Comments on: Anti-vaccine child deaths based on lies

By: Kate Williams

Kate Williams — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:23:44 +0000

I have a Chiropractor friend, where he is convinced that vaccines do more harm than good, AND are the main cause behind autism—really? He says the school basically teaches them this garbage. The problem is when certain movements are SO PASSIONATE ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS, they automatically dismiss and try to discredit any opposing evidence like the aforementioned article in the Sunday Times.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 09:09:28 +0000

My wife and I have been having the immunization debate recently and I have been getting more and more wound up searching for information to convince her that the anti-immunization movement is based on anecdote and bad research. It is simply beyond me how the debate is still alive in the wake of this.

By: AaronTPz

AaronTPz — Sun, 01 May 2011 22:26:35 +0000

Misreporting facts for personal gain is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. If somebody where to do this to my brother? I’d be furious. Absolutely furious. This is…horrifying…

By: Tayna

Tayna — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:17:09 +0000

The controversy around vaccines never stops. From personal experience I believe vaccines (which often contain ingredients from eggs) made my son highly allergic to egss. Also, my dog was vaccinated for Lyme’s disease and immediately developed liver problems and died. So I’m still not sold that they are always in everyone’s best interested, yet clearly they keep diseases at bay. It’s a dilemma.

By: Kirsten Brown

Kirsten Brown — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:03:49 +0000

Amazing! I heard about this issue. I never thought that lies are behind that case. Anyway, thanks for posting this. It’s a great thing that I stumbled upon this or else I would really be scared of letting my future kids have MMR vaccine.

By: Mikey

Mikey — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:52:56 +0000

Found this article whilst bouncing around the web looking at MMR issues. I completely missed this story at the time and I find it quite nauseating that a so called Dr would want to spread such misinformation.

By: Antaeus Feldspar

Antaeus Feldspar — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 01:20:45 +0000

I realize this is a late reply but if I got here by Googling, others might as well, so I feel it’s as well to set the record straight about some false claims made in the comments.

Clifford G. Miller claimed that Brian Deer was the complainant in Andrew Wakefield’s case before the GMC.

… Deer claiming he is not the GMC complainant [is not believable] when a Court judgement records he is and cites three of his letters of complaint. Deer has never produced the letters because he can’t. They show he is the complainant.

As anyone can quickly verify for themselves with just seconds of independent research, “complainant” is a term with a specific legal meaning, akin to “plaintiff”. One does not become the complainant in a case merely by making a complaint, any more than Mr. Miller, by publicly defending Andrew Wakefield, has become Wakefield’s “public defender.” This might be an understandable mistake if one is not from the UK and does not know the terms of their legal system — but Mr. Miller is from Beckenham, Kent. One wonders what his excuse is.

Also, it may be interesting to note that all of Mr. Miller’s citations are to the ChildHealthSafety blog (well, except the one which links to “http://www.us federal court, us justice dept & the sunday times – more questions than answers.com/” — wonder why that one doesn’t resolve?) That would be an interesting fact to consider if it were to turn out that the ChildHealthSafety blog is in fact run by Mr. Miller…

By: Brent McSharry

Brent McSharry — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:59:54 +0000

And now the Sunday Times has been ordered to take Brian Deer’s story off the web
hmmm – from the “childhealthsafety” website. isn’t this like referring to an article published on the Ku Klux Klan website as evidence that whites are superior?

This matter can be resolved when the GMC makes its ruling, not by showing links to unbalanced websites.

My study showed a direct link between vaccinations and food allergies.

I assume your study is ethically conducted, internally valid, and will survive scrutiny by statisticians (including an appropriate multivariate technique that compensates for known confounding variables and provides odds ratios and confidence intervals). If so please provide a link or reference so we may follow it up (In fact it would be completely unethical not to submit such a study for publication).

By: Clifford G. Miller

Clifford G. Miller — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:55:41 +0000

And now the Sunday Times has been ordered to take Brian Deer's story off the web:- Sunday Times Ordered ‘Remove Wakefield MMR “Data Fixing” Story’

By: Clifford G. Miller

Clifford G. Miller — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:03:52 +0000

If Brian Deer is wrong about Wakefield’s work, I would have expected a
writ the size of Texas to descend upon the Times, and for Wakefield to sue the pants off Deer for defamation. Can you explain why none of this has happened?

Next time you post a reply, email me so I know. I only saw this by chance.

Why did Wakefield discontinue his libel case? It was impossible for him and his legal team to fight the GMC case and the libel case side-by-side.

The GMC case has been the longest running one ever and has lasted over approximately 140 days. Just double that plus double the preparation time and getting witnesses to both sets of hearings and having the trial Counsel in both places at the same time.

The lawyers sought an adjournment of the libel case and the Court refused.

Perchance it could be that Deer’s claims are (once again) actually true?

Perchance pigs could fly?

Like Deer claiming he is not the GMC complainant when a Court judgement records he is and cites three of his letters of complaint. Deer has never produced the letters because he can’t. They show he is the complainant.

And when all the evidence in the GMC has been showing his allegations are barking mad, he reports not one word of it. Instead he comes out with a new claim which he could not find a single expert to confirm has any basis. This is Deer’s latest claim:-

an eminent gastroenterologist with an outstanding career and published research history, working at the Royal Free Hospital
London, a leading English teaching hospital with an international reputation, “fixed data” and in a high profile paper and not a single
one of the 12 other authors noticed this at the time or for the past 11 years because they were all in a conspiracy with Wakefield.

What nonsense. The amazing thing is The Sunday Times published it and now they have been challenged to prove it – funny old thing – they have nothing to back it up – not a single piece of paper or expert [all they have is Brian Deer's word].