Tag Archives: Brian Deer

Glaxo Cartoon Celebrates Theft of Vaccine-Injured Kids’ Medical Records

Below is a pro-vaccine cartoon with Autism Investigated commentary. (The all-capitalized letters are from the original cartoon.)

Backround:

Sir Mark Pepys – GlaxoSmithKline’s Medical Record-Leaking “Superstar”

Brian Deer Became Opposition Researcher for Glaxo to Avoid Litigation

Mark Pepys Made Medical School and Journal Lie Wakefield was Conflicted

British Medical Board Charged Doctors with Criticizing Toxic Vaccines

Yehuda Shoenfeld’s Vaccine-Autoimmunity Paper Retracted by GlaxoSmithKline’s Mark Pepys

Israeli autoimmunity expert Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, ISRAEL21c

*Photo and headline updated.

Sir Mark Pepys did not just cause the 1998 autism-vaccine Wakefield paper’s interpretation retraction, ultimately leading to its full retraction. Pepys also caused the 2017 retraction of an autoimmunity study used in vaccine court for personal injury compensation.

Corresponding study author Yehuda Shoenfeld said of the retraction at the time:

Indeed it is [very] strange;  after one year of being in the journal and after extensive peer reviews of the paper suddenly we received a letter from the editors that SOMEBODY criticized the paper extensively??, it looks very strange and unprecedented. yet indeed at this time we have used this paper in Court for vaccine compensation to show that autoantibodies penetrate cells. Is it coincidental ????????

The retraction statement admitted it was done in part by the British Society of Rheumatology. The society’s founding president George Nuki approved the dangerous MMR vaccine in the UK and his son Paul Nuki was editor of GlaxoSmithKline opposition researcher Brian Deer. Deer had obtained medical records of children in the Wakefield paper that were stolen by Royal Free Hospital’s then-Head of Medicine Mark Pepys. That happened two years after he forced Dr. Andrew Wakefield out of the Royal Free.

Pepys is fully aware of Shoenfeld’s research. The two gave back-to-back talks at a Rheumatology meeting in London the year before he submitted his now-retracted paper. Just last year, both were speakers at the 2017 American College of Rheumatology meeting. Clearly Pepys – and by-extension GlaxoSmithKline – aren’t stopping with Wakefield.

In May, research from Japan on HPV vaccination’s adverse effects was also retracted. The first citation in that study about those adverse effects was one of Shoenfeld’s autoimmunity papers.

GlaxoSmithKline Facebook Page Reveals Company Supports Internet Trolls

Editor’s commentary and troll response under GSK post feigning LGBTQ inclusion

Wondering who feeds anonymous online trolls that post pro-vaccine screeds? Wonder no more. GlaxoSmithKline’s Facebook page has given it away.

Autism Investigated’s editor posted links to several of this site’s posts on GSK’s Facebook page. One was Autism Investigated’s latest post about GlaxoSmithKline’s new She-E-O. The other was the post showing how Glaxo turned former journalist Brian Deer into its opposition researcher through threat of litigation. The former was placed under a GSK post about gender equality, the latter under equal opportunity for LGBTQ+ people.

Not a day went by before a Facebook account posting as “Marty James” responded to the Brian Deer post. “James” wrote, “Haha, what a joke of an article. Come back when you find any evidence of wrongdoing.”

Because a completely sparse Facebook account happened to be reading GSK’s page comments when it came across Autism Investigated’s and automatically sided with GSK. Right.

How stupid does GlaxoSmithKline think everybody is? Considering what it has already gotten away with, one can’t totally blame GSK for being cocky. The company did engineer the retraction of the 1998 autism-vaccine paper’s interpretation and steal vaccine-injured children’s medical records, don’t forget.

Brian Deer Became Opposition Researcher for Glaxo to Avoid Litigation

“THE ‘COMPLAINANT'” -Cartoon satirizing Brian Deer’s denials of pharmaceutical industry support outside the General Medical Council hearing where Drs. Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith were found guilty of publishing on the vaccine-autism link and ordered to be struck off as a result of Deer’s complaint.  http://adversevaccinereaction.blogspot.com/

How do you go from writing articles critical of a crooked pharmaceutical company to being its biggest opposition researcher-for-hire? For Brian Deer, the answer was that it threatened to sue him.

