[ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOLLOWS THIS EDITORIAL UPDATE 21 MAY 2020]:
When the article which follows was first published in July 2009, The Sunday Times of London had failed to substantiate their published claims that Dr Andrew Wakefield had “fixed the data” in a 1998 Lancet paper about children with autism and bowel disease which some parents had associated with MMR vaccine. The Press Complaints Commission required the Sunday Times to remove them by the until they had.
Even today in 2020 The Sunday Times of London has still failed to substantiate those claims.
So it seems that:
1) The Sunday Times published false stories on Dr Wakefield making serious allegations which did not stand up and which have not been substantiated by them to this day;
2) in 4 months following the 2009 complaint The Sunday Times had still failed to substantiate them to the UK Press Complaints Commission so they were required by the Commission to remove them;
3) all they had to do was produce the evidence they relied on for their fact-checking before publication but they could not even do that;
4) they had to call in their defamation lawyers [which seems defensive that for an international flagship newspaper title];
5) they misled by presenting the stories as the work of independent professional journalism whilst failing to disclose that the journalist who wrote them was the complainant in the General Medical Council proceedings against eminent gastroenterologists Professors Walker-Smith, Simon Murch and Dr Andrew Wakefield;
6) that journalist had created [seemingly obsessively] a website which in 2009 had hundreds of pages and subjected Dr Wakefield to many years harassment – even to the extent of publishing pictures on the website of the inside of Dr Wakefield’s London England home;
7) one example of an accusation which did not “stand up” was the false allegation Dr Wakefield took out a “measles vaccine patent” to compete with the MMR vaccine. That was typical of the allegations which did not stand up. The patent was for treatment of measles infection and not prophylaxis [immunisation against future infection] so could never compete with MMR;
It was a treatment for clearing the measles virus from the body of someone already infected. Unlike a vaccine it was not to prevent future infection. There was no such vaccine – just a theoretical possibility which, if it worked, would take years to develop.
So the false allegation Dr Wakefield wanted to knock the MMR out of the market for his “vaccine” to take over never had any chance of standing up just like the other claims made by The Sunday Times.
8) Now in 2020 there is a body of sound evidence linking vaccines to autism. Even in 2009 CHS was publishing some of it: Some Science on How Vaccines Can Cause Autism – Rebuttal of Autism Fraud Claims in British Medical Journal – NAA UK NEWS RELEASE
All of the papers used to claim there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism have been shown to be seriously defective. A detailed critique here on one of them which shows it is invalid science:- “Japanese Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism“].
Here are some other examples of CHS publishing information on the evidence including over a decade ago:
Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines
Japanese & British Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism
Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action
MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court
US Government In US$20 million Legal Settlement For Vaccine Caused Autism Case
Autism In Amish Children – 1 in 10,000
-0-0-0-0-0-0-
THE ORIGINAL CHS JULY 2009 ARTICLE NOW FOLLOWS:
[ News Release]
UK Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times “Remove MMR Journalist’s Stories” on Dr. Wakefield from Paper’s Web Site
Work by Reporter Brian Deer is at Center of Investigation Being Conducted by Medical Regulators
July 2, 2009, Contact: James C. Moore, Thoughtful House – Center for Children
512.300.9232
(Austin, Texas) – The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) of London, an independent body that oversees journalism fairness in the UK, has issued an interim order calling for the Sunday Times to remove stories written by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield from its web site. Dr. Wakefield had filed an extensive complaint with the PCC regarding errors of fact in Deer’s reportage on the MMR vaccine and its possible relationship to autism. The General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK is presently hearing evidence involving Dr. Wakefield and two of his colleagues following a complaint to the GMC by Deer himself. The PCC decision today appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories.
The PCC complaint by Dr. Wakefield provides clear evidence that Deer’s allegations of “data fixing” by him are false. The complaint also accused Deer of an undisclosed conflict of interest since Deer also failed to reveal in his articles that he was the person who made the original complaint to the GMC, misleading the newspaper’s readers over the accuracy of his reporting.
“Given the ongoing nature of the dispute,” Stephen Abell of the PCC wrote, “the articles should be removed from the newspaper’s website until this matter has been concluded. This would not be an admission of any liability on the part of the newspaper.”
