|
Author |
|
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
169 Posts |
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."
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7491/552#100186
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?
http://www.bridges4kids.org/articles/12-03/TimesMag12-14-03.html
This article is no longer available from the
Times-online website.
4) Brian Deer has stated that the "MMR debacle"
is "a tedious area"?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7503/1284#108827
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.
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/jabs-jackie.htm
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?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7438/528#76418
Why has he failed to mention Dr Michael
Fitzpatrick's association with GlaxoSmithKline
as a trustee of the lobby organisation Sense
about Science?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7438/528#76545
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':
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_horton/2007/01/searching_out_identity.html#comment-360711
|
Edited by - John Stone on 01/04/2007 08:48:57 |
|
john
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
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
http://www.whale.to/a/image/orwell.jpg
PS some media quotes
http://www.whale.to/w/quotes2.html |
Edited by - john on 01/02/2007 12:50:40 |
| |
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
169 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 12:58:28
|
John
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. |
Edited by - John Stone on 01/05/2007 10:50:51 |
|
|
|