He became a Glaxo opposition researcher to avoid a Glaxo lawsuit. The law firm that issued the threat was the same firm that defended the company against DTP vaccine injury cases and would defend it against MMR vaccine injury cases.

In 1994, Deer wrote articles for The Sunday Times critical of the safety of the antibiotic Septrin made by GlaxoSmithKline’s precursor Wellcome. That company’s lawyers responded with a legal threat in the form of a preservation letter:

We refer to our letter of 18th February when we informed you that we were acting for Wellcome Plc in the context of the article that you were then planning to publish about our clients.

Our clients were appalled at the nature and content of the two articles that appeared in your paper on 27th February, and are considering their legal position. We note than it is intended to publish a further article on 6th March, and as a matter of fairness, we would request that you provide our clients with details of what this article is to cover, so that the have an opportunity to comment and make you aware of any inaccuracies.

Further, we must ask you to preserve all materials that have been generated and used in compilation of the various articles as they may be required to be disclosed in the course of legal proceedings.

Yours faithfully,
DAVIES ARNOLD COOPER

Within weeks, Deer completely stopped his investigation of the company that would become GlaxoWellcome one year later and GlaxoSmithKline five years after that. He would never conduct another investigation into that company again. He would instead conduct many “investigations” into those injured by its vaccines.

His first victim was Margaret Best. She was the mother of a vaccine-injured man and was interviewed in the very last article from Deer’s 1994 Septrin investigation.

She had just won a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Wellcome and was quoted recommending Septrin victims seek specialist lawyers for possible litigation. Years later, Deer would publish an article claiming her son’s disability was not caused by vaccination.

In 2011, Autism Investigated’s editor showed he omitted any mention of her in the version of the Septrin article posted on his website. He chopped the two paragraphs of text in which she was quoted.

Deer would subsequently claim he just posted a shorter version published in one of the newspaper’s editions. Yet in his later article denying her son’s vaccine injury, he would lie that he had not spoken to her prior to his work for that piece.

Margaret Best was not the only person Deer turned on following his very short-lived Septrin investigation. He also turned on investigative journalist Martin Walker, an old ally from Deer’s earlier investigations of Wellcome’s AIDS drug AZT.

In 1993, Walker published the book Dirty Medicine that discussed Deer’s AZT investigations and the blowback he faced from pro-AZT activists. The book also mentioned Septrin’s defects and Margaret Best’s vaccine case, likely inspiring Deer to write about both.

Just after Wellcome’s legal threat against Brian Deer’s newspaper, he made an angry phone call to Martin Walker attacking him for his book’s criticism of Wellcome. Walker later wrote of the exchange in an epic open letter to Deer in 2008:

I knew that was the case the day that I picked up my phone to hear your angry voice berating me for having groundlessly criticised Wellcome in my book. This call came around the time you wrote your lengthy but anodyne feature in The Sunday Times on the Wellcome Foundation and it’s Trust. In your phone call, the first one I had from you since I worked with you on your chapter in Dirty Medicine, you accused me of writing terrible things about Wellcome, without giving them the right of reply. I recall you saying something like ‘you’re no better than the mafia, you just attack people without them being able to defend themselves’. I must admit that I was very confused and shocked by this call, but I did get the firm impression of someone trying to cover their past tracks, brushing the soft earth with a piece of driftwood.

So Brian Deer told Martin Walker, “you’re no better than the mafia, you just attack people without them being able to defend themselves.” Just before that, Wellcome’s lawyers told Deer’s newspaper in their legal threat, “we would request that you provide our clients with details of what this article is to cover, so that the have an opportunity to comment and make you aware of any inaccuracies.” Wellcome was speaking to Martin Walker through Brian Deer.

No wonder he cut any mention of Margaret Best in his final article of his Septrin exposé on his website. Had he left it in, it would point to the fact that he completely turned on her so Wellcome won’t sue him into bankruptcy.

Even that wasn’t enough for the company that is now GlaxoSmithKline. In 2004, Brian Deer would use stolen medical records from children that developed autism from MMR vaccination to begin his attacks on MMR-autism research. Deer obtained them from the GlaxoSmithKline-funded Head of Medicine Sir Mark Pepys at the hospital where those children were seen.

