Andrew Wakefield's libel suit against Brian Deer: Dismissed!

I tell ya, sometimes I think you guys think I'm a journalist or a 24 hour news source. I'm not, of course. I'm just a humble blogger, and I do what I can within the constraints of my every day "real life." What? I have a real life? You mean I'm not really a supercomputer who can link with any other computer in the galaxy to mine all known data, all contained within a Plexiglass box of multicolored blinking lights? I'm not saying, but I am saying that I do need some down time.

Unfortunately, sometimes big things happen during those down times, stuff I really like to blog about. In the past, I used to jump on such events, wanting to be the "firstest with the mostest," so to speak. Now that I'm more established, I've learned that it's impossible always to be the firstest with the mostest, particularly given the differences in time zones that mean that at some times I'm asleep while bloggers in the UK or elsewhere are up and blogging. Nothing I can do about that, and it's foolish to try. Friday nights are particularly bad, because I've learned that it's a very good thing indeed to unplug on Friday nights, and I usually do. Sometimes, we even have company over, and I completely unplug to the point that I don't even look at my phone. This is a good thing. It's even a better thing when that Friday night is the beginning of a week-long vacation. It does, however, mean that when news like the dismissal of the frivolous libel suit that Andrew Wakefield filed earlier this year against investigative journalist Brian Deer comes through on a Friday, I can't be the firstest with the mostest.

So I guess I'll just have to settle with being the mostest in my usual insufferable (to the antivaccine movement, anyway) fashion.

Or at least, I'll just have to give my own unique personal spin on this completely not unexpected outcome. Basically, Judge Amy Clark Meacham dismissed Andrew Wakefield's libel suit against Brian Deer in a single paragraph based on a "lack of personal jurisdiction" of any of the defendants. In brief, that means that the court found that there was no legal claim to Texas jurisdiction for this particular lawsuit for any of the defendants. This was, of course, a very obvious outcome. Those of us who follow these sorts of things were scratching our heads all along as to why Wakefield would even file such an obviously nonsensical lawsuit. On the one hand, suing in the UK would provide Wakefield with ammunition in the form of Britain's notoriously plaintiff-friendly libel laws. The downside, however, would be that in the UK the loser pays; if Wakefield didn't prevail, he could be in for a huge bill. In Texas, however, libel law is in line with that of most of the U.S., and under the First Amendment the bar for demonstrating libel is very high indeed. This made it incredibly unlikely that Wakefield, even if he managed to get this case to trial, would prevail. Worse, there is an anti-SLAPP law in Texas that would allow Brian Deer to go after Wakefield to recover court costs. On the other hand, apparently Wakefield knows a lawyer named William Parrish, whose daughter is apparently involved with some autism group with Wakefield's daughter. Very likely, that means that Wakefield got his legal help for free.

That left those of us scratching our heads with the only likely explanation for Wakefield's action as being a the desperate act of a man clutching at his declining relevance in the wake of his having been struck off the British medical register and having witnessed his key papers, particularly the 1998 Lancet paper, retracted. And it worked, for a time at least, with the hopes of the antivaccine crankosphere briefly lifted when John Walker-Smith won his appeal, even though the two events had nothing to do with each other. I will admit, though, that in retrospect after this blunt and brief dismissal of Wakefield's lawsuit, the rhetoric from the Age of Autism set was unintentionally hilarious, full of bold proclamations that Wakefield would reveal the "truth" and destroy Brian Deer's credibility once and for all, thus exonerating himself and rehabilitating his reputation.

So I wandered over to that wretched hive of antivaccine scum and quackery, AoA, to see what the propagandists there are saying about this latest development. The rhetoric there is subdued, but just as defiant. It's also just as divorced from reality:

"We feel confident moving forward,” said Ed Arranga, executive director of the Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund. "We will appeal the district court decision and welcome the opportunity to having our case heard by the appeals court. Our intent remains the same – to get the facts in front of a jury. The community remains steadfast in its support of Dr. Wakefield."

Sylvia Pimental, a mom and Justice Fund member, echoed the support. "We knew this would be a long fight before filing and have every faith the appeals court will rule in Dr. Wakefield’s favor. We believe Texas has a strong legal interest in protecting its residents from attack by foreign entities."

Dr. Wakefield has 30 days to file his appeal from the date of Judge Meachum’s order. The case would be heard by the Third Court of Appeals, in Austin, Texas and the case may involve issues that are of interest to the Texas Supreme Court.

Personally, there is one way that I was somewhat disappointed in the dismissal of the case. It would have provided me with a lot of hilarious material to blog about. Of that I have no doubt. Don't get me wrong. I admire Brian Deer, and I'm glad that he won such a resounding dismissal, given that this was clearly a lawsuit designed to strike back at him for having uncovered Wakefield's conflicts of interest and rank scientific fraud. Consequently, I don't want Brian Deer, the BMJ, or Fiona Godlee to have to deal with the time, expense, and pain of a continuing to defend against a frivolous lawsuit.

My prediction is that it's all bluster and posturing anyway. Taking the case to the appeals court would involve a lot more expense, and one wonders whether Mr. Parrish, however chummy he might be with Wakefield, is sufficiently chummy to be willing to continue to press what is even more obvious to be a loser of a case to the appeals court. I expect that there will be some bleating about appeal for the next 30 days, with more and more blatant appeals to contribute to the Wakefield Justice Fund. Wakefield will score some decent contributions from the antivaccine faithful, many of whom are still sufficiently deluded to believe against all evidence that Wakefield is a persecuted martyr rather than an incompetent scientist and fraud with massive conflicts of interest. Indeed, if you cruise over to Anne Dachel's Facebook page, the parents are lamenting the decision with comments like this one by Daphnia Cannon:

I hope he can enjoy his redemption while alive. This man deserves it!! What other doctor has been as brave as him to go against a medical system that is injuring and damaging our children!!!

Sorry, Daphnia. Ain't gonna happen. Wakefield is yesterday's news. He has been thoroughly discredited, and deservedly so. There isn't going to be any sort of redemption or rehabilitation.

Then there's this comment by someone named Dan E. Burns, who apparently was in the courtroom when legal arguments were made:

Then William M. Parrish, Dr. Wakefield’s attorney, stood up. A long tall Texan wrapped like a hot dog in a black lawyer’s suit, wavy hair poking out on top, cowboy boots sticking out at the bottom, Parrish towered above the BMJ attorneys.

"Your honor," he said, "let’s leave the legal language aside for a moment. This is a story about suffering children and their mothers and families, and a doctor’s decision to listen to them." The courtroom came alive.

