Christina England
Governments & Drug Companies Need Back-Up Plan
March 7, 2009
 

It is fast beginning to look as if the 'Wakefield' case was a put up job by British Journalist Brian Deer. Dr Wakefield is a British doctor who is being investigated for 'Serious Professional Misconduct' by the British General Medical Council for his claims that the MMR is linked to Autism and a painful bowel condition. It is rumored that Mr. Deer has wagered a 10 year hate campaign on Dr Andrew Wakefield. He has written a series of extremely damaging articles in a British top selling newspaper 'The Sunday Times'. It has now been revealed that he is the complainant behind the GMC complaint which has seen three top doctors Dr Andrew Wakefield, Dr Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, face being struck of the medical register for serious professional misconduct and he has a hate website dedicated to Dr Andrew Wakefield which can only be described slanderous.

It seems however that due to new evidence, the GMC case is falling apart at the seams. It has been revealed that the article MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism by Brian Deer is little more than a pack of lies, to cast further doubt on Dr Wakefield professionalism.

The website Child Health Safety has been following the story very closely and has stated that:

"The position of John Witherow, Chief Editor of the internationally published British broadsheet newspaper The Sunday Times, London is looking untenable in the escalating row over freelance journalist, Brian Deer´s now shown-to-be-false Sunday Times´ story alleging former London Royal Free Hospital surgeon and gastroenterology specialist Mr. Andrew Wakefield "fixed" data in a Lancet medical journal paper to show a link between the MMR vaccine, autism and serious bowel disorders in children."

Furthermore the lawyer Mr. Clifford Miller has written this exceptionally strong letter to the editor of 'The Sunday Times' (also to be found on the Child Health Safety website.)

John Witherow Esq
The Editor
The Times
Times House
1 Pennington Street
London
E98 1TT

Dear Mr Witherow,
MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism - The Sunday Times, London - February 8, 2009

I look forward to hearing
whether you intend a full retraction of this story
whether you intend to publish any further stories by freelance journalist Brian Deer in the light of the revelations concerning what appears to be agenda journalism in The Sunday Times

I draw to your attention the facts in following reports in this regard and which facts will be relied on in any formal complaint to the PCC:-

Sunday Times Journalist Made Up Wakefield MMR Data Fixing Allegation
Sunday Times - Sinks To New Low With Yet More MMR Junk Journalism
US Federal Court, US Justice Dept & The Sunday Times - More Questions Than Answers
Sunday Times Journalist Challenged Over Role in US MMR Cases

The journalist Brian Deer and The Sunday Times, London have breached the overall obligations of the PCC Code regarding the "duty to maintain the highest professional standards" and The Sunday Times is also in breach by publishing such a story. The journalist Brian Deer has demonstrated a remarkable lack of professionalism, a disregard for professional ethics and an obsessive interest in Dr Wakefield, belying the detachment, objectivity and impartiality of a modern professional journalist in the 21st Century. Mr Deer has demonstrated gross breaches of professional ethics in his behaviour and reporting, including his personal interest in making the complaints which have led to the extraordinary and intensive General Medical Council proceedings against Dr Andrew Wakefield. In short, Mr Deer stands to lose professionally should his complaints to the GMC prove not to be upheld and he has a personal interest in publishing stories to prejudice the GMC panel against Dr Wakefield to see that they are, which seems could well be one of the purposes of the story under complaint. Very much the same charges could be leveled at The Sunday Times itself in its reporting and that of its sister paper, The Times, London. I am told that in the USA, in circumstances like those seen here, a newspaper would be obliged to issue a public statement, explaining. No such statement has been forthcoming from The Sunday Times so far as I am aware but would be pleased to be corrected if wrong. It is also unusual for a newspaper to publish a news story and particularly one of this nature when based upon the opinion of the journalist writing it with no professional medical qualifications to comment - merely a BA in philosophy from Warwick University. The story appears substantially untainted by quotes or opinions from qualified medical professionals to support its allegations.

The Code requires:

▪ it "be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit"..."It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications."

The Sunday Times appears also in breach of its obligations to:-

▪ "...take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information..."

▪ correct "...a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognized"..."promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published."

▪ "...distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact..."

Has any fair opportunity been provided to Dr Wakefield to reply? It seems the story was approved for publication on Saturday 7th February very much less than 24 hours after Dr Wakefield was notified of what appear only some of the claims made, giving very little opportunity to consult and respond to complex detailed and unfounded allegations. As no fair opportunity has been provided, when will it be? If Dr Wakefield asks for such an opportunity will it be provided?

If no such opportunity is being provided then The Sunday Times is in breach of its obligations under the Code to allow:

"A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for."
The Sunday Times appears to be in breach of its obligations to prevent harassment by its journalists. Brian Deer it seems has persistently harassed Dr Wakefield over many years with his complaints to the GMC, his stories in The Sunday Times, pursing him abroad in documentaries, an extraordinary website containing an obsessive and excessive equivalent of 500 print pages [which also includes pictures of Dr Wakefield's former London home] and remarks on web blogs which no professional journalist would make. I also ask The Sunday Times to investigate and issue a public statement regarding Mr. Deer´s personal financial interests to satisfy the public he is uninfluenced by commercial or other interests in his reporting, beyond those permissible from normal sources of employment to a modern professional journalist. I also call upon The Sunday Times to clarify its own position and confirm it too has no such influences on its publishing. In this regard I draw to your attention the findings of the Parliamentary Health Select Committee Report which found that the drug industry spends "considerable resources" on building relationships with journalists to counter concerns regarding drug safety and to undermine critical voices and that the drug industry considers this "entirely legitimate":