Deer’s attacks were prompted by the withdrawal of legal aid from families suing for MMR vaccine injury. At that time, GlaxoSmithKline was represented by lawyers from Davies Arnold Cooper. That was the same firm that threatened Deer’s newspaper all the way back in 1994.

Non-Profit Co-Founder Ousted By Vaccination Ideology He Supported

Cochrane Gøtzsche

Founder of non-profit Cochrane Collaboration Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, John McDougall YouTube

“We acknowledge the concerns that groups ideologically opposed to vaccination may exploit scientific uncertainties or propagate fraudulent research, e.g. Andrew Wakefield and co-workers’ unfounded claim that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause autism. However, this does not mean that we should not openly discuss and investigate possible harms of vaccines in a misguided attempt to protect their reputation.” – Gøtzsche et al. to the European Ombudsman, November 2, 2017

What Peter Gøtzsche claimed to denounce in the second sentence is exactly what happened to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and what has just happened to Gøtzsche himself. A co-founder of the non-profit Cochrane Collaboration and director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre has been evicted from the board of the organization he helped establish after publishing critically on the HPV vaccine. Sound familiar?

Wakefield’s GlaxoSmithKline-funded ex-boss Mark Pepys admitted, “We paid him to leave.” Then Pepys forced Wakefield’s coauthors into a retractionsabotaged vaccine injury litigation in the United Kingdom and leaked medical records to a freelance opposition researcher.

Yet the victim, according to Gøtzsche as recently as last May, is the opposition researcher who illegally obtained disabled children’s medical records (translated from Danish):

“He (Wakefield) is a fraud. And it is quite unreasonable that people are shooting at Brian Deer who revealed it. He has made a sober contribution, and BMJ’s chief editor also calls Wakefield’s study a fraud. It takes a lot for an editor-in-chief to say such things. I have nothing more to say.”

It takes a lot of Merck and Glaxo money to say such things. That’s the same editor who ironically cites Wakefield not joining his coauthors in the fraudulent, Pepys-forced retraction as evidence of fraud. But Gøtzsche probably thought he could insulate himself from attack by throwing Wakefield under the bus. Sorry doc, doesn’t work like that.

Either you can criticize any vaccination or none at all. Either all doctors are safe from pharmaceutical industry retaliation or none are. Obviously, no one is safe. Wakefield was the rule, not the exception. Criticizing vaccinations brings you into “disrepute” no matter who you are.

Too bad Peter Gøtzsche didn’t get the memo before he was ousted from his own non-profit organization. GlaxoSmithKline wants to profit off all its drugs and vaccines. The doctor is no economist. He’s also no crusader against the pharmaceutical industry, just an opportunistic hypocrite.

Sir Mark Pepys – GlaxoSmithKline’s Medical Record-Leaking “Superstar”

“ARGUABLY THE FINEST PRIVATE COLLECTION OF CHILDRENS MEDICAL RECORDS..” -Cartoon satirizing a photo of freelance writer Brian Deer, http://adversevaccinereaction.blogspot.com/

“I know the names and family backgrounds of all 12 of the children enrolled in the study, including the child enrolled from the United States.” – Brian Deer on children seen at London’s Royal Free Hospital, BMJ, 2010

“Brian Deer has done an excellent job.” – Royal Free’s Head of Medicine Dr. Mark Pepys, BBC Radio, 2011

The GlaxoSmithKline puppet who bullied coauthors of the Wakefield autism-vaccine paper into signing a fraudulent retraction also leaked the medical records of children in that paper.

As you would expect from a doctor who cares nothing for patient safety, Dr. Mark Pepys does not care about patient confidentiality either. He has praised the freelance writer who obtained confidential medical information about patients seen at Pepys’ own hospital. Dr. Pepys even allowed that writer to quote him divulging information he had promised to keep secret.

The writer Pepys praised, Brian Deer, had no right to the names or family backgrounds of any of those children. That didn’t phase Mark Pepys who agreed to be interviewed by him.

