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.”

 

5 Responses

  1. This has just been posted on Deer’s LeftBrainRightBrain blog:

    “Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield”

    He and his buddies have still not posted the clearly uncomfortable facts in other posts we have made there. This one may not go up either.

    “The challenge is still out for Brian Deer. Tell us where the fraud is. You can come to our blog here and tell us.
    “Wakefield & MMR BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS”
    http://tinyurl.com/5vs8rwt
    If Brian Deer is alleging fraud then he must compare the data and results provided to Wakefield by the Royal Free team with what is in the paper.

    What he has done instead is compare the wrong information.

    So much for being the first journalist to go behind a medical paper and find the “truth”.

    We are waiting. There are Children 1 to 7, 9 to 10 and 12 yet to go. Still plenty for you to show us where the fraud is.

    Let’s see a nice table comparing the data and results the Royal Free specialists provided to Wakefield with what is in the 1998 Lancet paper.

    Come on Brian let’s see it.

  2. HERE ARE SOME COMMENTS LEFTBRAINRIGHTBRAIN HAVE STILL NOT POSTED
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    POSTED 02:08

    ChildHealthSafety Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 13th, 2011
    03:08:08
    Sullivan January 12th, 2011 22:44
    “We have the parental report on child 11. If that’s not good enough for you, please take all other parental reports out of the discussion.”
    You miss the point. If Brian Deer is alleging fraud then he must compare the data and results provided to Wakefield by the Royal Free team with what is in the paper.
    What he has done instead is compare the wrong information. Clearly, his lack of medical qualifications has resulted in the current mess he is now in over this.
    Take the example of Child 8 – it is the specialist developmental pediatrian’s opinion which counts. Neither the GP nor the mother is competent to provide the specialist assessment of whether the child’s development was in the normal range. And neither of them did – it was
    the developmental pediatrician who did that.
    So we say again, show us where the fraud is.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    POSTED 03:56

    ChildHealthSafety Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 13th, 2011
    03:56:32
    The following is the prior comment to which we referred and which still has not been posted. So you can post on CHS now instead here:
    “Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS”
    http://tinyurl.com/5vs8rwt
    POST STILL NOT POSTED
    _________________________________________________
    ChildHealthSafety Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 13th, 2011
    03:08:08
    Sullivan January 12th, 2011 22:44
    “We have the parental report on child 11. If that’s not good enough for you, please take all other parental reports out of the discussion.”/p>
    You miss the point. If Brian Deer is alleging fraud then he must compare the data and results provided to Wakefield by the Royal Free team with what is in the paper.
    What he has done instead is compare the wrong information. Clearly, his lack of medical qualifications has resulted in the current mess he is now in over this.
    Take the example of Child 8 – it is the specialist developmental pediatrian’s opinion which counts. Neither the GP nor the mother is competent to provide the specialist assessment of whether the child’s
    development was in the normal range. And neither of them did – it was the developmental pediatrician who did that.
    So we say again, show us where the fraud is.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    POSTED 08:34

    ChildHealthSafety Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 13th, 2011
    09:34:14
    The challenge is still out for Brian Deer.
    Tell us where the fraud is. You can come to our blog here and tell us.
    “Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS”
    http://tinyurl.com/5vs8rwt
    If Brian Deer is alleging fraud then he must compare the data and results provided to Wakefield by the Royal Free team with what is in the paper.
    What he has done instead is compare the wrong information.
    So much for being the first journalist to go behind a medical paper and find the ‘truth’.
    We are waiting. There are Children 1 to 7, 9 to 10 and 12 yet to go. Still plenty for you to show us here the fraud is.
    Let’s see a nice table comparing the data and results the Royal Free specialists provided to Wakefield with what is in the 1998 Lancet paper.
    Come on Brian – let’s see it.

  3. Brian Deer has a new Blog on the UK’s Guardian Newspaper site where you can challenge him directly yourself.

    Here is the link:
    The medical establishment shielded Andrew Wakefield from fraud claims

    Here is what we posted this morning:-

    ChildHealthSafety
    13 January 2011 10:02AM

    Can Ben Goldacre or Brian Deer explain where the fraud is?

    Wakefield published the data and results provided to him by the team of specialists on the Royal Free team. Brian Deer should have compared the data and results provided to Wakefield with what is in the 1998 Lancet paper.

    He instead has taken quotes here and there from GP notes and reports of parents instead. That is not “going behind” the paper to uncover fraud.

    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.

    This is what the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper said right at the outset about all the Lancet 12 children:-
    they had “a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.

    That was a main scientific and medical issue The 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper was reporting, stating it was an “early report” and called for further investigation.

    CHILD 8

    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.”

    Now compare this with the data and results provided to Wakefield – which was the developmental pediatrician’s assessment – not the GP and not the mother but the specialist:-

    May 1994 age 10.5 months:

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

    November 1994 – 17 months of age:

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

    23 December 1994 (approx 18 months) – the 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.”

    Yes Child 8 had a heart problem – repaired by surgery. But that was not relevant to the scientific and medical issue being examined. Child 8 could have had club feet asthma diabetes and leprosy [she did not] – but what was being looked at was her development.

    That is how science works. It examines a specific issue – in this case the development. And that was faithfully reported in The Lancet by Wakefield on the basis of the information his colleagues provided to him – and it is correct.

    So Brian – where is the fraud?

    Ben – is a claim of fraud for Child 8 Badscience – please tell us.

    CHILD 11

    Child 11 was not covered in the GMC hearings because there were no medical notes – Child 11 was from America. All we have to go on is what Brian Deer claims is the case.

    It now turns out to be the case that Brian Deer does not have now and never did have Child 11’s medical notes, contrary to the impression he has given the world.

    More to the point Brian Deer does not have now and never had the data and results provided to Andrew Wakefield to compare with what is in The 1998 Lancet paper.

    You cannot make an allegation of fraud on the basis of a telephone interview with the father of Child 11. That is all Brian Deer appears to have as published in The Sunday Times – [and what he said then is not consistent with what he claims now in The British Medical Journal].

    So please tell us where the fraud is Brian?

    And Ben – is it BadScience to claim fraud for Child 11 when the basic investigative work has just not been done? It seems that way – what is your view as a professional journalistic commentator in a national newspaper? Please do tell us.

  4. The folks trying to say that being sent to a child dev. doctor (child8) is proof that she may have had developmental issue before the MMR are stupid. the elephant in the room is the fact that she had a heart disorder and therefore would be expected to have developmental concerns. Had there been any sign of autism, that would have been noted; yet it is not there. They are hanging onto selective facts to make a case. Poor logic.

  5. Thanks!

    Says new post but dated 2011?

    On Fri, 8 May 2020, 15:37 ____________________Child Health Safety_________________, wrote:

    > ChildHealthSafety posted: ” 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 B” >

    Ed: Mark,

    Thanks for your interest in CHS.

    There is a great deal of good information on CHS. Most visitors never get to read most of it.

    And some of it needs re-reading and also reading the linked sources

    For those who have not read it then for them its new.

    Is that OK?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s