BMJ Editor Refuses to Acknowledge Brian Deer's Role as Complainant in GMC
Case
By John Stone

May 18, 2010

http://www.ageofautism.com/

The British Medical Journal stands accused of double standards and
misleading its readers in refusing to acknowledge journalist Brian Deer's
role as complainant in the UK General Medical Council hearing against Andrew
Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch in two articles by him that it
has published on the subject. Deer's role was defined by a High Court ruling
by Mr Justice Eady in 2006 who stated:

"Well before the programme was broadcast [Mr Deer] had made a complaint to
the GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12
March and 1 July 2004. In due course, on 27 August of the same year, the GMC
sent the Claimant [Dr Wakefield] a letter notifying him of the information
against him."

The text of two of these complaints are available on line. Moreover, it is
evident that Deer stood to gain professionally from their successful
prosecution. And in a letter to Channel 4, dated November 4 2004 from
solicitors RadcliffesLeBrasseur, acting for the Medical Protection Society
it was stated:

"It is clear and probably not disputed that Mr Deer is operating on his own
agenda in respect of these matters and it is also right to say at this time
that he has made a formal statutory complaint to the General Medical Council
against Mr Wakefield and others concerning these matters. That statutory
inquiry within the auspices of the Medical Act and the GMC's Fitness to
Practice procedures is ongoing."

It should also be noted that Deer's three complaints are the only ones
listed in the screening process leading to the GMC prosecution.

In contrast the first of Deer's BMJ articles 'Reflections on investigating
Wakefield' (2 February) has no disclosure at all and the second 'Wakefield's
'autistic enterocolitis' under the microscope' (15 April) simply reads:|

"BD undertook the Sunday Times investigation which led to the GMC hearing
and retraction of the Lancet paper."

A follow up letter published under Deer's name states abstrusely:

"BD's investigation for The Sunday Times led to the retraction of the
Wakefield et al paper, and the GMC proceedings in Wakefield, Walker-Smith
and Murch" (HERE)

But no mention of the letters of complaint. Deer's role as complainant was
already discussed extensively last year in a Spectator article by leading UK
columnist Melanie Phillips. (HERE)

It was also troubling that in this letter which effectively accused one of
the histopathologists signatory to the Wakefield-Lancet paper of perjury at
the GMC hearing seemed to display an altogether different level of
scientific expertise to Deer's normal writing, and that Deer may be being
used as proxy for persons who will not declare themselves. The different
style of disclosure may also indicate a different author.

Meanwhile, after several exchanges of email the BMJ's editor-in-chief, Fiona
Godlee seems to stand in bare-faced denial of reality:

"From the information and documentation provided to the BMJ I am confident
that the conflict of interest statement published with the article is an
accurate reflection of the true position. You are welcome to pursue this
matter by other avenues but I do not propose to answer further queries from
you on this. Best wishes, Fiona Godlee"

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.