Even worse, Pepys was the Head of Medicine at the Royal Free Hospital when Deer obtained confidential information on patients seen there. No investigation as to how that happened was ever launched. Instead, the Royal Free “investigated” doctors who saw the children including Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Mark Pepys is 100% responsible for all leaks of patient information to the media, given his position at Royal Free. In his interview with Brian Deer, Pepys revealed he had no respect for confidentiality by leaking conditions for the departure of Dr. Wakefield from the hospital staff:

“one of the conditions of him going away was that I wasn’t supposed to say anything critical of him to anybody, for ever after.”

That condition wasn’t kept by GlaxoSmithKline’s designated “superstar.”

Any patient who enrolls in Sir Mark Pepys’ GlaxoSmithKline trials should know that Sir Leaksalot will sell out both their safety and their privacy for commercial gain.

Oppose Vaccination Entirely Since Proponents Call for Cover-up

iansvoice.org

Hear it from the very words of the vaccine people/medical establishment on what to do with evidence of their product’s assault on kids:

Lancet editor on not publishing vaccine injuries on pretense that they’re by expert witnesses in litigation, 2004:

“But had we known about the conflict of interest, with hindsight, we would have asked for this to be omitted.”

Complaint against Lancet authors to UK’s General Medical Council, demanding it single out the lead author for criticizing a vaccine:

I submit that on a matter as serious as the safety of a vaccine, touching on the health of millions of children, and affecting parental decisions of the utmost seriousness, Mr Wakefield was under an absolute duty to make the true position clear, with regard to both his involvement in the litigation and the litigant status of children upon whom he purported to derive findings.

General Medical Council’s 2010 “findings” against Lancet paper authors, based on 2005 charges:

You knew or ought to have known that your reporting in the Lancet paper of a temporal link between the syndrome you described and the MMR vaccination, Admitted and found proved i. had major public health implications, Admitted and found proved ii. would attract intense public and media interest, Admitted and found proved

Paul Offit in NY Times, 2018:

Dr. Offit says that researchers should handle findings differently when there’s a chance they might frighten the public. He thinks that small, inconclusive, worrying studies should not be published because they could do more harm than good.

That same article (boldface mine):

This is not to say that anyone is covering up major safety problems, by the way…

There’s no question that bad vaccine science does not deserve a forum — and much of the research cited by anti-vaccine activists is very bad indeed.

WHO adviser John Clements on thimerosal (Simpsonwood, 2000):

“perhaps this study should not have been done at all…the research results have to be handled”

David Gorski, a.k.a. “Orac” agreeing with Clements’ keeping results out of the hands of lawyers for vaccine injured children, 2005:

Dr. Clements was just expressing a quite reasonable fear that lawyers will use very preliminary and unconfirmed studies for their own ends, which is what they do indeed routinely do. Such a concern was not at all unreasonable and is still not unreasonable.

Forbes 2015 headline:

Anti-Vaccine Doctors Should Lose Their Licenses 

And just look at this internal pharma company memo from 1979:

After the reporting of the SID cases in Tennessee, we discussed the merits of limiting distribution of a large number of vials from a single lot to a single state, county or city health department and obtained agreement from the senior management staff to proceed with such a plan. 

What did they get in exchange for murdering infants? Total immunity from litigation!

Should we support any vaccines when their proponents continue to openly censor evidence that they assault and murder kids? Or should we oppose vaccination entirely?

Autism Investigated is going with the latter.

NOW THIS: Watch The Top Ten Moments The Vaccine People “Lose Their Sh*t”

Note: Profanity removed at the request of the editor’s mother.

The millennial fake news site Now This tweeted of recent efforts in New Jersey to curb religious exemptions from vaccination:

Watch anti-vaxxers lose their sh*t over a law that encourages critical vaccines

In response, Autism Investigated has put together a round-up of what it considers to be the top ten moments the vaccine people publicly lost their sh*t (over much, much less). Don’t see your favorite moments listed here? Feel free to share in the comments below! (Note: This list does not include direct threats of physical violence or death, though number one is close…)

10. Publication Bias

Now-former “Science”Blogger Tara C. Smith lost her sh*t when the only vaccinated versus unvaccinated study of autism was finally published.

Under pressure of boycott, the journal canned the study’s publication. The study has since been published in another journal.

