; mine included. But we all know he is not getting paid to report the "FACTS" but confuss and twist those facts. Courts of law --- actually "LAW" and not some medical board - are all very use to having to sift through twisted facts! This case has finally ended up where it had to end up all the time.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Carol
Deer is citing his own fabricated data as evidence that expert agreed clinical data in the paper is fabricated. I am sure Deer does not think his data is fabricated because Deer thinks everything Deer says is true by virtue of the fact that Deer has said it, and even though he can't remember what he has said from one moment to the next. Of course, there is less excuse for BMJ's editors (unless they've caught a neurological disease from him).
Glax
Posted by: Glax Britannicus | March 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM
One of the things that Deer relies on is the Lancet paper's apparent conflation of physical and behavioral symptoms. For instance, in Table 2 Child 11's precipitating event (identified by doctor or, in this case, parent) is MMR at 15 months with his first behavioral symptom occurring 1 week afterward. The feature associated with the precipitating event is "viral pneumonia" for 8 weeks after MMR. (In contrast, some of the other children have features listed like "disinterest" or "self-injury.")
If a child is as physically sick as Child 11 was for two months, his behavior is surely going to be different from his behavior when well and it will take some time for parents to figure out what behavior is now permanent. According to _Callous Disregard_, Child 11's developmental regression was documented as starting at 18 months of age. Most people would regard the events from 15 to 18 months as a continuum, but Deer, I assume, can only view them as coincidence.
The fact that nothing obviously behavioral is listed for Child 11 is construed by Deer to be evidence of fraud.
http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/LANCET%20pdf.pdf
Posted by: Carol | March 14, 2012 at 08:22 AM
Dan, this has got to be a sad comedy in the making. If Deer's words did not hurt so many people his foibles would be funny. But they're not, they're idiotic, and our children have paid a heavy price.
Posted by: Mary | March 14, 2012 at 07:52 AM
Well said Barry;
Not only did the truth not set me free, but it made me distrustful.
Brigit
Thanks for telling us about this, if your book gets published (if your heart don't break first) I will buy it.
His story needs to be told.
God Bless you both.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 13, 2012 at 09:36 PM
"So you be the judge. Did the Father of Case 11 write Deer (and me) a letter in which he said a key fact had been misrepresented by Deer?"
I wonder if he did. You'll need to show us the letter if you want us to be the judge of what it says.
Posted by: Anne | March 13, 2012 at 09:33 PM
Will Dr. Nancy be showing up in Texas to provide "the SCIENCE" she knows so well ??? The "science" of "bankrupt HMO vaccine data" that show the same Autism rates for those who received 34 vaccines verses 36 vaccines by age 5 ?
Just think of the credibility she could provide Brian Deer, as he visits a land far far away.... The Jury should see Dr. Nancy sitting beside Brian Deer throughout the entire proceeding.
Posted by: cmo | March 13, 2012 at 09:25 PM
Forgot to write Andy need not apply...
Posted by: Angus Files | March 13, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Thanks, Barry. This statement caused me to take a deep, cleansing breath. Ahhh.
Posted by: Zed | March 13, 2012 at 07:37 PM
Laughed when I seen this one ...anyone from our side applying...for both ..eh!jobs
Media Relations Manager, The Lancet Journals
http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/4421300/media-relations-manager-the-lancet-journals/?INTCMP=EMCJOBTXT16647I&CMP=EMCMEDEML665
And today..is this based on the lied versions of Dr Wakefield and the big wigs sacking the minows..and think it stops ...HELLO!!!
TIME MAGAZINE
Editorial Assistant/ Researcher-Fact Checker
http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/4421300/media-relations-manager-the-lancet-journals/?INTCMP=EMCJOBTXT16647I&CMP=EMCMEDEML665
Angus
Posted by: Angus Files | March 13, 2012 at 07:20 PM
Birgit,
Thank you for your courageous post, and you have my deepest sympathies for the loss of your precious child.
I've always been a pretty easy going person, but my sons vaccines injury ( .. or I guess Autism, if i wish to remain politically correct) has changed me in ways that words can barely describe. For me though, it's not so much the crushing sadness of his potential that was stolen, or the mind numbing effort that it is sometimes takes just meet his daily needs.
For me, one of the hardest parts of the vaccine-injury experience, is living with the knowledge that my son was criminally victimized when he was barely even 21 months old! I didn't know at the time that I was leading him to this fate, but it really didn't take me too long to figure out what was done to him.
They say the truth will set you free, but the vaccine-injury experience has done the opposite for me. The truth has actually turned my life upside down, and serves as an an ongoing source of unbelievable torment. I KNOW that vaccines did this to my son, yet whenever I try to prevent it from happening to other children, parents look at ME like I'M the criminal. And some of those parents have been younger siblings, who fully understand the breadth of my sons challenges.
