Formal Complainant Against Wakefield – Ignore One Side
Posted May 22 2010 8:58pm
Sometimes it is useful to write and then post a comment at Age of Autism that is polite, on-topic and rationally explains there may be difficulties with a specific article posted there. Then it gets refused and you can post it at the Silenced by Age of Autism blog. But sometimes, when the nuttiness at Age of Autism goes too far, a less polite approach may be called for.
John Stone’s writing for Age of Autism isn’t the worst of what they peddle – that honour goes to Martin Walker.
Stone is not a complete and utter ignoramus. I refuse to believe that he hasn’t stumbled across explanations that contradict what he writes. Yet, he doesn’t have a problem with leaving out explanations from the people you would think know best, the GMC itself. In 2004, Dr. Horton after promising to wait until Brian Deer’s story was published on a Sunday, announced on the preceding Friday the allegations that Deer made against Wakefield. This lead to politicians asking for a GMC investigation and Wakefield himself asking for an investigation.
According to Deer, on the following Monday, the GMC called and asked him for his information. A couple days later he supplied what he had to them along with a letter where he said he was complaining about Wakefield.
The position taken by the GMC has been repeated over and over. They learned of the issue from the newspapers and decided on their own to launch an investigation. Deciding to start an investigation based on news media accounts isn’t unusual for the GMC.
I’m not supplying any links to this because it is ridiculously easy to find on the internet that this is the position that has been put forward consistently by the GMC.
But sometimes, when the nuttiness at Age of Autism goes too far, a less polite approach may be called for.
John Stone’s writing for Age of Autism isn’t the worst of what they peddle – that honour goes to Martin Walker.
But Stone does deserve a medal for producing the most one sided set of articles on a minor point: Was journalist Brian Deer the formal complainant to the GMC against Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch? John Stone says yes in a May 18 article at Age of Autism BMJ Editor Refuses to Acknowledge Brian Deer’s Role as Complainant in GMC Case .
When he doesn’t get the result he likes from the BMJ, he throws a hissy fit and posts another article at Age of Autism on May 22, 2010. Godlee Must Go: BMJ Fails To Answer Question on Deer's Competing Interests
Stone is not a complete and utter ignoramus. I refuse to believe that he hasn’t stumbled across explanations that contradict what he writes. Yet, he doesn’t have a problem with leaving out explanations from the people you would think know best, the GMC itself. In 2004, Dr. Horton after promising to wait until Brian Deer’s story was published on a Sunday, announced on the preceding Friday the allegations that Deer made against Wakefield. This lead to politicians asking for a GMC investigation and Wakefield himself asking for an investigation.
According to Deer, on the following Monday, the GMC called and asked him for his information. A couple days later he supplied what he had to them along with a letter where he said he was complaining about Wakefield.
The position taken by the GMC has been repeated over and over. They learned of the issue from the newspapers and decided on their own to launch an investigation. Deciding to start an investigation based on news media accounts isn’t unusual for the GMC.
I’m not supplying any links to this because it is ridiculously easy to find on the internet that this is the position that has been put forward consistently by the GMC.