9. Interview Decline

Credential-fabricating vaccine doc Paul Offit lost his sh*t at the idea of an interview with people he disagrees with, November 2016.

8. Not Very Diplomatic

Five years prior when challenged at NIH by Autism Investigated’s editor, Offit also lost his sh*t.

That was also when the editor was escorted out of the room, prompted by NIH doctor Tara Palmore who also lost her sh*t.

The NIH record which covered the event lied and said the editor “stormed out of the room and slammed the door.” The very end of the full video of Offit and Palmore’s exchange caught on a hot mic says otherwise:

PO: I saw him earlier. I saw him sitting there earlier.

TP: You did?

PO: I was about three slides into it.

TP: You signaled me. I didn’t realize it. I’m sorry.

PO: No, no, I didn’t signal you. It was really too late.

NIH director Francis Collins would later tell the editor at a federal meeting, “it does not sound like you were very diplomatic in your approach.”

7. Mob for Science

Vaxxed cameraman Josh Coleman trolled California Senator Richard Pan at the anti-Trump March for Science. Josh fought off a mob of triggered marchers, who all lost their sh*t.

Josh Coleman and Senator Pan

Tolerant liberal throws Josh’s sign and says, “You’re just being a dick!”

Triggered marcher confronts Josh: “Do you have any fucking evidence, you bastard?!”

6. Ultimatum

“Journalist” Brian Deer required money to be in a film, only to later get mad at that film for not including him. So he lost his sh*t and sent the following ultimatum to the producer of The Pathological Optimist shortly before the film’s release:

If by midnight, Pacific, Tuesday, I have not received your assurance in these respects, or been offered by you a credible alternative plan to remedy the damage that your “documentary” inflicts on my reputation (presenting me, as you do, as too cowardly to defend my journalism), I will publish this letter to media, as well as to senior independent film makers, festival directors, and others who may be in a position to advise me. I give you four full days to decide and tell me what you are going to do.”

It didn’t work.

5. “Get rid of all the whites”

A Texas doc came up with her own idea for dealing with vaccine refusers in 2016.

In other words, she lost her sh*t.

4. California Mom Threatened With Arrest

Watch this video and see what happens when states scrap their vaccine exemptions, November 2017.

California scrapped its vaccine exemptions after measles was brought over from Switzerland, which has open borders. Yet the entire state has since become an official “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants.

The State of California has completely lost its sh*t.

3. “Get the fuck out of here! Piece of shit!”

An absolute classic, from the editor’s third encounter with Paul Offit in 2012:

“You told American Medical News that protection from vaccine litigation improves vaccine industry profits. That’s making money off the backs of vaccine-injured children.”

Here is the exact line, from American Medical News, 2008:

“But other advantages to vaccine production have become increasingly evident, Dr. Offit noted. ‘There is a fairly beaten path in how to make them, and there is, to some extent, protection from liability in children’s vaccines,’ he said.”

Angry doctorBut he continued the abuse:

“No, that is bullshit! I don’t do this for the money! Get out of here!”

And then he said:

“Get the fuck out of here! Piece of shit!”

Read the editor’s full piece on Offit’s most epic sh*t-loss at Age of Autism.

2. “They are a hate group”

Peter Hotez is a vaccine developer and the father of a young woman who is autistic because of her vaccinations. So you can understand him losing his sh*t to a degree.

What Hotez said of the National Vaccine Information Center and Texans for Vaccine Choice, however, is well beyond that degree:

“They are a hate group that hates [our] family and hates [our] children.”

Hotez actually holds a diplomatic position where he represents U.S. interests to the State of Israel. Send this letter to the State Department and ask that he be fired.

1. “Hanging Offense”

To say the Boston Herald editorial board lost its sh*t is putting it mildly. They’ve gone full Ku Vax Klan:

These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense.

A hanging offense.

Autism Speaks Promotes Darkness for Vaccination-Autism Science

The official position of the world’s biggest money-grubbing autism charity Autism Speaks is that vaccines provide “no increased risk” for autism. What they really support is overt censorship of autism-vaccine science.

The end of Autism Speaks’ position statement provides the first clue.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has compiled a comprehensive list of this research. You can view and download the list here.