More and more children are being injured every day, and most of that suffereing can be directly attributed to the efforts of Brian Deer. It's maddening to say the least, and although I'm really not a vindictive person, i revel in the knowledge that this narcissists' ride is about to end. Although he's clearly not smart enough to realize it, he has long since outlived his usefulness to big phrama. There's an old saying that says " If you give some people enough rope, and they'll just hang themselves". Brian Deers 101 page diatribe is just a smaller part of that bigger picture. And when all is said and down, his pharma funders will use his own sordid words to hang all of this on him.
Posted by: Barry | March 13, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Brian Deer slithering...
"There's not a single witch or wizard [or journalist] who went bad who wasn't in[to] Slytherin."
—Ron Weasley to Harry Potter
Posted by: michael | March 13, 2012 at 06:38 PM
He was 40 years old when he died. Due to zinc deficiency he still looked like a 12-year-old. His bone-age was also about 12. He weighed about 44lbs when he died. He had severe Vitamin D (1,25 (OH)2 D3)deficiency probably because of his kidney disease which was not diagnosed until it had reached stage 5. His kidney disease was most likely the result of mercury poisoning at around age 5 days of age.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | March 13, 2012 at 06:27 PM
Birgit:
How old was your son?
Posted by: Benedetta | March 13, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Birgit
Yes, that's the problem -actually we have studies coming out of our ears, it is just that no one will look at them.
John
Posted by: John Stone | March 13, 2012 at 05:17 PM
I know about the follow-up studies. My main concern is with how seriously things are being taken when there is a cloud hanging over anything in this context. It seems doctors in the U.S. already have a bias against works done abroad. I found that out when I gave my son's nephrologist a paper written in Japan. She didn't bother to read it.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | March 13, 2012 at 04:59 PM
Birgit
Actually, there were several follow up studies that were published by members of the Royal Free team, however, the protocol 172-96 that is usually mentioned in connection with the Lancet paper was never done.
John
Posted by: John Stone | March 13, 2012 at 04:36 PM
This is better than a soap opera. I can't believe that reality can be that fictional. I have enjoyed the deconstructing of Brian Deer. It's a pleasure to see the whole saga evolve into something positive.
Seeing all this I am still angry that Brian Deer halted needed follow-up investigations on the things that were suggested in the Lancet paper. Professor Walker-Smith indicated that there was a follow-up study that was never published. Will this study ever see the light of day?
The 14 years without any evolving concerted research on the subject of bowel disease in children with autism will not help my son. He died last year. But research might have helped others and answered a few of the questions that I still have.
I am still working on a story about Erik. It is not easy to write about him.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | March 13, 2012 at 04:28 PM
I saw a post on one of the websites where Deer goes to spew. As I recall, Deer acknowledged that he had received a letter from Father 11, but claimed that he had not previously seen the father's original letter to Wakefield, one which made it plain that the onset of Child 11's problems occurred at 15 months, not the 13 months that Deer reported.
Posted by: Carol | March 13, 2012 at 04:18 PM
That's how we do things now in the UK: despite last weeks ruling Deer's bureacratic myth rules the land. I have just been talking to a British mother whose son was wasting away and next to death's door when he was treated in the US but now he's home the medical view is that there absolutely nothing wrong with him - because now clinical practice for autistic people is dominated by an idiot journalist.
A friend this morning sent me an extract from Deer's article about Margaret Best, the Irish mother who won a legal claim for her son's damage from DPT vaccine:
"As Margaret dealt with him I had a moment for reflection, from the safety of not being a father. What would it have been like to have beenin her situation: to have the agony of suspicion and then the horror of knowing there was "something wrong" with your child? Then the hospital visits, the prayers for cures, the disbelief, the anger, the rage. Then comes the question "Why us?" - a question that often leads to divorce. Was it something we did? An accident at birth, or even some error before that? In Ireland, especially, grandparents ransacked history to discover "which side" it came down. It was easy to see why the vaccine and drug companies might be welcome scapegoats for the burden of guilt.
"Later would follow the practical questions. Who will look after our child? From childhood to adolescence, to adulthood and beyond. What happens then, when parents are gone?
"Moments later I heard banging and scratching at a door."Is that a dog?"
""No," Margaret said. "That's Kenneth.""
Posted by: John Stone | March 13, 2012 at 04:09 PM
Funny!!
I don't think the Texas court will be amused or persuaded of anything except Deer's utter lunacy.
Posted by: pass the popcorn | March 13, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Thanks Dan this did make me laugh but I don't know how you could stomach all the information from Brian Deer. He really believes he has got it nailed. Shame about all the children who are ill and cannot get treatment in the UK hospitals because doctors are so scared of being demonized like Andy Wakefield has been.
Posted by: Karen | March 13, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Wow, reading consecutively 103 pages written by Brian Deer...
Not easy on the stomach.
Posted by: Vaccine.Explorer | March 13, 2012 at 02:25 PM
Thanks for the laugh, Dan!
For some reason, my mind went straight to the old "Look what I almost stepped in" joke.
Posted by: Donna L. | March 13, 2012 at 01:55 PM