"On January 6, 2011," Parrish continued, "Deer told Anderson Cooper, 'If it is true that Andrew Wakefield is not guilty as charged, he has the remedy of bringing a libel action against myself, the Sunday Times of London, and against the BMJ. If he were found not guilty, he would be the richest man richest man in America. So why doesn’t he sue?'"

"With those words," continued Parrish, "Brian Deer put a chip on his shoulder, and that is why we are here and not in England. If you pick a fight with a Texan, you settle it in Texas."

The battle has only just started. As Andy said, "Discovery alone has confirmed the extraordinary extent of the Defendants' deception and malice. An appeal will be filed and we will win."

We'll see, but it is rather interesting that Parrish was so anxious to "leave the legal language aside for a moment" and try to tug on the judge's heart strings. Fortunately, the judge is bound by the law alone, not rhetorical flourishes and appeals to children whose parents believe incorrectly that vaccines cause their autism.

The more I think about it, the more I tend to believe that the whole case itself was all bluster and posturing designed to show the antivaccine faithful that Wakefield is still relevant and still fighting. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if Wakefield expected to lose on jurisdictional grounds all along, which would allow him to tell his followers that he's fighting but to do so without actually expending a lot of resources or risking revealing what might come out in an open trial. Indeed, if there's one thing that Wakefield does not want, it's to take the stand under oath, and it would be incredibly difficult to prevail as the plaintiff in any sort of civil action without taking the stand at some point. No doubt, were that to happen, Deer and Godlee's lawyers would have a field day.

Finally, I do have one other minor regret about this ruling. Basically, I'm with Sullivan when he asks:

Since this is a dismissal on jurisdiction grounds, we do not have a ruling as to whether it is defamatory to call Mr. Wakefield a “fraud” or “fraudster” based on his research activities (such statements were part of Mr. Wakefield’s defamation suit), which resulted in his Lancet paper being retracted and which activities were deemed unethical by the General Medical Council.

Indeed. Of course, in my opinion, Wakefield is a fraud and a fraudster, and that is protected speech regardless of whether Wakefield appeals.

More like this

I don't know what it is about the beginning of a year. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or real, but it sure seems that something big happens early every year in the antivaccine world. Consider. As I pointed out back in February 2009, in rapid succession Brian Deer reported that Andrew…
On the antivaccine front, this year began with antivaccine hero Andrew Wakefield filing suit against investigative reporter Brian Deer, the BMJ, and Fiona Godlee (the editor of BMJ) for libel based on a series that Deer published in the BMJ outlining the evidence for Wakefield's scientific fraud in…
If there's one thing that a crank, quack, pseudoscientist, or anti-vaccine propagandist doesn't like, it's having the light of day shined upon his activities. In fact, so much do they hate it that they have a distressing tendency to respond to science-based criticism not with science-based…
The plot thickens. Earlier, I discussed how disgraced, struck-off anti-vaccine physician Dr. Andrew Wakefield, deciding that being humiliated once by the courts in a libel action wasn't enough, has apparently decided to have another bite at the apple. Given that he was so thoroughly humiliated in…

Sane legal results from Texas. Will wonders never cease.

I wonder (without any hope of satisfying my curiosity) if St Andy is surprised by this result?

I anticipate a tsunami of bilge bursting forth from the woo-esphere like unto the Great Flood itself sweeping across the globe and leaving a trail of bad prose and worse science in its sorry wake.

This is the answer to their perversely self-agrandising prayers and the climax of their wettest, idol-worshipping dreams: it provides grist for their mills and fuel for their fire- they now have proof positive of the grand, over-arching trans-Atlantic conspiratorial morass of corruption and deceit that infiltrates all governments, corporations, media and professional associations forever plaguing the martyred Andrew and all maverick revolutionaries.

I expect deliciously lame-brained responses from the usual suspects: breathtakingly bad ideas, inane speculation and horrible metaphors will emanate from computers at anti-vax and woo-centric websites like contaminated water from a broken sewer pipe. And I will report whatever I hear.

Oh sing heavenly Muse!

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

So why did he not sue in England? Russian oligarchs go sue each other in England. Icelandic academics go sue each other in England. Why? Because in England, the plaintiff has to prove nothing. The burden of proof is entirely on the defendant. Defamation is assumed, unless the defendant can prove the words complained of are true. There are no first amendment protections for factual statements, no malice needs to be established. Thus, England is considered to be the worst jurisdiction in the world to defend a libel suit.

But, what else does England have? It has a 'loser pays' rule, which means that anyone foolish enough to bring a vexatious libel action ends up paying the defendants' costs.

So in Texas, Wakefield can bring a meritless lawsuit, raise money for himself and hold himself out to be some kind of crusader, but be completely insulated against the $2-$3 million legal bill which he would get hit with after losing against the BMJ.

So this jurisdictional thing is no chopped liver issue. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about Wakefield's case.

While it is, of course, protected speech to call him a fraud it would be simply beautiful to have a court rule that you can't defame him by calling him a fraud because he actually is a fraud.

I'm guessing this is just the outcome Wakefield hoped for. He gets to play the martyr with little cost to himself. He's done it before--filing a suit then dropping it before it could be proceed. This is even better because he can pin it more squarely on the judge.

One wonders how many non-tax-deductible donations and memberships the "defense" fund has gotten, and what happens to any money that isn't spent on Wakefield's legal posturings.

@Squillo - since Wakefield isn't actually contributing anything to Autism-research, perhaps he's looking to do a kitchen remodel.....

Absolutely he's going to turn this into a martyr situation.

"Oh poor me - I could have been vindicated, but due to the travesties and injustices of the American judicial system, my case was dismissed! Won't anyone let me clear my name??"

Excuse me while I vomit.

I have asked before, and will ask again, since no one has yet ever had an answer for me:

What has Wakefield ever done for autistic children aside from give their parents someone to blame?

By Marry Me, Mindy (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

@Marry Me
He has caused a huge pile of money to be wasted researching a vaccine-autism link that does not exist when that same pile could have been spent on more promising studies.

Nothing. He has, however, caused autistic children considerable harm by providing pseudoscientific nonsensical ideas of autism causation that launched a thousand quacks. Indeed, it can be argued that, more than anyone else, Andrew Wakefield launched the autism biomed movement. Indeed, Andrew Wakefield's was the fraud that launched a thousand quacks.

I think he also might have assisted those who have become the champions of the so-called health freedom movement because he enabled those who have opposed medical consensus, governmental advocacy and evidently, all rationality.

