Sunday Times Defies Press Complaints Commission – News Release

Following a formal complaint to the UK Press Complaints Commission in 2009 The Sunday Times failed to substantiate its published claims of “data fixing” by Dr Wakefield.

The UK’s Press Complaints Commission notified the Sunday Times to remove the stories containing those claims from its website:  Sunday Times Ordered ‘Remove Wakefield MMR “Data Fixing” Story’.

All The Sunday Times had to do was produce the evidence to show it had checked the facts sufficiently before it had published.  For a leading national and international newspaper title that should have been child’s-play. To date The Sunday Times has still failed to substantiate its claims.

There were exchanges of emails [quoted in full in the following article] showing the author of the claims had ample opportunity to clear the matter up by producing the evidence to back up the claims.  It seems he failed to do so.

The original CHS article now follows.


Thoughtful House – Center for Children

News Release

July 9, 2009

Contact: James C. Moore

USA Tel 512.300.9232

Sunday Times Defies Press Complaints Commission

Paper Notifies Media Oversight Agency that it Will Not Remove from its Website False Stories about MMR and Dr. Andrew Wakefield

(Austin, Texas) – The Sunday Times of London, a Rupert Murdoch News Corporation paper, has defied direction from the UK’s Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to remove from its web site controversial stories it has failed to substantiate, which allege Dr. Andrew Wakefield “fixed” data relating to the MMR vaccine.  The reports by correspondent Brian Deer are the subject of an extensive complaint filed with the PCC by Wakefield.

The PCC last week issued an unpublished directive that the stories be removed (see below).  They were taken down immediately, unannounced, but the Sunday Times has now defied the PCC by putting the stories back online after complaining Dr. Wakefield publicly announced the PCC’s directive.

Stephen Abell, Deputy Director of the PCC, wrote in his unpublished directive,

Given the ongoing nature of the dispute, the articles should be removed from the newspaper’s website until this matter has been concluded.”

The Sunday Times has an obligation to “cooperate swiftly” with the PCC in the resolution of complaints under the UK’s PCC Code, which states it is “the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the UK [press] industry has made a binding commitment.”  The PCC is a non-statutory self-regulatory body run by the press.

Lawyers for the Sunday Times contacted Abell to inform him that the stories were to remain published on the website.  According to Amali de Silva of the Wiggin law firm, the paper’s management decided to return the stories to its web pages, after they had been previously removed, because Dr. Wakefield publicly announced the PCC’s directive to the Sunday Times.

My client feels that it is entirely inappropriate and prejudicial to keep the articles down,” Ms. de Silva wrote to Abell.  “My client will therefore be reinstating the articles onto its website, but will be tagging them to make it clear that they are subject to a PCC complaint, which is ongoing.”

Deer, the author of the articles that are at the center of Wakefield’s PCC filing, immediately contacted the Wakefield legal team with further unfounded accusations.  He also boasted of the paper’s defiance of the PCC language, which stated,

“The Commission asked that the newspaper now confirm that the articles will be temporarily removed from the website……..”

“In fact,” Deer seemingly brags in an email, “all of my stories concerning him [Wakefield] are available at the Times Online website.”

The PCC have decided not to issue a complete ruling on Wakefield’s complaint against Deer and the Sunday Times until the GMC announces its findings.  This decision was taken even though the focus of Wakefield’s complaint is Deer’s “fixing data” story; following an extensive investigation by the GMC, “data fixing” is not the basis of any charge against Dr. Wakefield.  Deer and the management of the newspaper have chosen to defy the PCC at a precarious time for UK journalism as parliament contemplates a regulated media and the Media Standards Trust is closely scrutinizing the industry.

(Email correspondence texts in full are listed chronologically below.)

See also Media Standards Trust news release about failing self-regulation of the media :

A More Accountable Press

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.


30th June 2009

Dr Andrew Wakefield

By Email

Dear Dr Wakefield

I write further to our correspondence.  The Commission has now given an initial consideration of your complaint and has authorised the terms of this letter to you.

It has decided that it will temporarily stay its investigation until the conclusion of the GMC inquiry, which is apparently likely to be in August 2009.

