Witch Hunt Reporter Brian Deer gets Worst Person in World on Olbermann

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Brian Deer, Worst Person in the World, Bronze

On February 11, Keith Olberman awarded Brian Deer the Bronze. This was for Deer's so called investigation into Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield is a vaccine researcher who found several cases of inflammatory bowel disorder and regressive autism in children who had received the triple jab - the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine before falling ill.
Olbermann cites Deer's failure to disclose that the "investigation" he was "reporting on" was one that he instigated.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann for Wednesday, February 11
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

See it on You Tube

The bronze to Brian Deer. He wrote the “Times of London” report that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had alleged altered key research linking the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine to autism in children, which earned Dr. Wakefield a spot on this list yesterday. The “Times of London” did not bother to mention that the British investigation into whether or not Wakefield did that was as a result of a complaint by Brian Deer. The guy who wrote the article about the investigation never mentioned that he was the individual who precipitated the investigation. The truth about the doctor‘s research may be in doubt here, but not Deer‘s vast conflict of interest, nor the “Times of London‘s” journalistic malfeasance.

The paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It‘s my bad for forgetting that.

Breach of Journalistic Standards - Brian Deer

"The Sunday Times might be well advised to take a very hard look at its ‘objective’ reporter and his involvement in his own story. And the GMC has some questions to answer too."

A deer in the headlights
16th February 2009 Melanie Phillips

Eleven days ago, Brian Deer renewed his onslaught against Andrew Wakefield in the Sunday Times. I wrote about it here and made the point that, since Deer’s allegations sparked the General Medical Council case against Wakefield which would not have occurred without his involvement, he was effectively a principal player in the story he was reporting — a clear conflict of interest and breach of journalistic standards.

After I noted this, an American TV show last week accused Deer of journalistic misconduct in reporting a story in which he was a major player without acknowledging this fact. Deer has been trying to deny this ever since.

First he threatened to sue the TV station, denying that he had laid the initial complaint which formed the bulk of the GMC inquiry and claiming instead that the GMC had approached him for information about Wakefield following his stories:

...The perception that the GMC was investigating Deer's complaints about Wakefield was shared by no less a person than a High Court judge

...If his boast is true, it would seem that the US court — whose ruling looks pretty thin to me — arrived at its conclusion based on Deer’s allegations. In other words, two major quasi-legal hearings relating to Andrew Wakefield’s theory, one of which is being reported by Deer, have depended significantly or wholly upon a journalist’s own allegations.

Why the Witchhunt?

MMR Controversy: Wakefield Witchhunt and Vaccine Court Ruling
by halef at DKOS Thu Feb 12, 2009

...After Keith Olbermann declared Andrew Wakefield 10th February's "Worst Person in the World" on the basis of an 8th February article in Fox News' sister-outlet, the London Sunday Times by Brian Deer, KO got slammed by autism-concern parents for falling for another Murdoch character assassination (as did, I might add, a great deal of fellow Kossacks). On 11th February, KO did the right thing and named Brian Deer bronze medallist worst person (HuffPo, with link). The UK quality press has also weighed in, calling the aspersions on Wakefield what they are: A witchhunt.

...halef's diary :: ::
The witchhunt for Andrew Wakefield is a mystery to me - if the man is a fraud and a crank, then ignoring him would be the most effective strategy. Instead, somebody seems to have a strong interest in creating in the public mind an identification of three issues: MMR/vaccines, autism, Wakefield. Having done that, kill Wakefield's reputation, and the MMR/vaccines and autism complex goes away. Judging by some of my fellow Kossacks, this has been successful.

...As for the Vaccine Court ruling, the worst potential consequence of the ruling is that it might slow down research into the causes of autism and into the safety of multiple-vaccine jabs and ever earlier-age vaccination (and vaccine stabilisers).

A fair number of my fellow Kossacks are convinced that vaccine science has achieved the hitherto impossible and has finally proved a negative: It has proved that vaccines are completely innocent of any link to autism.