AJW'a project: the gift that keeps on giving.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

"Our intent remains the same – to get the facts in front of a jury."

Unless of course, the facts are coming from Deer, in which case they try to prevent him from providing such facts.

Incidentally, curious about what was happening with the case, I spent last week reading Deer's amendment to the case. It regurgitated a lot of old stuff, but added in a lot of new stuff too. Worth a read, because as usual he goes on to show there really was no part of Wakefield's "science" that wasn't manipulated. In any case, I'm happy to see this news!

What gets me is that the clincher in my mind was that Wakefield took blood from kids at a birthday party. What kind of person thinks that's ok? How can anyone hear that and ignore the obvious ethical problems? (Oh right... Deer made that up, it's all a conspiracy)

Actually even more so than that is the constant "willingness" to talk about the issue and prove himself innocent... and then continually backing out. If he were so innocent, if the facts were all on his side, you'd think he'd actually go through with at least *one* of the court cases. Not even in his GMC trial did he bother doing that.

I think this should be a fallacy of some sort, like Godwin's. Anybody who continually asks to be heard and then backs out without providing evidence (only to do it again and again) should instantly lose the argument. Wakefield's Law: when you're proven to be fraudulent so completely that any further protestations can only be made with cowardice.

Sylvia Pimental, a mom and Justice Fund member, echoed the support. “We knew this would be a long fight before filing and have every faith the appeals court will rule in Dr. Wakefield’s favor. We believe Texas has a strong legal interest in protecting its residents from attack by foreign entities.”

Oh, the irony...

@ flip:

or name it some sort of ( help me please someone: I can't do Latin)....
*legal actionus interrruptus*

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

Sounds like the judge in Texas called BS on In Bad Science by a Big Scammer.

Didn't take Jake Crosby too long to connect the Judge to his "enemies" list......

I love this line from Parrish reported in the AoA comments: "If you pick a fight with a Texan, you settle it in Texas." I can fully imagine that they dressed up Wakefield like he had just come from a dude ranch for effect.

Yessireebob, if'n someone picks a fight with a Texan, he gets to his feet, spurs clanking, and heads right over to the nearest lawyer's office to get satisfaction.

The Texas culture sure has changed since I lived there.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

Is it just me, or does AoA seem to be largely CT these days?

I used to feel for the families, but now I mostly shake my head and walk away because anyone who believes autism is all vaccine injuries caused by an an indifferent government and greedy corporations isn't someone I can relate to.

Posted at AoA to try and draw out Jake Crosby's double standard attacking the Texas judge for COI but letting AJW slide on his huge COI taking money from lawyers to find a problem with MMR. Not expecting it will clear censorship but it was too easy a target.

Posted at AoA to try and draw out Jake Crosby’s double standard attacking the Texas judge for COI

I get the impression that nobody ever bothered to tell Jake what "begging the question" actually means: he only gets a weak conflict if his assumption that the case is about The Medical Establishment (oo-ee-oo) is true, in order to reach a spousal financial conflict. Of course, it's not, it's about Wakefield being asshurt. Parrish could have tried it, of course, on pain of sanctions if the attempt is found to be "solely for delay and without sufficient cause." (Texas R. Civ. P. 18a(h).)

Denise Walter,
According to Google Translate, actionem interrupta or possibly placitum interrupta.

But I am not Latin myself...

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

According to Google Translate, actionem interrupta or possibly placitum interrupta.

I'd go with lis inrita, since you get the related irritus, -a, -um in the package.

“let’s leave the legal language aside for a moment."

Thumping the table does imply that there are neither facts nor law to be thumped instead.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

The latest from AoA's legal expert...Jake Crosby:

"but not unexpected"?!

Oh right, you can totally expect a Texas judge to rule that it's okay for foreign publications to libel state residents with impunity. :S

Something is seriously wrong here..."

So many things seriously wrong here.
Jake blinded to AJW's COI while finding links large and small with everyone on the other side.
These folks actually believe that St Andy will continue this charade with an expectation of prevailing.
AJW is still a hero after piles of evidence show him to have committed fraud, practiced medicine in the most unethical and dangerous fashion and to continue to protest just (if tardy) punishment.
Gullible? Delusional? Ignorant?

attacking the Texas judge for COI
Has anyone tried explaining to young Jake that the choice of this particular court in which to file the suit -- COI and all -- was entirely Wakefield's? That you cannot really complain about the lack of levelness of the playing field when it is the one that the team preferred?

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

So this outcome was "not unexpected." What a surprise.You filed a lawsuit in a jurisdiction in which you expected to have no standing, wasting Texas taxpayer dollars almost as effectively as you wasted research money.

Stay classy, Dr. Wakefield.

Gullible? Delusional? Ignorant?

'Tis a strange and puzzling spectacle, that's for sure.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

attacking the Texas judge for COI
It might also occur to Jake that better evidence that the judge was biassed would be if he *did* agree to hear the case, and then found against Wakefield.

“Your honor,” he said, “let’s leave the legal language aside for a moment. This is a story about suffering children and their mothers and families, and a doctor’s decision to listen to them.”

This speech might have gone done well in front of a jury. Judges, however, are (I suspect) less willing to ignore the details of the law, aware as they are that a higher court can reverse their decisions on appeal. While the business about "suffering children" might have been appropriate for a *substantive* hearing, but what does it have to do with convincing a judge that the case falls within his jurisdiction?

It sounds as if Wakefield's tuppence-ha'penny lawyer had written one speech as his preparation for the court, and he was determined to use it, whether or not it was appropriate.

Jake Crosby:
“but not unexpected”?!
Oh right, you can totally expect a Texas judge to rule that it’s okay for foreign publications to libel state residents with impunity.

Examination of previous RI threads on this story reveal that people have indeed been predicting that the judge would throw out the case before it reached an evidential stage.
So yes, Jake, one could expect that outcome, on the empirical point of fact that people were expecting it.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

Previous comment is basically what Lawrence already said over on the "Quoth an Antivaccinationist" thread.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

The number of vaccine-related "fetal demise" reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700%].


Roy Culver

Aug 2 (2 days ago)

to 4che, ekeefe, Will.g.tsui, Buckbutterfield, peruk, dickhollander, rferguson, sarkzi, soculver, starr93891, txnto7, Vicky, Wendy
The Bankers Are Not Just Calling the Shots, They Are Giving Them
Howard Wallack for
Aug-01-2012 23:55printcomments

Why isn't media in the UK and here reporting these huge stories?