It considers that the conclusion of the inquiry will place into the public domain information necessary to inform its decision.    The Commission considered that – while the GMC was not specifically considering the charge that you had “fixed”, “changed”, “misreported” or “manipulated” data – its remit covered the manner in which the data was obtained and then published in the Lancet.  The central claim in the article (and several of the related claims that have been challenged in the complaint) appeared to be the newspaper’s – and journalist’s – own interpretation of the process behind the Lancet article; the GMC was itself looking at that process.

The Commission considered it appropriate to await the conclusion of the GMC process before considering all of the points made in the complaint.

The Commission wished to take this opportunity – in advance of any formal ruling on the complaint – to make the following points:

  • Given the ongoing nature of the dispute, 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.
  • The Commission wished to express its concern at the initial slowness of the newspaper’s responses. It expected that the paper would engage promptly with the PCC once the case is reopened.  A failure to deal with the matter with appropriate speed could lead to the complaint being upheld on that point.
  • The central test for the Commission will be whether there is evidence that the newspaper took “care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” at the time of publication and whether there can be established any significant inaccuracies, misleading statements or distortions.  While the subject matter is complex, the article contained statements in clear language, which would need to be substantiated.  The information due to be  provided when the GMC hearing reports is regarded as essential to the Commission’s deliberations,  and both sides will be entitled to refer to the transcripts.
  • However, the PCC will not rely solely on the outcome of the GMC inquiry, or on the hearing in its entirety, and wishes to emphasise that this hearing is important because of the information submitted to it, rather than its outcome.
  • While the Commission takes note of the complainant’s concerns about conflict of interest involving the journalist and claims about his private bias (including what he has published on his own website), it can only have formal regard for possible breaches of the Code that relate to the material published in the newspaper itself. This may include the question of whether readers would be likely to be misled by the non-disclosure of the journalist’s involvement in the GMC inquiry (which is a matter of dispute among the parties).  However, the Code does not guarantee objectivity, and newspapers are entitled to print articles that are partisan about particular issues.  In the Commission’s view, the central thrust of the accuracy complaint was summarised in the 32 statements contained in the office’s email to the newspaper of 15th May and repeated to the complainant in the email of 2nd June.

The Commission asked that the newspaper now confirm that the articles will be temporarily removed from the website and that it undertake to notify the Commission of the conclusion of the GMC process and then co-operate promptly with the remainder of the investigation.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Abell

Press Complaints Commission, Halton House, 20/23 Holborn, London,  EC1N 2JD Tel: 02078310022 Fax: 02078310025



—–Original Message—–

From: Amali de Silva [email redacted]

Sent: 30 June 2009 17:22

To: Stephen Abell

Cc: Tyrer, Bob; Brian Deer

Subject: Wakefield – PCC complaint

Importance: High

Dear Mr Abell

I am writing to add my and my client’s serious concern regarding the email received by Mr Deer from NBC News. It may be that NBC has misunderstood the position, but the PCC asked my client to take the down only the articles complained of strictly on the basis that it would be temporary pending the outcome of the PCC’s consideration of Dr Wakefield’s complaint, and that such action should not be construed as an admission of liability. In these circumstances, it is seriously prejudicial to my client and Mr Deer, as well as highly misleading about the PCC, to allow the suggestions that the PCC has made a ruling against my client and directed that all Mr Deer’s reporting on Dr Wakefield to be removed, to remain uncorrected.

In the light of this, I would be most grateful if you would confirm that you will be contacting Dr Wakefield immediately to do the following:

1 – Clarify what statements he and/or his publicists or other representatives have made to third parties regarding the PCC’s letter today, and the identity of those third parties.

2 – If Dr Wakefield and/or his publicists or other representatives have suggested to any third parties (including NBC News) that the PCC’s letter today constitutes a ruling against my client and/or that my client has been directed to take down all Mr Deer’s reporting regarding Dr Wakefield, that Dr Wakefield should contact those third parties again immediately, retract such statements and inform them of the true position.

