|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - 01/02/2007 : 10:26:41
1) Brian Deer has intimated that he does not understand the science in the MMR controversy:
"My best qualification is a BA in philosophy, which is no use to anybody. So my first question of the Wakefield Lancet paper was merely: “Is this too good to be true?” If doctors, and especially the editor of that journal, didn’t do likewise - surely suspecting the effect Wakefield’s claims were likely to have, both on the public and on the Lancet’s impact factor - it was hardly the fault of mere newspaper reporters that the scare took off as it did."
Why, then, has the Sunday Times put so much behind a mere hunch?
2) Since we are supposed to be so interested in the money, how much has Deer received for all this, and from what sources? I note the Deer does not seem to be a regular Sunday Times journalist: a search through the archive brings up 21 entries since January 2005, or an article every seven and half weeks.
3) Why did the Sunday Times suppress Robert Sandall's article 'MMR-RIP' (December 14, 2003) which showed how desperate British officials and the pharmarceutical defendants were to prevent spinal fluid samples being taken from affected children?
This article is no longer available from the Times-online website.
4) Brian Deer has stated that the "MMR debacle" is "a tedious area"?
Why, then, does he go on? Why, if he is confident of his subject, does he call for censorship of those criticising him?
5) This is the link to the latest addition to Deer's website.
Does the Sunday Times really want to be associated with the tone and style of this reporting? Does it sound objective, or dignified?
6) Why - if he means to be objective - has Deer failed to report that the proprietor of the Lancet, Sir Crispin Davies, was appointed a director of GlaxoSmithKline in July 2003, and knighted by the Blair Government in June 2004?
Why has he failed to mention Dr Michael Fitzpatrick's association with GlaxoSmithKline as a trustee of the lobby organisation Sense about Science?
Since he has protested about the contribution of others on the topic to BMJ Rapid Responses he must be aware of these things.
See also my letter to Sunday Times editor John Witherow of Thursday last before Deer's latest publication, which I have now posted in Richard Horton's new weblog 'Know Thyself':
And 'Brian Deer and Goats'
'BRIAN DEER' MMR DOUBLE-BIND TRIAL'
|2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - 01/02/2007 : 12:58:28
Let's put it this way: they could do an awful lot better. Our newspapers are not yet monolithic, but money speaks, they are frequently gullible, sometimes venal and often intimidated. They are not doing a very good job at defending democracy or the public interest at the moment. One question that the Sunday Times needs to answer - irrespective of the facts of the Wakefield/MMR affair - is how can the public interest be secured in such litigation if experts are not to be paid? What happens if they are paid and subjected to the same press hounding as Andrew Wakefield? No one will do it.
The answer is that on this basis there will be no defence of the public interest against global interests and large corporations at all in future. This, of course, would be the ultimate triumph of the LM brigade that congregate round such organisations as Spiked-Online and Sense about Science. This, indeed, seems to be their main political objective.
What is so shoddy in this instance is that in order to maintain their supremacy they have shut down informed public debate - this is the demonstration of their intellectual incompetence and cowardice. The one thing to be said for the Guardian is that they have not censored my contribution to Commentisfree. When I first started to post there on vaccine issues people attacked me - then, when they began to realise that I could more than hold my own, they backed off. Deer complains about me but he is not anxious debate anything: indeed he will retreat in an embarrassing way at the first challenge.
Dismal and pathetic too that the mob target this site with spam.
||Posted - 01/02/2007 : 12:18:57
"Does the Sunday Times really want to be associated with the tone and style of this reporting? Does it sound objective, or dignified?"
the Times and Sunday Times, the Times group, are the leading organs of the Fascist state we have to live under, so it is no surprise the leading attack comes from the ST. Just reading the Times is enough to make my soul want to crash. It has always been the leading propaganda outfit for the medical fascists, from day one of the Jenner hoax--it always reported the lies, and suppressed the truth.
Why would anyone expect anything other than propaganda from the media, if the truth ever does come out, eg Carmel Wakefield's comments in the Sunday Mail, they manage to drown it out with allopathic lies the next day, eg cleansing is a waste of time (Daily mail), when it would cure 80% of people's disease conditions.
The fact they can publish an article and make hay with the fact Wakefield actually gets paid to work, and that this is a conflict of interest, when all of them get paid by drug companies, and people swallow it, suggest the level of brainwashing going on.
the Sunday Times needs to have a Fascist symbol next to its masthead, then maybe people wont be surprised at its content.
I ahve made one http://www.whale.to/a/image/fascism1.jpg or two http://www.whale.to/a/image/musso666.jpg
PS some media quotes http://www.whale.to/w/quotes2.html