(NEW YORK) - Goldman Sachs, known for its integrity around the bailout
and around food markets, is also invested in vaccines.

"Lloyd Blankfein, a major shareholder in the Goldman-Sachs/AstraZeneca
partnershipis] is co-chairman with media mogul Rupert Murdoch in the
David Rockefeller-founded Partnership for New York City (PFNYC),
chartered by the Royal Family of England. This group is currently
advancing a world leading biotechnology trust, heavily invested in
“genetopharmaceuticals” and flu vaccine genetic engineering."

Lloyd Blankfein, Rupert Murdoch’s Co-Chairman of the PFNYC, directed
Goldman-Sachs/AstraZeneca’s $15 billion acquisition of MedImmune, the
H1N1 FLUMIST maker. ....

Goldman Sachs and the Rockefeller are international bankers. And it
is the international bankers, in country after country, whose
financial misdeeds surpass any ever seen before in history.

The same, it seems, can now be said of their vaccines. For the
international bankers so currently beloved of people around the world
are not only deeply invested but deeply involved in vaccines.

In the UK, Dr Lucija Tomljenovic used Freedom of Information to
uncover 30 years of secret official documents exposing a coverup of
the hazards of their vaccines and the names of those present,
including manufacturers, were redacted:

".... the documentation .... appears to show that the JCVI made
continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse
reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and
health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which
they deemed were necessary for “herd immunity”, a concept which with
regards to vaccination, and contrary to prevalent beliefs, does not
rest on solid scientific evidence as will be explained. As a result of
such vaccination policy promoted by the JCVI and the DH, many children
have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the
critical information about demonstrated risks of serious adverse
reactions, one that the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of. It
would also appear that, by withholding this information, the JCVI/DH
neglected the right of individuals to make an informed consent
concerning vaccination. By doing so, the JCVI/DH may have violated not
only International Guidelines for Medical Ethics (i.e., Helsinki
Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics) [2] but
also, their own Code of Practice.

"The transcripts of the JCVI meetings also show that some of the
Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and
that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on
strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at
which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be
publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later,
through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular
meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence”,
and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the
information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the
participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the
JCVI website (for example, JCVI CSM/DH (Committee on the Safety of
Medicines/Department of Health) Joint Committee on Adverse Reactions
Minutes 1986-1992)."

In the main, the same vaccines given in the UK are given in the US.

But FOIAs in the US are taking a different turn. Though by law,
government agencies must respond to FOIAs within 20 days, those sent
to the CDC in regard to vaccine hazards have not been responded to in
over 6 years. A case was filed to compel the CDC to turn over the
documents. The Bolen Reports:

"The CDC finally filed their paperwork in the Hooker v CDC case. In
short, they simply reiterate their claim that they do not have to give
anybody, FOIA request or not, any information they don't want seen.

"The information Hooker seeks is in regard to the email discussions
about those so-called "Studies" that claim to prove no relationship
between Thimerosal in vaccines and Autism. What Hooker already has is
damning, and the rest, it is easy to assume, is even more so. ....

"The trouble with all that is if what we think happened, actually
happened, then what they did was CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, involving the
death and suffering of millions of children and their families."
[Emphasis in the original.]

From Medical Veritas:

“Rupert Murdoch’s mother, Elizabeth, Dame Commander of the Most
Excellent Order of the British Empire, and daughter-in-law, Sarah
Murdoch, steward the Royal Women’s Hospital and Murdoch Children’s
Research Institute, respectively, in Australia. They oversaw their
staff conduct H1N1 vaccine trials on infants, children, and pregnant
women in 2009, collaborating with Merck’s subsidiary, CSL.

It might be noted that "Overall, the number of vaccine-related "fetal
demise" reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to
previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage
statistic [700%].

“Members of this group [Goldman-Sachs, Rupert Murdoch, David
Rockefeller, the Royal Family of England], along with George
Soros-directed assets, virtually monopolized the genetics industry
during the 1990s, culminating in the corporate privatization of the
Human Genome Project.

“Involvement of these economic leaders in the vaccine industry is most
revealing and even shocking as the following facts evidence:

“The Baxter Corporation, indicted for spreading

[1] HIV contaminated blood products during the late 1970s through the 1980s;

[2] a cheap lethal heparin substitute in 2008; and

[3] H5N1 contaminated seasonal flu vaccines in early 2009,

was directed by Mr. Tony White, Soros’s appointee to lead the
privately owned Applera Company following their obvious heist of the
Human Genome Project during the late 1990s. The sudden privatization
of what had previously been public, non-profit, patentable property,
also implicated co-sponsors – the U.S. Department of Energy and The
Wellcome Trust of London.

“Today, the American Baxter Company is a major H1N1 vaccine maker for
European nations, and at the center of controversy concerning the
expanding outbreak of recombinant H1N1-hemorrhagic pneumonia. Many
experts conclude the 2009 H1N1 triple reassortant sourced from a lab,
similar to its 1977 relative.
Why hasn't the public heard that the UK government has been covering
up hazards of vaccines, for example the controversial MMR vaccine?

Rupert Murdoch’s son James runs the Times of London and oversees
GlaxoSmithKline. In fact, the CSL/Merck H1N1 vaccine was "tested in
Murdoch-family directed facilities." The MMR (measles, mumps,
rubella) vaccines are produced by GSK and Merck. A reporter for the
Times of London character-assassinated Dr. Andrew Wakefield after his
work on mitochondrial dysfunction in autistic children and the
possibility it was linked to the MMR vaccine.

"Taking down Wakefield in a big way became a means of discrediting
anyone questioning vaccines. Wakefield was cast as a fraud and so all
those voicing concerns were dismissed by reference to him. This Alan
Golding documentary gives background which can allow people to judge
the credibility of Murdoch’s reporter for themselves."

The Bankers have been thrown out of Iceland. They are being arrested
in numbers of countries. They are not high on credibility.

To know the Bankers is to know who is behind children's vaccines. In
knowing that, one can see understand more easily the UK's 30 year
coverup around vaccines, and why it is significant that a lawsuit had
to filed against the CDC, for they are still refusing to tell the
American public what is really going on there with vaccines and

“Curiously, in 2008, The Wellcome Trust of London’s Biocentre, the
UK’s largest non-governmental source of funds for biomedical research,
created a special grant program to heavily fund research into alleged
mysterious neurodegenerative diseases linked by censored science to
thimerosal mercury.

And why isn't media in the UK and here reporting on these huge stories?