What needs to be done:

...Too much research has focussed on the totally futile job of disproving linkages; a fool's errand because it can't be done (or can be done only for an arbitrarily restricted set of criteria). Reasonable scientists have found methodological faults with studies that purport to show an absence of links, and with the interpretation of the results, maintaining that studies cited as evidence of the absence of links actually suggest a linkage. Anyone who claims that the science here is solid has their mind firmly closed.

...As a separate issue, vaccine manufacturers should be obliged to show that multiple jabs are as harmless as the individual jabs, and that the ever more aggressive vaccination schedules that are being pushed by doctors are indeed sensible.

Finally, the medical establishment needs to be open and honest with the public. We don't know what's going on with autism (as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have acknowledged), and so long as we have not fingered a culprit, everyone remains a suspect....

[flyingobject]

1. "Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"

Please sign the petition with everyone in the family also signing and
forward it to as many people as you possibly urgently.

Thanks so much.

www.ipetitions.com/petition/wakefield
(Ignore the second screen where it asks you to pay - you can just log out).

The petition

Five years after launching a campaign to discredit the work of Dr Andrew
Wakefield, freelance journalist Brian Deer and the Sunday Times in the UK
made additional allegations on Sunday 8th February 2009. Three pages of
articles while offering no new evidence accused Dr Wakefield of having
'fixed' research data. These allegations have no basis in fact and have been
fully addressed during Dr Wakefield's response to the GMC prosecution, now
well into its second year.

This petition will bring attention to the scientific evidence in support of
Dr Wakefield's position and demand a formal enquiry into the activities of
Brian Deer, the Sunday Times and their connection and co-operation with the
vaccine industry.

Throughout the 1990's Dr Andrew Wakefield, a research scientist at the Royal
Free Hospital and his colleagues, were contacted by parents of a large
number of children suffering from a form of inflammatory bowel disease with
a regressive developmental disorder. Many of the parents who brought these
children to the hospital reported that their children had become seriously
ill after receiving the MMR vaccination.

In February 1998, a press briefing was organized by the Dean of the medical
school at the Royal Free Hospital to coincide with the publication of a
peer-reviewed case series in the The Lancet. At the press briefing, Dr
Wakefield suggested the precautionary alternative that there could be a
return to single vaccines whilst concerns regarding MMR were investigated.
This signalled the beginning of an orchestrated and oppressive campaign to
discredit Dr Wakefield.

...more here (sign the petition)
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/wakefield/

[rpannier]

3. Thanks much for the post

[rpannier]

2. Agenda driven stories + character assassination + shabby work by editorial board + murdoch

No surprise there

[flyingobject]

5. the perfect setup - Murdock "news" paper, Murdock "journalist"

= smear job

[varkam]

4. Except that Olbermann got it wrong - Deer did not instigate the complaint against Wakefield.

Rather, Deer was approached by the GMC.

[aquart]

6. GMC?

[varkam]

11. General Medical Council.

England's medical regulatory board

[Why Syzygy]

8. More info?

Since when does an agency, functioning with the powers of governmental legislation, go to a REPORTER to accomplish its mission?

The purpose of the General Medical Council (GMC) is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.

The law gives us four main functions under the Medical Act 1983:

* keeping up-to-date registers of qualified doctors
* fostering good medical practice
* promoting high standards of medical education
* dealing firmly and fairly with doctors whose fitness to practise is in doubt.
...
The detailed arrangements for how these matters are investigated and adjudicated upon are set out in rules which have the force of law.


http://www.gmc-uk.org/

[flyingobject]

10. when does govt agency go to reporter to accomplish its mission? FOX FOX FOX/Murdock Murdock

pattern pattern pattern.

Looks like the UK has their own version of Fox Noise.

[varkam]

12. Ask and ye shall receive:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/brian_deer_responds_to_keith_olbermann.php

[Celebration]

14. this is the issue in question from the website

It is untrue that, as you say, I am the complainant against Wakefield in UK disciplinary hearings. I have ample correspondence to prove this. As a journalist with public as well as professional duties, I was approached almost five years ago by the UK doctors' regulator, the General Medical Council, and asked if I would supply them with my journalistic findings, post-publication, at that time concerning Wakefield. This I did, in a manner familiar to journalists, both in the UK and the US, in dealings with statutory regulators. There can be no possible issue about this, or any justifiable allegation of misconduct on my part. Nor could there be any justification for your suggestion that this would somehow disbar me from continuing my investigations into Wakefield's activities, or that I had improperly concealed my previous actions, or that my prior supply of journalistic findings invalidated findings reported last weekend which are not yet charges faced by Wakefield.

