Brian Deer: Conflicted “Journalist", Industry Toady or Modern-Day Madame Defarge??
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/03/brian-deer-conflicted-journalist-industry-toady-or-modern-day-madame-defarge.html
On February 25, 2004, self-styled “journalist” Brian Deer initiated the Complaint with the GMC that led to the hearing presently underway against Dr. Wakefield, and Professors Murch and Walker-Smith by “lay[ing] before” the GMC what he, Brian Deer, concluded was evidence of serious professional misconduct. Documentary evidence produced during discovery and now presented at the hearing demonstrates that the key charges (unethical research, undisclosed participation in MMR litigation, and unauthorized recommendation of the monovalent components of the MMR as a temporary precaution until safety issues could be resolved) are completely without merit. Key witnesses during the investigation knew the allegations lacked merit. What, then, propelled the allegations by Deer into a full-blown fitness to practice hearing with possible risk to their medical licenses? Deere has most recently taken credit for defeating the “test case” claims in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding.
Who is Brian Deer, and why were his allegations, easily proven either false or irrelevant, taken so seriously? Who funds his daily vigil at the GMC hearing, now in its 125th day?
Last week, Dr. Wakefield filed a Complaint (HERE) with the self-regulatory Press Complaints Commission in the UK against Brian Deer over his most recent specious allegations in the Sunday Times, Deer’s desperate attempt to breathe some life into his dying obsession. David Kirby wrote it up HERE. Now, Dr. Wakefield has filed an addendum (HERE) to that Complaint, alleging that Deer has an undisclosed conflict of interest as both “neutral” reporter and behind-the-scenes provocateur. The label put on his role, whether complainant or informant, is irrelevant. What is crucial is that Deer played a pivotal and personal role in furthering his personal agenda against Wakefield, i.e. his conclusions, now shown by testimony before the GMC to be false, while, at the same time, continuing to report on the GMC hearing as a “neutral” and “independent” member of the press. His failure to disclose this dual role, and his direct and personal participation, misled the public who were lead to believe that Deer was simply a reporter of the underlying story. Once he became a player in making the news, he (and his editors) were obliged to stop reporting and assign that responsibility to someone else. This undisclosed conflict of interest is extremely harmful to public confidence in independent journalism. This harm became starkly apparent in Deer’s most recent reporting where he made baseless charges in an effort to save the faltering case that he, himself, initiated. His continued reporting on the GMC proceeding is contaminated with bias and lack of objectivity.
He failed to disclose his conflict in
material that he has published on this
matter. He has sought to mislead the public
by: changing previous statements that he
made on his website about his role in making
the complaint, frankly denying that he laid
the initial complaint against Wakefield,
calling into question the ruling of a High
Court Judge, presumably made based upon his
Mr. Deer’s own evidence, and apparently (and
most alarmingly), colluding with the GMC and
its representatives to change his nominal if
not his practical status from ‘complainant’
to ‘informant’ (for stated reasons which are
at the very least ambiguous), thereby
attempting to create the perception that he
is entitled to continue reporting on a case
which is, in large part, one of his own
instigation. Deer cannot continue to report
on this matter even with a role recast as
informant, as his neutrality remains
compromised once he became invested in the
proceeding.
In addition to Deer trying to recast his
role as mere informant, GMC has a separate
motive, which also calls for investigation
by a truly independent press, i.e. not
Deer. As a self-regulatory body, it is
GMC’s primary role to protect patients from
doctors who violate Good Medical Practice
guidelines. In the absence of patient
complaints here, even after the revelations
by Deer in the Sunday Times, the GMC
proceeding was fatally adrift from the
outset. Where is, after all, the victim of
the alleged professional misconduct? Who
speaks for the patients? Certainly not Brian
Deer. Absent a “true” bona fide
complainant, therefore, why did the GMC
investigation go forward? Perhaps in pursuit
of interests different from, and even
contrary to, the best interests of the
patients.
This serious misstep by the GMC, at a cost
of millions to taxpayers, is another example
of a matter that requires the investigation
by neutral journalism, not Brian Deer. So
long as Deer is allowed to remain at the
center of the GMC investigation and hearing,
as lead provocateur, the obligation of
journalism to serve the public interest will
remain unfulfilled. The unfounded attack on
Wakefield and colleagues, launched by Deer
and in which GMC has been badly used, is an
attack on kids in desperate need of science
and medicine. There are many truths hidden
here, ones that must be investigated and
uncovered by real journalists.
But the day after the fist Sunday Times article Deer's allegations were already being endorsed publicly by the Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson who told BBC news:
"Now a darker side of this work has shown through, with the ethical conduct of the research and this is something that has to be looked at".
And the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who remarked to ITN:
"I hope now that people see the situation is somewhat different from what they were led to believe".
Links were quickly made to Deer's allegations - both to the Sunday Times story and to his website - on the National Health Service information site, MMR the Facts.
By a remarkable coincidence, his commissioning editor at the Sunday Times Paul Nuki, left ahead of the GMC hearing to become editor in chief of new NHS information, NHS Choices.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/may/03/newmedia.epublic
Also, by a remarkable coincidence Nuki seems to be the son of George Nuki who sat on the Committtee on Safety in medicine when MMR was introduced.