“Besides James and Rupert’s News Corp directing film makers Twentieth
Century Fox and Warner Brothers, the Western World’s mass-mediated
mind-set is reinforced by PFNYC “partner” and Reuters News Service
CEO, Thomas H. Glocer. [Emphasis added.]

"Glocer sits on the Board of Directors of Merck & Company, whose (CSL)
H1N1 vaccine, and (Merck’s) Pneumovax vaccine, is broadening markets
as the main ingredient–laboratory engineered H1N1 virus–mutates, as in
the Ukraine, becoming more deadly.

“Additionally, those poorly-paid inadequately-trained pharmacists
administering vaccines in supermarkets, draining doctors’ revenue
streams, reflect the ‘hostile takeover’ of clinical medicine by
Goldman-Sachs’s limited partner, PFNYC ‘Corporate Partner,’ [David
Rockefeller] and world-leading ‘buyout firm,’ Kolberg, Kravitz,
Roberts & Company (KKR) This ‘immunization’ industry-altering practice
is promoted as a “cost-saving” invention according to KKR’s director
of Safeway supermarkets, Steven Burd, founder of the Coalition to
Advance Healthcare Reform (CAHR), popularly called ‘Obamacare.’”

Perhaps the Bankers might institute another cost saving measure and
parents forced to take their children for mandated shots (now known to
be ineffective and dangerous) can do so at banks and the bankers could
be paid directly, skipping the hoax of medical treatment. Children are
a captive market for vaccines which are a trillion dollar industry,
and health is as unwelcome as cancelling a fat debt, whereas vaccine
induced illnesses expand financial markets.

Will Bankers be arrested some day soon for their biggest theft of all
- the lives of children?

By Roy L. Culver (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

Roy L. Culver - What are the sources of the quoted portions of your post?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

Mr. Culver, you must be new here. I don't think conspiracy cut and paste is going to go over very well. Especially since neither Patrick Timothy Bolen nor Medical Veritas have any respect around here.

@roy l. culver

Thanks for the old pharma shill gambit.

Mr. Culver, anyone who would base an article, as your Howard Wallack has done, on not just the junk journal "Medical Veritas" but also on the notoriously truth-averse ravings of Bolen, must be a fool of rare caliber.

However, even if we did not know that Wallack's sources are so poor, we would still know that his logic is terrible. Guilt by association is a fallacy to begin with, but look how soon in the article Wallack resorts to referring to simply "the Bankers," to create the illusion that having a profession in common is automatically association. What a pathetic performance.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

The use of "the Bankers" seems to be a version of an attack on the Jewish population. Next thing you know we'll be getting screeds on the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mr. Culver's screed has a very tenuous relationship with reality.

(oh, and one reason why this occurs to me is that I am reading In the Garden of Beasts, which is very good, and would make a good movie... and it might happen)

I wonder, can a Texas court declare Wakefield a vexatious litigant?

By Alan Kellogg (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

@ Mephistopheles O'Brien:
@ Narad:

Ooooooooh! Those several choices sound rather good! I cannot do Latin but do get the hang of the prosody, I think.

I do vaguely remember that in January there was a bet made about how far the case would procede between two gentlemen, both of whose 'nyms start with *P*- uh, Pro-somebody and another Pro-something. One person stepped up and asked that perhaps it is not wise to transform our esteemed host's respectable place into an internet gambling parlour, so they should instead donate money to a worthy charity that works contra AJW. Like providing vaccines.
Please tell me that I am not the only person who remembers this...

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

@ Denice Walter: One of the posters whose name started with a "P"...was no gentleman.

He came here feigning disinterest ("Just asking questions"), then started to defend Jake Crosby's stalking of Drs. Fiona Godlee and Paul Offit. He also accused Brian Deer of having an agenda to persecute Andy Wakefield.

He got pretty foul-mouthed with me when I caught him in a bunch of lies. The other "Pro-something" is always a gentleman.

lilady @11:50 -- "One of the posters whose name started with a “P”…was no gentleman. "

it wasn't me, Officer, honest! I never capitalize the "p"!

By palindrom (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

No it wasn't palindrom!…

March 21, 2:04 pm

“The meeting I attended Crosby spoke at the end of a long day during the public comment time slot. I honestly do not remember a word he said. The forum moderator announced his name. He walked to the lectern, began speaking is a low voice. After he spoke for about 3 or four minutes, the moderator told him time’s up.”

Really, Pro. The meeting took place between noon and 1 PM:!/IRPatNIH/statuses/146977864443625472


“He quietly left the lectern.The audience received him with polite disinterest at best.”

The NIH Record, reports Jake Crosby’s behavior as being somewhat different than what you “observed” and what Jake reported:

“After fielding the young man’s questions in increasingly measured tones, Offit explained, “One of the consequences of what I do is that sometimes you get hate mail, sometimes you get sued, and now I have a stalker.” This particular student, he said, “often makes disparaging comments about me at national meetings as well as on the Internet.”

Publicly identified as a nuisance, the man stormed out of Lipsett Amphitheater and slammed the door.”

“Yeah, I’m a bullshit artist, so what? How the hell else am I ever gonna get laid?”

You are an unsuccessful “bullshit” artist here, Pro. Please confine your bullshitting skill to “other” activities.

@ palindrom...Of course the creepy guy I referred to is not you. I have a comment, with links, stuck in moderation. :-)

@Denice Walter

"proscientifica" probably won't be paying up anytime soon, he's just that dishonest of an individual.

One person stepped up and asked that perhaps it is not wise to transform our esteemed host’s respectable place into an internet gambling parlour

Who was that high-minded individual??

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

IIRC Proscientifica also referred to DW as the "resident psychologist" of Respectful Insolence. Not that my feelings were hurt or anything.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

I don't know if Pro meant offense...we all *know* that DW is our Northern hemisphere resident psychologist. Just like we all *know* that Herr Doktor Bimler is our Southern hemisphere resident psychologist. :-)

Funny how we saw through the troll's methods, even without a psychological profile of "Pro".

@Denice Walter
August 4, 2:15 pm

Oh love it! Has the ring of Wil E Coyote about it - which suits Wakefield to a T.

Mephistopheles O'Brien wrote:

According to Google Translate, actionem interrupta or possibly placitum interrupta.

Both of those are flatly agrammatical (case mismatch in the first, gender mismatch in the second).

I dunno what you'd say in actual legal Latin, but actio legalis interrupta should do as a literal translation of "interrupted legal action"

By Andreas Johansson (not verified) on 04 Aug 2012 #permalink

I think the reason he did not sue in England, despite it's laws (due to be reformed) is that he would still lose. And he would lose so spectacularly that he'd have wished to never have sued in the first place.