Although media are expected to respond promptly to complaints through an informal process, the Sunday Times took more than three months to answer detailed issues raised by Dr. Wakefield, and called upon legal representation to write the paper’s response. Despite this the paper’s management have failed to produce any evidence of “data fixing” by Dr. Wakefield. In its letter to Dr. Wakefield regarding his complaint against Deer, the PCC “expressed concern at the initial slowness of the newspaper’s response.” The PCC said it delayed a complete ruling until it has a fuller accounting of all information submitted to the GMC, but that the outcome of the GMC hearing is notrelevant to a final decision by the PCC.
“My contention has always been,” Dr. Wakefield explained, “And it always will be that journalism, before it is published, must stand on its merits with good documentation, sources, and corroboration. Deer’s stories fail on every count. I see no connection between the GMC’s hearing and a decision by the PCC. If the Sunday Times cannot defend the information today, which it can’t, then it was unable to do so at the time of publication.”
Wakefield has been one of the subjects of the longest GMC hearing in history. Although the hearing was expected to be concluded in August 2009, information from attorneys involved in presenting evidence indicate the case is not likely to be decided upon by the panel until December and may not conclude until early 2010.
About Thoughtful House: Thoughtful House advocates a multi-disciplinary treatment approach to treating autism and supports a ’safety-first’ vaccination policy. The research program at Thoughtful House is dedicated to understanding the biological origins of childhood developmental disorders and establishing best practices in treating children affected by these disorders. www.thoughtfulhouse.org
Discover more from ____________________Child Health Safety_________________
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Filed under: Vaccine Damage | Tagged: Brian Deer |
____________________Child Health Safety_________________ 
As there is nothing about this on the Press Complaints Council web site, is there any independent source where the facts can be checked? Alternatively, is it just another lie from the anti-vaccination liars?
All these many years, I have been following Brian Deer’s unsubstantiated, venomous attacks on Dr Wakefield’s proposition, that there may exist a negative synergism in predisposed children who are struck autistic, upon receipt of the poorly tested 3 in 1 Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine. It seems to me the Mr. Deer is eminently UNqualified to bring charges against Dr Wakefield since there were few if any charges would stand up if the least bit of honest investigation were performed. The zeal with which Mr. Deer pursued the Dr Wakefield and his theory makes me think that Mr. Deer thought he had found an issue that would bring him recognition and he hammered straight ahead without doing due diligence.
The Sunday Times failed big time in it’s responsibility to fact check Mr. Deer’s challenges before publishing and continuing to publish this unsubstantiated story all these many years. Attempting to bring down Dr Wakefield’s effort to help these families.
I guess selling papers is more important than getting the facts straight. Shame and shame!
When the ongoing Court case concludes and I predict Dr Wakefield is cleared I hope he sues Mr. Deer and the Sunday Times so he can be compensated monetarily for the pain and suffering they caused him and his family.
You say: “It would be an enormous lie to suggest the PCC had made such an order when it had not”.
So show me an official statement from the Press Complaints Commission mentioning Brian Deer.
Start with the list of press releases at http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/press-2009.html
Oh, and I have never lost a defamation case in my life. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could point to a final court order saying so.
I had to pay costs, did I? You will be able to point to a court order saying so, won’t you, one that supersedes the real court order which said “No order as to costs”.
Is it possible for you to go a day without lying?
And yes, I am saying that anyone who says that the PCC made such an order is lying, because the PCC has made no such order.
In fact, when I wrote to them they told me exactly that.
In fact, they are planning to do nothing until after the GMC have finished with Wakefield.
Remember, all you have to do is produce the PCC’s “order” in some official form directly attributable to the PCC. Reports on anti-vaccination liar web sites do not count.
Let’s see…you make a claim that the PCC ordered Deer to removethe articles, and, Peter Bowditch says that the PCC website does not mention it. Then, you personally attack Pter Bowditch. Sounds like you are desperate.
As for Wakefield, the testimony during the Omnibus hearings should be use to indict him for gross negligence, willful harming of children and being a lying quack in the first degree. I read the entire transcript, every single word, and listened to much of the testimony. The experts submitted by the government destroyed any pretense of objectivity and competence that Wakefield may pretend to have.