3 – Impress upon Dr Wakefield that the PCC has made no ruling against my client, that the request to take down just the articles complained of is a temporary measure pending the outcome of the PCC’s consideration of Dr Wakefield’s complaint, that it does not in any way constitute either a ruling against my client or any admission of liability and that he should not be suggesting otherwise.

Yours sincerely

Amali de Silva


Original Message—–

From: Amali de Silva [email redacted]

Sent: 03 July 2009 16:16

To: Stephen Abell

Subject: FW: Wakefield – PCC Complaint – URGENT

Dear Stephen

I am writing further to our previous correspondence and our telephone conversation earlier this afternoon. As you know, this is an issue that my client feels particularly strongly about. The circumstances in which the PCC requested my client take down the articles in question are very different from those that subsist now. In the light of the actions of Dr Wakefield and/or his representatives, and the inaccurate “spin” which has been put on the PCC request, my client feels that it is entirely inappropriate and prejudicial to keep the articles down. My client will therefore be reinstating the articles onto its website, but will be tagging them to make it clear that they are subject to a PCC complaint which is ongoing. In this way, anyone reading the articles will be informed of the current position.

I would like to impress upon the PCC that this is not a decision which my client has taken lightly. As you know it would, in normal circumstances, co-operate with all requests made by the PCC during the course of an investigation (as can be seen from my client’s prompt action in taking the articles down in the first instance). It has had no option but to take these measures because of the very unfortunate course of conduct which Dr Wakefield and/or his representatives have chosen to pursue. The fact that my client has felt forced to take these steps is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way as a lack of regard by my client for the authority of the PCC.


Amali de Silva


—– Original Message —–

From: Brian Deer <email redacted>

To: Joanna Bower <email redacted>

Cc: Ryland, Anissa

Sent: Mon Jul 06 13:12:00 2009


Ms Joanne Bower,

RadcliffesLeBrasseur LLP

Dear Ms Bower,

Your client, Dr Andrew Wakefield, has published, and caused to be published, on his website,, and on other sites, false claims that the Press Complaints Commission has issued an “interim order” concerning my investigation into his conduct.  Dr Wakefield claims that The Sunday Times has been ordered by the PCC to remove my stories about him from its website.

I understand that the PCC has written to your client to point out that these claims are untrue.  In fact, all of my stories concerning him are available at the Times Online website. is unquestionably controlled by Dr Wakefield, and his publication there has caused similar untruths to be published on websites either directly controlled for his interests, such as, which, as you may know was set up by Mrs Isabella Thomas, the parent of two of the children anonymised in the now-infamous Lancet MMR paper, or indirectly controlled for his interests, such as, operated to promote and profit from concern over children’s vaccines.

It is, of course, nothing new for Dr Wakefield to mislead the public, and especially the parents of autistic children.  He has faced the longest ever proceedings before a General Medical Council fitness to practise panel, following the GMC’s reinvestigation of my journalism. In due course, I’d expect he will face a hearing of the PCC, covering much of the same ground on a significantly different evidential base.

However, you may feel it advisable to explain to your client that either he accepts the untruth of his latest claims and takes them down, or he maintains them in publication, in which case his conduct would not merely be wrong, but would be dishonest.

With best wishes,

Brian Deer

Minister Misled Parliament Over MMR Autism Link

[See end for “What YOU Can Do”]

Dawn Primarolo as UK Government Health Minister misled Parliament in a written answer to Conservative MP Mark Pritchard that Bailey Banks’ successful damages claim in the US Federal Court for an autistic condition caused by the MMR vaccine was “non autistic”, stating Bailey had a “non-autistic development delay”.

Now, health minister Mike O’Brien has agreed in a letter to an MP that the ruling referred to a diagnosis of an Autistic Spectrum Disorder.  “Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified” is a category of Autistic Spectrum Disorders which does not fall into any other autism category”. There is no misunderstanding amongst experts of what it means. The paediatrician advising the court, Dr Lopez, decided against a diagnosis of autism not because Bailey Banks did not have autistic symptoms but because his condition was vaccine induced.