“Your honor,” he said, “let’s leave the legal language aside for a moment. This is a story about suffering children and their mothers and families, and a doctor’s decision to listen to them.”

Sounds like someone saw an episode of Matlock in a bar last night.

By SomeGuyWanderingBy (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

The latest from Age of Autism, by Jake Crosby, is that Judge Meachum seemingly has a vaccination related conflict of interest. Her husband's Public Affairs lobbying company represents or represented the Texas Academy of Family Physicians - it's a bit of trail - but the bottom line is that the judge is definitely part of Big Pharma. Go read.

By Brian Morgan (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

You know, I rather felt sorry for Jake years ago, when he simply appeared to be misled. Now I just feel some pity for him. He's so young still, but he's become a one-trick pony and there aren't too many people who will pay to have one.

@MI Dawn,
I wouldn't be so sorry for Jake; he has some good backing (his parent and a few organisation he can work for) but instead, how about the sky-high population of adult autistics who don't hold a job. I'll try to find out what's the rate of unemployment of autistics.


By Alain (aka Aut… (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

One bit of irony that no doubt is lost on Jake is that "Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the BMJ had better hope the influence of the vaccine industry is strong enough to ensure Dr. Wakefield's case never makes its way to an unbiased judge," given that it implies judicial misconduct, is itself arguably libelous.

@ Brian Morgan: Yes, Jake is really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g his latest "Bob's your uncle" paranoia and posing the question why Judge Meachum didn't recuse herself.

If it goes to appeal, just which judge should hear the appeal? It would have to be someone who has no connections to Governor Perry's inner circle, no Governor appointed job...and absolutely no connection to Wakefield or Jake's family...…

" — $16,456.19 owed to Aspect Aviation II, LLC in Denver, Colo. That’s a jet that belongs to Alex Cranberg, who’s chairman of Aspect Holdings, LLC, which includes energy company Aspect Energy and oil-exploration company Aspect Resources. He gave Perry $2,500 in late July. Perry appointed Cranberg to the University of Texas system board of regents earlier this year.

The business was also paid $20,062.09 on Sept. 1 for travel on Aug. 25 and 26, when Perry was in Iowa. Cranberg’s political donations are extensive, and he gave money to Mitt Romney before the 2008 election."

Bob's your uncle indeed...Alex Cranberg is in fact Jake's uncle.

I have to confess - I have a conflict of interest regarding big pharma: My family and I have been protected from disease by vaccines, and been cured of disease by medicines, all produced by Big Pharma. Should I recuse myself?

One thing is certain, Wakefield approved Crosby's attack on the judge. It was taken down for a while, evidently while they held consultations, and then put up again.

How the Austin judiciary will react to the Wakefield campaign's attack on one of their number can only be imagined. As any of them would know, Judge Meachum's #1 consideration was to give an Opinion that stood the best chance of weathering the appeals court - in other words, legally correct.

For Wakefield now to insinuate corruption is just scandalous, and I'm sure won't go unnoticed.

The plot thickens.. ( but they are pretty thick in the first place) : they allow a comment by Brian Morgan and John Stone then questions why that fellow from Cardiff appears at this time...OOOhhh!

It's a giant conspiracy factory over there- which makes it resemble the web woo-meisters' sites even more. One of these days perhaps I will diagramme their tangled web of plots, compleat with circles and arrows- you'll probably need a skeleton's key to compreghend it ( as with *Finnegan's Wake*)- maybe not even then.

If you don't have any data- or evidence, for that matter- you need to EXPLAIN why your brilliant theories are not recognised and accepted as the status quo. So, those idiots I survey spend ( waste) as much time talking about corruption in the government, industry, medicine and the media as they do talking about health. But all can be reduced to being them incorporating hard sell: they are right; the establishment is wrong. Don't trust your government, institutions, medicine, media but trust them.
Like blaming autism on an external cause( vaccines) they also cast blame for their own shortcomings on external plots by established malfacteurs.

I venture that AJW's loss will trigger a spate of articles, exposes, videos and documentaries by the usual suspects EXPLAINING why their cherished fraud-meister has been the target of so much malfeasance. Oh, it's coming.

On Jake: I doubt that he'll ever need to work. I wonder how much his parents contribute to AoA and other friendly groups who might someday hire him or use his services ( whatsoever they might be). Wouldn't that ( or having an ASD yourself/ being parentally educated in woo-ful ways) also be somewhat COI-ish?

Just asking.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

A chacun son goût, as they say. There really should be evidence in each instance that a family member has actually influenced decision making by an individual. For a respondent on LeftBrainRightBrain to suggest that an AoA contributing editor has a father who is a former employee of an agency representing a company marketing a broad spectrum herbicide hypothetically causally linked to autism is so far fetched, so beyond any real relevance to the debate about what causes autism, legal cases involving Andrew Wakefield and so on, that it ought to go into Private Eye, which is probably not read in the USA.

By Brian Morgan (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say Wakefield expected to lose (at least after consulting with lawyers), and this is an attempt to drag out his portrait of martyrdom. People like Wakefield at first make me angry for spreading the fear that lets kids get preventable diseases and die even, but then I pity them. Seriously, this is what you chose to do with life? That is sad. Not as sad as the parents and kids who get drawn in as pawns to a man's craving for wealth and self-aggrandizement, but sad nonetheless.

By Captain Quirk (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

Here are extracts from a letter on a Wakefield website from someone called Kathy Hass, who says she has become "a 25$ member" of his "justice campaign".

"I am forever grateful to Dr Wakefield and his pursuit of the truth about our children.... Because of his research, I searched for the cause of my son's Asperger's Syndrome... because of Dr Wakefield's studies about autism/mercury link, I knew there must be something with mercury other than vaccines that caused my son's autism."

Now, we all know that Wakefield has never done any studies about autism/mercury, so Kathy is plainly not the sharpest mind in the anti-vax firmament, but I wonder if anyone can help with my math?

If Wakefield's lawyers get paid, say, $400 an hour, how much time does Kathy's $25 pay for?

( correction @ mine:
" reduced to their incorporation of hard sell")

As Brian Morgan notes, conspiracy mongering publications/ websites use a distinct style that makes use of multiple links, as though there is some sort of magical transfer of power and responsibility between individuals ( like contagious magic, really, *a la* Fraser) no matter how remote or far-fetched the connection.

I observe another psychological trend: there is externalisation of blame for poor outcomes- illness is blamed on fast food companies or governments, autism is caused by pharma's malfeasance and economic woes are ALL the bankers' fault- as though those affected have no part ( genetic or by their actions) in their own fates and all can be reduced to single causes.