If that is his best spin, I would say he is on thin ice. He supplied the information for supposed malfaesance in the first place, and no charges have come out of it. Yet he uses them on a further expose? Sorta sounds like what we learned in school was "yellow journalism."

[varkam]

15. No charges?

You do realize that Wakefield is in the US now, right? You do realize that there's a reason for that, right? Wakefield was brought before the GMC on a host of professional misconduct allegations - none of which were for the recent revelations of faking data. That was the instigation of the complaint against Wakefield. This is just the most recent dollop of crap on his plate.

[xchrom]

7. deer is not the source of wakefield's shoddy work.

wakefield has been held up for contempt and ridicule way before this article -- wakefield is a quake

[flyingobject]

9. Olbermann: "Deer‘s vast conflict of interest, nor the “Times of London‘s” journalistic malfeasance"

and "reporter" for Rupert Murdock, Arrrrggggg!

[LeftishBrit]

13. Do you know who Melanie Phillips is?

She is a VERY right-wing journalist, full of hate for immigrants, Muslims, gays, and all who don't conform to 1950s middle-class norms. She is sometimes called 'the British Ann Coulter', though at least she doesn't pretend to be a wit like Ann Coulter does. But she is not someone whom liberals usually take seriously!

[varkam]

16. But...but...but that doesn't count!

I really don't know why it doesn't count, but it doesn't.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. Do you know who Rupert Murdock is? He owns the paper smearing Dr. Wakefield

Rupert Murdock also owns Fox "News", the right wing media organ in the US.

[varkam]

18. Change the subject.

That would be a pretty good analogy if we were talking about the reporter themselves...but we're not. It would also be a pretty good analogy if Wakefield weren't forced to flee the UK because of the GMC...but he was.

Go democrats!

[LeftishBrit]

19. I know too well who he is, But I didn't link to him.

Or to Brian Deer if it comes to that.

I formed my opinions of Wakefield's work a long time ago, by reading his own paper in the Lancet with my own little beady eyes. And I thought it was rubbish then. No control group, for starters.

However, it is the case that the far-RW Daily Mail has been for a long time the main promoter of Wakefield's work. The Murdoch press didn't get involved, one way or the other, till very recently.

[mzmolly]

20. To the greatest!

:kick:

[mzmolly]

21. Posting Wakefield's response to Deer's allegations, for the record.

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer-response.pdf

[trotsky]

22. Letter from Brian Deer to MSNBC with the facts.

It is untrue that, as you say, I am the complainant against Wakefield in UK disciplinary hearings. I have ample correspondence to prove this. As a journalist with public as well as professional duties, I was approached almost five years ago by the UK doctors' regulator, the General Medical Council, and asked if I would supply them with my journalistic findings, post-publication, at that time concerning Wakefield. This I did, in a manner familiar to journalists, both in the UK and the US, in dealings with statutory regulators. There can be no possible issue about this, or any justifiable allegation of misconduct on my part. Nor could there be any justification for your suggestion that this would somehow disbar me from continuing my investigations into Wakefield's activities, or that I had improperly concealed my previous actions, or that my prior supply of journalistic findings invalidated findings reported last weekend which are not yet charges faced by Wakefield. Your item implied that, in reporting my new findings, I was somehow merely reporting my own prior allegations. This is utterly false, and grossly damaging to my reputation. To assist your employer to commercially profit by recklessly attacking me appears to have been your intent.

You were apparently supplied with your baseless allegations by a New York-based freelance journalist, David Kirby, who has made substantial sums of money through attacking childhood vaccines, and who is an advisor to Wakefield.

More here...

[HuckleB]

23. Olbermann didn't do his homework, as plenty of posts and links on this board show.

Will Olbermann return the favor to himself?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. I see that Deer's employer is having to apologize for racist cartoon

in one of Murdock's other rags.