The use of PR to counter negative publicity

221. Public relations is particularly important during times of bad publicity, especially when the safety of brands is called into question. Considerable resources are invested into building long-term, sustainable relationships with stakeholders and ´key opinion leaders´ and journalists. These relationships are used to promote the use of certain brands and counter concerns relating to safety. Efforts to undermine critical voices in particular were identified, under terms of "issues management". In later evidence, in response to the ISM´s memorandum, Pfizer stated that PR is entirely legitimate and can "help to educate and inform". According to the PMCPA, PR activities may include "placing articles in the lay press, TV documentaries, soap operas etc".186 The following example of a project worksheet shows the marketing campaign process and the targeting of consumers and the press.

The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry House of Commons Health Committee Fourth Report of Session 2004–05

The seeming use by The Sunday Times and by Brian Deer of confidential medical records of children which appear disclosed confidentially solely for use for the purposes of Court proceedings is also questionable It may be a contempt of Court punishable by fines and imprisonment. Any statement by The Sunday Times on these matters should also address and satisfy the public on these issues. It also seems a further and an unwarranted and unjustified intrusion into the personal and private lives of the children and their families.

It is also remarkable that The Sunday Times should choose to publish such a story at such a time close to the close of the oral proceedings in The General Medical Council and in the middle of the New Labour Government campaign to push for indiscriminate compulsory vaccination of all British children, despite the new medical evidence of the harm thereby caused to at-risk categories and the need to consider making available single antigen vaccines as a matter of choice for parents - who at the end of the day are dumped by the British Government when it all goes wrong.This is a matter of child health safety for British children - no more and no less.

I understand The Sunday Times relied in the libel proceedings with Dr Wakefield on the Reynolds defense, which allows it to publish false stories if it can show some public interest applicable at the time. I understand that defense was a significant reason, along with the drain and cost on Dr Wakefield and his insurers for the dropping of the libel action against the Sunday Times on a prior occasion.

Can you please explain how this particular story under complaint was justified in the public interest at this time in the course of the General Medical Council proceedings against Dr Wakefield? The overall allegations previously made were and are being dealt with in the public interest by a statutory tribunal. Why therefore does The Sunday Times think it was in the public interest to publish such a story now and does it not consider on reflection that such a publication does the opposite and is damaging to the public interest in all the circumstances. Or does The Sunday Times consider it has the right to be an unaccountable judge jury and executioner, dispensing with any trial, hearing or right of reply?

It is now clearly time for statutory regulation of the press.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Clifford G. Miller,
50 Burnhill Road, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3LA, England"

I would particularly like to draw readers attention to this paragraph

"It is also remarkable that The Sunday Times should choose to publish such a story at such a time close to the close of the oral proceedings in The General Medical Council and in the middle of the New Labour Government campaign to push for indiscriminate compulsory vaccination of all British children, despite the new medical evidence of the harm thereby caused to at-risk categories and the need to consider making available single antigen vaccines as a matter of choice for parents - who at the end of the day are dumped by the British Government when it all goes wrong. This is a matter of child health safety for British children - no more and no less."

This is so very true, it does seem incredibly coincidental doesn't it? It makes me wonder just who is working for who and who is really behind all of this. The problem is of course, now that this has been all completely blown open, far from destroying the three professionals as intended and thus win back confidence of the general public regarding the MMR, the lies and deception that are now being revealed have the potential to do the complete opposite.

Mr Miller who wrote the above letter is a British commercial lawyer. He is an extremely competent lawyer who successfully acted on behalf of Dr Jayne Donegan in 2007

The Child Health Safety website has this to say about Mr Miller

"Mr. Miller, the author of yesterday´s letter to The Sunday Times´ Chief Editor, is a British commercial lawyer and trained scientist [physics Imperial London], a published academic in complex technical and medical evidence but does not act in vaccine or other personal injury cases. Mr. Miller was writing on his own account as a member of the public. In August 2007 Mr. Miller acted successfully on behalf of Dr Jayne Donegan before the UK´s General Medical Council over charges arising from claims by Lord Justice Sedley in the English Court of Appeal that Dr Donegan gave "junk science" evidence to an English Court in a case involving a dispute between parents over vaccination of their children. Dr Donegan was not present or represented in the appeal proceedings nor given an opportunity to answer the claims. Her defence in the subsequent extensive GMC proceedings involving 5 expert witness reports and approaching 400 medical and scientific references was found unusually to have been proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and her evidence was similarly proven to have been based on sound medical and scientific literature."

The Sunday Times need to rectify this disastrous situation, if they do not they could put at risk the health of children worldwide, not just in Britain. This is a case that has attracted world wide publicity due to the seriousness of its nature. If these claims turn out to be true and this is looking extremely likely, then parents will have even less faith in the MMR vaccination than they already do. This could potentially see the numbers in the uptake of the MMR plummet even further. It is now time for drug companies and Governments to act. They need a back-up plan, as remember it is they who have blamed Dr Andrew Wakefield for the plummeting numbers of parents having their children vaccinated. If all their claims were based on the reports of a dodgy journalist and Dr Wakefield is found not guilty, they will have to face serious criticism and the public will want answers.