Oh, I could go on...but won't.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

@Narad andd Dangeros Bacon

If all y'all are looking for guys with spurs, the basketball team is probably the closest you'll get - the rodeo circuit doesn't seem to go near Texas any more. Closest you'll get to "dudes" is the blunt-smoking kind of duuuudes. Lots of concealed carrying NRA types that really like their liquor, too, but I'd just stay out of their way.

@ Brian Morgan....Then there are these connections to Jake his parents, Nicole (nee Cranford) Crosby and Giff Crosby and the Wakefield family through Polly Tommey from the Autism Trust U.K.…

Why did Andy and his family end up in Austin Texas...of all places?

Why did Polly Tommey, Andy's old pal from the U.K. chose Austin Texas, of all places, to expand her Autism Trust U.K. organization, into the United States.

So many questions and so few answers.

Inquiring minds want to know!

Oops, I misspelled Nicole Crosby's maiden name/brain fog.

Correct Mrs Crosby's name to Nicole (nee Cranberg) Crosby.

If Wakefield’s lawyers get paid, say, $400 an hour, how much time does Kathy’s $25 pay for?

I don't think it's ever been in question that the nickle-and-diming is more like joining a fan club that doesn't even give you an autographed photo. Pin money for Arranga, perhaps.

Their membership levels are hilarious, though. Something tells me that Paypal checkout is going to barf on a $50,000 donation.

$25 covers two faxed documents not to exceed 25 pages.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

Parrish towered above the BMJ attorneys

Apparently the AOA crowd believes that legal decisions should be based on the heights of the lawyers. They are more impressed by physical stature than intelligence. How tall is Wakefield.

A long tall Texan wrapped like a hot dog in a black lawyer’s suit

An apt simile - a bunch of ground up lips, penises etc loaded with an unhealthy amount of salt and nitrites.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

I made the mistake of changing my pseudonym on a sunday and my comment fail to be approved so here goes:

@MI Dawn,
I wouldn’t be so sorry for Jake; he has some good backing (his parent and a few organisation he can work for) but instead, how about the sky-high population of adult autistics who don’t hold a job. I’ll try to find out what’s the rate of unemployment of autistics.


By Autistic Lurker (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

@ Krebiozen:

Seriously, something did look wrong about it- I have a copy around that has magenta paint on it for some reason- I haven't crept around that linguistic Mobius Ring/ Gallerie des Glaces for nearly 30 years: triple entendres in fragments from 3 languages simultaneously? An Irish friend is startled that I , not being Irish, actually read Joyce and attempted FW. And lived to tell of it.

@ Militant Agnostic:

I've read somewhere that AJW is over 6' tall. That's a towering lot of whatever-you-want-to-call-him.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

The costs of services and employment outcomes achieved by adults with autism in the US
Robert Evert Cimera and Richard J. Cowan
Autism 2009 13: 285

As indicated in Table 6, 40.8 percent of individuals with autism were
employed by the time their cases were officially closed by VR. Only individuals
with sensory impairments (57.2%) and learning disabilities (41.8%)
had higher rates of employment. Individuals with autism, however,worked
far fewer hours (mean = 18.65) and earned lower wages (mean = $146.65)
per week than most of the groups studied.
When individuals with autism were examined by their secondary
conditions, it was found that individuals with autism and learning disabilities
were employed at the highest rate (53.0%), but worked among the
fewest hours (mean = 16.00) and earned the least in weekly pay (mean =
$101.16) Conversely, individuals with autism and other health impairments
(e.g. blood disorders, asthma, etc.) had the lowest rate of employment
(27.2%), yet were among the highest paid (mean = $194.97) and
the most hours worked (mean = 23.00) (see Table 7).

I have two other studies to read but this give out a picture of the employment situation for autistics. This will make good blog fodder for my blog.


By Autistic Lurker (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

I think it's less than four minutes. Kathy Hass, with the autistic son, and who thinks that Wakefield's research showed a connection with mercury, has donated $25, and paid for less than four minutes of lawyer's time.

Hmmm, here's an interesting post written by Polly Tommey who is Andy's old colleague from the the U.K.…

Just why did Polly Tommey end up expanding her "Autism Media Channel" operation that is based in Austin Texas, of all places?

Just who is Carmel O'Donovan who hosts the "Prairie Nights" radio program, which is sponsored by Polly Tommey's Autism Media Channel"?

Inquiring minds want to know!

I must confess I have started Ullyses and FW many times but never finished either..I have probably read more written about them than I have read of them. Some have suggested that FW was a huge practical joke and perhaps they are right.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

Polly Tommey has been having an affair with Wakefield, and Carmel O'Donovan is his wife.

By Charles B (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

@ Krebiozen:

I actually got through the former but skipped around the latter ( why not? I suspect the author did.) Reading FW is like doing archaeology: you dig through levels of myth and allusion and it's totally baffling: I wouldn't be surprised if he set it up . Jung believed hs writing was like that of SMI people and compared its infinite transmutation to invertebrate life forms.

Now perhaps you understand my ability to tolerate huge amounts of nearly in-decipherable blatherings by woo-meisters because I have a background in tolerating nearly in-decipherable artistic endeavours.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

Does Bilderberg have anything to do with all of this? Daniel L Vasella, chairman of Novartis AG is a member of the steering committee so it has to be what really underlies and helps Big Pharma's world domination, doesn't it?

By Brian Morgan (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

Polly Tommey has been having an affair with Wakefield, and Carmel O’Donovan is his wife.

I think lilady was being facetious about Carmel O'Donovan and aside from the juicy gossipy factor, you still need to provide evidence for the former claim.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink


I was the one who posted on LBRB. It was entirely tongue in cheek, as a parody of the 5-degrees-of-separation "investigative journalism" of young Master Jake. I just wanted to show that no one is immune to these kind of connections:

Jake Crosby is the son of Giff Crosby, who, according to his Facebook page is a former employee of ML Rogers Agency, a Manhattan advertising agency. Amongst the clients of ML Rogers is Round-Up. Round-Up is a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide produced by the U.S. company Monsanto. Round-Up has been hypothesized as a cause for autism:

Thus, one could ask, “Does Jake insist that autism is caused by vaccines because he is trying to cover up his father’s involvement in the increase in autism? Did Jake’s father Gill directly contribute to the autism epidemic through his work with ML Rogers in promoting widespread use of Round-Up?”

Note: above hypothetical questions are only questions. Just asking. . .