Peter Bowditch loses defamation case and under a Court Order is forced to agree to rewrite his website.
Below is the order in the legal proceedings which Bowditch was forced to put on his website. He “agreed” to the Court Order because he had no choice – which is what happens when you lose a law suit so badly you have to agree to whatever the other side wants. And the outcome was under a Court Order which if Bowditch did not comply he could be forced to comply.
Federal Court of Australia proceedings 1689/2005
Australian Communications Network P/L v Peter Bowditch and Gebesse Holdings P/L Statement to be published by consent of the parties
On 25 October 2005 the Full Federal Court of Australia found that Australian Communications Network Pty Limited (‘ACN’) was not a pyramid selling scheme in breach of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 The adverse findings and orders of the lower Court were overturned and the ACCC was ordered to pay ACN’s costs. The effect of the judgement was that ACN’s scheme had operated legitimately since its inception.
The judgement of the Full Federal Court in Australian Communications Network Pty Ltd v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2005] FCAFC 221 (25 October 2005) can be found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/221.html
On 13 September 2005, ACN commenced these proceedings against Peter Bowditch and Gebesse Holdings Pty Ltd (“The Respondents”) in respect of certain statements made on the xxxxxxx.com website alleging that those statements were misleading and deceptive in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and were false, malicious and injurious to the business of ACN. The Respondents deny that the statements were false or misleading or made with malice.
On 27 October 2005, the Federal Court of Australia granted ACN an injunction pending final hearing requiring the Respondents to remove certain arguably false material from the xxxxxxx.com website, restraining the publication of future such falsehoods and to publish this statement.
On 27 October 2005, the Respondents agreed to rewrite the contents of the site concerning the Applicant, in view of the judgement of the Full Federal Court. The parties also agreed for this statement to be placed on the website. The Federal Court has noted the agreement of the parties but does not necessarily endorse the contents of this statement.
General statement by ACN
ACN is the Australian subsidiary of the global telecommunications company American Communications Network Inc which commenced in 1993 and:
o operates in 18 countries worldwide (North America, Western Europe and Australia);
o has 2 million phone customers worldwide (approx);
o had 2004 revenues of US$600 million (approx).
Federal Court of Australia found that:
o ACN’s business was “viable and competitive”
o ACN’s commitment to offer quality products and services to customers at competitive prices is a real commitment
o “ACN’s offering to customers is competitive and may even be attractive.”
The direct selling/multi-level marketing (MLM) industry of which ACN is a part, along with companies such as Tupperware, Nutrimetics & Avon, has around 500,000 Australians working in it and has revenues of around A$1.2 billion annually.
ACN employs over 100 people in its North Sydney Offices and has acquired over 30,000 local and/or long distance customers in less than 12 months and over 5000 mobile customers in less than 3 months.
_________________________________________
Peter Bowditch comments:
ACN Update (28/10/2005)
On Tuesday, October 25, 2005, Justices Heerey, Merkel and Siopsis sitting as a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia upheld ACN’s appeal against Justice Selway’s decision and Justice Mansfield’s subsequent orders.
You can read the appeal decision here (or as a pdf file here)
The media release from the ACCC announcing the appeal decision is here (or as a pdf file here).
I was obviously disappointed at the appeal result and I do not necessarily agree with the reasoning that the judges used to come to their decision, but I have no choice other than to accept the umpire’s ruling. The court has ruled that ACN has always been operating within the letter of the law. I don’t like the way the law has been interpreted, but I have to put up with it unless Parliament amends the Trade Practices Act or the High Court overturns the appeal. In any case, the legality or otherwise of ACN’s or anyone else’s multi-level marketing activities has no bearing on my opinion of MLM schemes and their potential to provide realistic financial rewards for the vast majority of participants.
HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE PCC COMMUNICATION IN WHICH THE PCC CONFIRMS IT DIRECTED THE SUNDAY TIMES TO REMOVE ITS STORIES ABOUT DR WAKEFIELD.
ED: Notably, not only did The Sunday Times fail to provide any substantiation for the claims – which they should have had if they had fact-checked the story, it is obvious their journalist did not have any or else he would have provided it to them.