Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS

What is behind Brian Deer’s allegations of fraud against Dr Andrew Wakefield now published in The British Medical Journal?

Wakefield published the data and results provided to him by the team of specialists on the Royal Free team. If Brian Deer or the BMJ wanted to cry “fraud” they should have compared the data and results provided to Wakefield by his colleagues with what is in the 1998 Lancet paper.

Deer instead throughout has taken quotes here and there from GP notes and reports of parents instead. That is not “going behind” the paper to uncover fraud. These are also documents which can be wrong, have information missing or not recorded or incorrectly recorded. Also, in the UK a family doctor is called “GP” which means a “General Practitioner” – not a specialist. Further Deer obtained the documents in litigation and it is illegal under English law for him, The Sunday Times and The British Medical Journal to use them as they all have been doing in any event.

Here is the example of CHILD 8 from the paper. We have picked this child’s case because she is the clearest example on this point. We also provide examples of Child 1 and 11. We have also invited Deer and his followers to explain for the rest of the children – none of them have taken up this kind invitation [see more below].

Brian Deer has been challenged to show us all where the fraud is and he has not done it [see more below]. And he compares the wrong information with The Lancet paper and he relies solely on his personal non expert interpretation of complex medical documents – not a single expert has come forward to validate his claims – it is clear now that not even the British Medical Journal checked Deer’s facts.

As Posted by ChildHealthSafety on Age of Autism

On a blog on which Brian Deer posts regularly and in comments Deer himself posted just yesterday, CHS has challenged Deer and his followers to come up with justification for the allegations of fraud.

So far they cannot do it and Deer has provided no answers.

Child 8 and Child 11 have been covered. There are 10 more to go.

This is what the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper said about all the Lancet 12 children:-

they had “a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.

That was a main issue The 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper was reporting on scientifically and medically. It also states clearly it was an “early report” and called for further investigation.

For Child 8 specifically the Lancet paper stated:-

Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow developer compared to her older sister.”

WHERE IS THE FRAUD?

COMPARE – the General Medical Council hearing transcripts.

CHILD 8

These show what the specialist developmental pediatrician said on 23 December 1994 taken from the prior clinical records just over one month before Child 8 had her MMR vaccination on 27th January 1995.

I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.” [Day 29 page 3H to 4A].

This specialist was not any part of the Royal Free team and was part of the normal UK NHS health service.

CHILD 8′s Timeline [added 17:15 13 Jan 2011]

May 1994 age 10.5 months:

“There were no neurological abnormalities and I felt that her development was within normal limits”

17 months of age:

“The problems that her mother perceives are failure to progress past developmental milestones.”

23 December 1994 (approx 18 months) – developmental pediatrician wrote:

“I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.”

27 January, 1995: MMR vaccination

17 February 1995: The developmental pediatrician writes three weeks after MMR:

“When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. …… General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.”

CHILD 11

There are no notes for Child 11. Child 11 was not included although briefly mentioned.

Everything is based on Brian Deer’s personal word and there are no documents or other substantiation for it.

This is bizarre. And we still have 10 Lancet children left to cover on the blog.

We keep asking Deer and his acolytes where the fraud is. They and Brian Deer so far have not come up with any.

So what did the British Medical Journal think it was playing at when it cried “fraud”. And that claim is defamatory of all the other 12 doctors named as authors on the 1998 Lancet paper because it was they and not Andrew Wakefield who produced the data and results reported.

If you want to know the truth, read Chaptera 2 and 12 of Andrew Wakefield’s book Callous Disregard [Click here to buy from www.callous-disregard.com].

If you want to see for yourself Brian Deer failing to answer, here it is:-

Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield

[FOLLOWING ADDED 13:15 13 th Jan 2011]

CHILD 1

Here is another example of Deer’s evidence of “fraud”.

“Professor” Brian Deer implies in his recent publication in the British Medical Journal that Child 1 may have had symptoms of an autistic condition aged 9 months – well before the MMR vaccination:

One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious.

But what Deer fails to disclose is that review of the additional GP records (not available to the Royal Free team at the time of writing The Lancet paper) shows that Deer failed to mention the entry documenting his mother’s concerns about Child 1’s hearing, her additional concern was about a discharge from Child 1’s left ear. This concern is not suggestive of an incipient developmental disorder but of an ear infection. But “Professor” Deer decides in his inuendoed non expert opinion it did. But this would have been sufficient reason for his mother to express possible concerns about Child 1’s hearing. Here we have an example of Deer’s selective reporting of results that were not available to the authors of The Lancet paper at the material time. Throughout his reporting, Deer appears to rely selectively on such “facts” that support his premise that Wakefield perpetrated a fraud.

____________________________________________________________

Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s book, Callous Disregard is published by Skyhorse Publishing. Click here to buy from www.callous-disregard.com.

Read about the deception, inconsistencies, and intrigue behind the General Medical Council proceedings in the United Kingdom. Who wanted to see Andy Wakefield silenced – and why?

Media Contact: callousdisregard@gmail.com

Wakefield says:-

If autism does not affect your family now, it will. If something does not change—and change soon—this is almost a mathematical certainty. This book affects you also. It is not a parochial look at a trivial medical spat in the United Kingdom, but dispatches from the battlefront in a major confrontation—a struggle against compromise in medicine, corruption of science, and a real and present threat to children in the interests of policy and profit. It is a story of how ‘the system’ deals with dissent among its doctors and scientists.”