A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th 10, 02:12 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default BMJ Editor Refuses to Acknowledge Brian Deer's Role as Complainant in GMC Case

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.


  #2  
Old May 18th 10, 03:05 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default BMJ Editor Refuses to Acknowledge Brian Deer's Role as Complainant in GMC Case

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?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Social Services annex shut down amid threats: The threat came inthe wake of a case that is suspected of playing a role in two deaths lastweek. fx Spanking 0 April 29th 07 08:24 AM
Social Services annex shut down amid threats: The threat came inthe wake of a case that is suspected of playing a role in two deaths lastweek. fx Foster Parents 0 April 29th 07 08:24 AM
Ah, the Brian and Ruth Christine solution Greegor Spanking 4 January 28th 05 02:35 AM
Looking for Brian, user name "BW/MC" who used to post here Maureen Pregnancy 0 August 18th 04 08:00 PM
Brian Betsworth gini52 Child Support 2 June 25th 03 08:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.