On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:12:46 +0100, "john" wrote:

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

Of what relevance is the identity of a complainant especially as one
is not even needed for the GMC to start investigation? Surely all
that matters is the veracity of the complaints? In this case the GMC
verdict is more than adequate proof that the complaints were not
merely warranted but essential.

Should Wakefield have been allowed to continue to hide dishonesty
simply because of the identity of a complainant?