See how easy that was!

By Broken Link (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

@Science Mom: Of course I am being facetious. Polly Tommey is providing employment to Carmel Wakefield....she is providing support for the Wakefield clan. Does Andy Wakefield have a job? Or, is he living off his wife's salary as the *star* of the Autism Media Channel's Prairie Nights Program and as the Advertising Director of the Autism Media Channel?

@ Broken Link: The Jake Crosby Austin Texas connection and the deep pockets, is on his mother's side of the family.

Imogen Wakefield (Carmel and Andy"s daughter) and Bella Tommey (Polly's daughter) are good buddies and serve together on the Autism Trust USA's junior advisory board along with Wakefield's attorney William Parrish's daughter.

@ Broken Link: The Jake Crosby Austin Texas connection and the deep pockets, is on his mother's side of the family.

Seems that Wakefield and Parrish are neighbors. Can't you see it? The pair of them working each other up to a frenzy.

'It was all lies, they made it all up, I was only listening to parents, I never faked data, had my own single vaccine, experimented on autistic kids, made millions, and lied about it afterwards.'

'Heck, then you must sue.'

'You think I can?'

'I'll give you a good rate.'

And you've gotta feel for Parrish when he saw the BMJ's defence.

If the truth were known, they are glad Texas has no jurisdiction over the defendants. Sure, they'll appeal, but they know the outcome, and are mightily relieved.

By Charles B (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

Then William M. Parrish, Dr. Wakefield’s attorney, stood up. A long tall Texan wrapped like a hot dog in a black lawyer’s suit, wavy hair poking out on top, cowboy boots sticking out at the bottom, Parrish towered above the BMJ attorneys.

For some reason this reminded me of Monty Python's "Archaeology Today" sketch.

The reason why he would have towered above the BMJ attorneys is that, since it was he who was speaking, they would be sitting down.

What a klutz.

By Charles B (not verified) on 05 Aug 2012 #permalink

These guys must have no idea who Vincent & Elkins are, as a law firm. They are born & bred in Texas and whose lawyers are well known throughout the State - these aren't guys from New York City, these are dyed-in-the-wool Texans as well.

Of course, they are also in the top 100 Law Firms in America, so I wouldn't expect that you'd find them lacking the knowledge of the, you know, actual law either.

The description provided at AoA of the proceedings is downright farcical - Courtrooms aren't stand-in sets for "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," and Judges really don't appreciate grandstanding - they are extremely busy individuals, whose job is to adjudicate matters according to the laws of the State of Texas.

If the laws of the State of Texas don't allow jurisdiction in this case, then it really doesn't matter what emotional arguments AW's attorney used - because not only do they not count as evidence, they are also irrelevant to a motion hearing regarding jurisdiction.

Actually, just another symptom of anti-vaccinators being forced to argue on emotion, when they can't argue on actual facts.

@ Lawrence: Slowly, the videos from this year's Autism One Quackfest 2012 presentations, are being posted:…

David L. Lewis PhD yammers on about his own blighted career and equates Andy's difficulties with his own. He was supposed to be one of Andy's expert witness during the upcoming Texas trial, and this is the same dope that handed over the hand-scored pathology sheets to Brian Deer...after all the bowel specimens and complete pathology reports went "missing".

John Stone is still posting at AoA, eh? The last time he came to RI, I asked him for the medical justifications for any of the children in Andy's study to have undergone lumbar punctures...…

That question was the "show stopper" for John Stone. The only thing "better" than Stone answering my questions about LPs IMO, would be for any of the parents to come here to explain why they allowed their child(ren) to undergo this painful, invasive, not-medically-indicated procedure. After all, they constantly whine, "We didn't have our day in court".

@lilady - I'm noticing the first signs of a bit of frustration on the part of AoA posters. A number have asked some pointed questions about why exactly AW didn't file suit in the UK & was instead relying on a Court in Texas.

If you read between the lines, it also seems that some might be asking why AoA is making hay about the Judge's connections now, when this information was easily attainable from the start.....i.e. questioning AW's legal counsel.

You can only go back to the well so many times with the "Pharma Shill / COI" gambit before even your own supporters start asking questions.

@ Lawrence:

And what, precisely has Jake uncovered about the judge's husband? I don't believe that those *business connections* constitute a reason for the judge recusing herself.

It's just the same old paranoid Jake...finding some sort of COI...on the part of people who are newly listed on his enemies list.

Why doesn't Jake find out if the judge and all her family members are up to date on their that would be a *real* conflict of interest!

I was just wondering if and why Jake withheld this information from Wakefield's counsel? Did they not know of the judge's conflict of interest beforehand? Why did it take boy wonder to figure it out?

With legal counsel like that, who needs opposing counsel?

The 'allegation' seems to be that the judge's husband does public relations work for doctors. Crosby, who we now discover has links with the chemical industry, thinks this disqualifies her from the bench.

That is the brain-f we are dealing with here. Talk about dumb as a box of rocks.

By Charles B (not verified) on 06 Aug 2012 #permalink

I'm not sure that it was all about an honorable defeat for AW when he sued in the US - he was also hoping for a US-style discovery. In which his guys get to go through all of Dear's notes while everything relevant on his side would be "protected doctor-patient communications". Or in some hospital archives in the UK and hard to access with a warrant from Texas.
It was a low probability of success approach, but with minimal risk and financial exposure and huge potential, with the mentioned "I lost on a technicality" out that wouldn't affect his martyr standings.

@Mu - that is certainly a possibility, but the discovery process can be extremely lengthy & both sides have to negotiate (and have the judge rule) on what is "discoverable" and in what format it is presented.

I'm sure Deer & the BMJ could literally drown AW in paper, if they wanted to, which would increase the cost of the case exponentially (since AW's team would be doing all of the review). Almost 60% of the overall cost of litigation is in doc review, so that isn't something that AW would necessarily find to his advantage.

@ Lawrence:

I believe we've have already had a little taste of the "drown.. in paper" effect: I'm sure that there's more.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 06 Aug 2012 #permalink

I suppose to make up for the sad admission in a previous thread I nearly flunked geometry I must mention I've read both Ulysses and Finnegans Wake and enjoyed them.

By dedicated lurker (not verified) on 06 Aug 2012 #permalink

Wakefield is no Texan. He's an interloper.

By Ultra Venia (not verified) on 15 Aug 2012 #permalink

Wakefield is no Texan. He’s an interloper.

Interloper or not, please hang on to him, we really don't want him back in the UK.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 15 Aug 2012 #permalink