The designation “Pervasive Developmental Disorder” is the US diagnostic term for “Autistic Spectrum Disorder” used in the rest of the world.  “Pervasive Developmental Disorder” is also the term used by The Royal Free Hospital researchers in their 1998 Lancet study which first suggested a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autistic conditions.  Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children Lancet 1998; 351: 637-41

Primarolo told Parliament in April when a health minister:

In 2007 the United States Court of Federal Claims made a ruling in favour of compensation to the father of Bailey Banks for his non-autistic developmental delay as a result of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following receipt of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. ADEM is an extremely rare condition that has been reported after rabies, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, smallpox, MMR, Japanese B encephalitis, pertussis, influenza and hepatitis B vaccines. The Bailey Banks case has no implications for MMR vaccine policy.

Special Master Abell’s judgement in the Bailey Banks case states unequivocally (p.27):

Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay. .

Master Abell explained (p.7):

Moving on to the alternative hypothesis/diagnosis of autism, Dr. Lopez distinguishes autism as a more generalized condition without a known etiology, and contrasted it to Bailey’s condition, which he says is clearly attributable to demyelination based on neuroimaging evidence. Tr. at 41-42. Dr. Lopez also differentiated Bailey’s condition from autism, because Bailey has been affected in more than one developmental skill area; he clarified by stating that Bailey has “induced pervasive developmental delay…due to ADEM.” Tr. at 32. He noted that the conflation of designations resulted from a medical convention created for the sake of explanation to laymen, but that the two are not properly interchangeable, but actually quite distinct. Id. Speaking more directly, Dr. Lopez stated that “Bailey does not have autism because he has a reason for his deficits.” Tr. at 42.

Now in a letter to an MP, health minister Mike O’Brien agrees that the term ‘PDD’ or ‘PDD-NOS’ (Pervasive Development Delay-Not Otherwise Specified) was that used by the court:

I understand that Mr X… believes that the answer should have referred to pervasive development disorder rather than non-autistic development delay. Relevant information is given on page 2 of the Bailey Banks ruling available at by searching for ‘Bailey Banks’. This specifies the ruling refers to ‘Pervasive Development Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified’ in which full features of autism are not identified’.

O’Brien has, therefore, conceded that there were features of autism, which undermines Dawn Primarolo’s claim that Bailey Banks had a ‘non-autistic development delay’: Bailey would undoubtedly be classified as having an Autistic Spectrum Disorder in the UK, even if he did not have “the full features of autism”, or was “atypical” as in many cases, and/or had additional learning difficulties (not usually grounds for withholding an autism diagnosis). Governments, heath officials and vaccine manufacturers are evading responsibility by exploiting confused terminology for a range of developmental problems, nearly all of which are non-specific diagnoses.


When the Banks decision came to light earlier this year Robert F Kennedy Jr, writing in Huffington Post commented that vaccine court cases were more likely to be awarded if the word “autism” did not appear as consequential on brain-damage from encephalopathy:

Medical records associated with these proceedings clearly tell the tale. In perhaps hundreds of these cases, the children have all the classic symptoms of regressive autism; following vaccination a perfectly healthy child experiences high fever, seizures, and other illnesses, then gradually, over about three months, loses language, the ability to make eye contact, becomes “over-focused” and engages in stereotypical head banging and screaming and then suffers developmental delays characteristic of autism. Many of these children had received the autism diagnosis. Yet the radioactive word “autism” appears nowhere in the decision.

The problems are compounded in the UK by the policy of not monitoring, recording or investigating adverse reactions to vaccines, and then citing absence of data as evidence of safety. National Health Service advice is to ignore reactions to MMR vaccine, and to come back for repeat doses (against the fundamental medical ethics and even manufacturers’ instructions).

From an NHS website:

Q:My son had a sever [sic] reaction to the first MMR jab. Does this mean that he is well protected from these diseases, or is a second dose still necessary?