What does the academy include in this list of “research?”

British journalist Brian Deer investigates Dr. Andrew Wakefield (the man who initially claimed a link between autism and the MMR vaccine), his practices during the study that was published on this alleged connection, and uncovers truths that lead to the revocation of Dr. Wakefield’s medical license and to the retraction of the article he published on the subject.​

At the center of the “practices” were his so-called conflicts of interest. The UK General Medical Council that took his license stated:

Having regard to its findings at paragraph 31.c., the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in failing to disclose your involvement in the MMR litigation, your receipt of funding for part of Project 172-96 from the Legal Aid Board and your involvement in the Patent, constituted disclosable interests. Your failure to disclose these to the Editor of The Lancet was contrary to your duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper.

He was “contrary” to his “duties,” you say? Sounds harsh. Let’s see how that’s defined in “paragraph 31.c.”

iii. had a duty to disclose to the Editor of the Lancet any disclosable interest including matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception that you had a conflict of interest; Found proved

Let that sink in, Dr. Wakefield had a duty to disclose:

any disclosable interest including matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception that you had a conflict of interest

Is abiding by that duty even possible? Not even the General Medical Council thinks so. That’s why they tell doctors in their own guidance to “use your professional judgement to identify when conflicts of interest arise.” They clearly held Dr. Wakefield to a different standard, as Autism Investigated already reported. But why?

c. In the circumstances set out at paragraph 31.b. above, 

What are those “circumstances?” Why, the fact that he published on children being poisoned into autism by vaccination.

b. You knew or ought to have known that your reporting in the Lancet paper of a temporal link between the syndrome you described and the MMR vaccination, Admitted and found proved i. had major public health implications, Admitted and found proved ii. would attract intense public and media interest, Admitted and found proved

BINGO! They took away his license and retracted his paper because of what he published. They make no secret of it.

In the United Kingdom, you can attack Jews and still keep your medical license. Don’t even think about criticizing a vaccine though.

It is totally shameful the American Academy of Pediatrics would openly celebrate such overt censorship while poisoning more children. It is also shameful that Autism Speaks does the same while asking for money to “shine a light on autism.” They don’t want to shine a light on anything.

Autism Speaks wants to keep the causation of autism in the dark. President Trump should dump Autism Speaks.

The Pathologically Biased Film That Is “The Pathological Optimist”

It is still hilarious that vaccine sock puppet Brian Deer blew up at The Pathological Optimist producer after he declined to be included in the film. Nonetheless, it is not something that any anti-vaxxer or vaccine skeptic should promote. Despite being a “character study” of Dr. Andrew Wakefield according to the film’s producer, it also concludes by taking the position that vaccines are safe. The Pathological Optimist is pathological itself in that it suffers from pathological bias while purporting to be neutral by giving Wakefield a chance to respond to allegations against him. And even on that aspect of the film, it falls short.

So Autism Investigated’s editor took the film’s producer to task multiple times on Twitter:

Only after she was prompted a second time in a tweet supported by multiple people including Rob Schneider did Miranda Bailey finally respond with a deflection:

Told that it doesn’t excuse her from also incorporating facts that would show “100 studies” to be junk, she didn’t respond. Apparently, she didn’t have the budget to travel to Denmark and interview the indicted principal investigator of such “studies.” But even if she didn’t, she did a film on Dr. Wakefield’s documentary Vaxxed knowing that it was about a CDC scientist who admitted to committing fraud in one of those “studies.” Yet to her, such papers (they’re not real studies) are the final word on the topic. And that’s the anti-vaccine standard of being “fair” or “neutral?” Um, no.

But we’re all supposed to promote the film anyway, right? After all, doesn’t it give Wakefield a fair shot at responding to all the smears leveled against him? Oh wait…

Like her “100 studies” excuse, Miranda Bailey makes another bullshit deflection to dismiss Wakefield’s innocence. Here she was confronted with a British government document that exonerates Wakefield, and she said that it was not “credible” because the British government didn’t say so itself. But any idiot could read the document and see for themselves that none of it applies to a 10 year old’s birthday party far from any clinic or hospital. Bailey chose not to, just as she chose to include a list of references to government papers in her film with no context that would show them to be false.