A: If a child has responded to all the components of the vaccine the first time, he will not have a problem being exposed to the viruses again. It’s like any one of us who is already immune meeting someone with the disease – the infection can’t get established.  If he hasn’t made protection to all three diseases after the first time, then he would still be susceptible to those natural infections, and still needs the 2nd dose.  Reactions after the 2nd dose are essentially the same as after the 1st dose, but if they do occur they are even rarer. There are no new side effects after the 2nd dose that do not occur after the 1st dose. The advice is therefore that it is safe for your child to have the 2nd dose in order that he is properly protected.

The casual dismissal of even “severe reactions” shows that Primarolo’s claim that cases of ADEM (Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis) which led to Bailey Banks’ pervasive development delay are “extremely rare” has no foundation. The most that the UK Department of Health could truthfully state about the incidence of ADEM is that they do not know how often it occurs, and that the failure to collect data is a matter of policy. Meanwhile, scientists and officials continue to ignore over-whelming statistical evidence from Japan of the correlation between the vaccine programme and incidence of autism, collated and presented by ChildHealthSafety and Age of Autism:

The failure of candour over these issues by government politicians and officials continues to obstruct public scrutiny of what is going on over MMR, other vaccines and autism. UK citizens should contact their members of parliament to complain about continuing government dissimulation over these matters.


If you are concerned write to your political representative. Don’t complain when politicians  do nothing if you do not write and keep on writing. It is their job to represent you. All our kids deserve proper science to protect their safety.

Contacting Your UK or US Political Representative


UK Residents – Write To Your Politicians – Do It Now!

To email your MP, all you need to know is your MP’s name.  MP’s email addresses are in the form:-

To find out who your MP is click on this link:-

More You Can Do

If you found this information helpful – share this page with others:-

  • email the links to this page to others
  • post links to this page
    • on your website
    • on your blog
    • in comments on relevant websites and blogs
  • email them to health journalists and journalists from your local newspapers, TV and radio stations – [phone them for details of email addresses or look them up on the internet]

Here is a link for you to copy and paste :-

Minister Misled Parliament Over MMR Autism Link



MMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court

Japanese Data Show Vaccines Cause Autism

Conflicted Government Expert Airbrushes Embarrassing Autism Science

Children Risk Untested Flu Vaccines In Hyped Pandemic

Doctor’s MMR Fears – 3,000 babies at risk

Gardasil Victims – In Memoriam – Healthy Young Women – Aged 15 to 21

Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action

Autism Rates Rocket – 1 in 38 British Boys – Cambridge Study

There Is No “Anti-Vaccine” Movement

Vaccines Implicated in Rocketing Childhood Diabetes Rates

Autism In Amish Children – 1 in 10,000

Parents Cure Autism – As Useless Docs Fail Kids

UK Government Caught Lying On Baby Hep B Vax Safety

UK Compulsory Vaccination Imminent

HPV Vaccine Questioned Internationally

World Pandemic Health News Round-Up

Swine ‘Flu Jokes

US Docs “Children to Die” In Flu Non-Pandemic

British Minister Misled Parliament Over US MMR Autism Case

Amazing Larry King Live TV Coverage of Autism & Vaccines

Larry King Live – Breakthrough Coverage & More

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

UK Government Hands Drug Industry Control of Childhood Vaccination

Government Risks Male Sterility As Mumps Vaccine Fails

Cambridge University Autism Expert Highlights Flaw In Reports of New Autism Paper

Can you ever cure autism? This mum believes her sons have recovered

MMR/Autism Cases Win In US Vaccine Court

UK Government Hides Yet More MMR Documents

Dr Andrew Wakefield Demolishes Ignorant US Vaccine Lobby

CDC’s New Dodgy Thimo Study – Shows Vax’ed/Un-Vax’ed Research Now Urgent

UK’s GMC, Dr Jayne Donegan’s Story, Vaccines & MMR

US Research Fraud, Tax Dollars And Italian Vaccine Mercury Study

Autism Not Genetic – Says Expert Professor Simon Baron Cohen

Recent US Data Shows Autism In Children Vastly Higher Than in Adults

Is Obama US Surgeon General Nominee Earnest Over Vaccines Causing Autism

Vaccination-Induced Autism, The Debate That Won’t Go Away

Lies, Damn Lies and Blog Posts