You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
@auscandoc, @glenpyle and @GidMK, here's the second part of my thread.
#vaccine #autism
25. You also assert “The definitive reference to AW [Andrew Wakefield] is Brian Deer’s in depth investigation [of the Lancet paper]" But there are many serious problems with Deer’s articles.
26. One big problem is that Deer’s articles weren’t externally peer reviewed. They were instead only given a cursory look by a pediatrician who is on the BMJ’s editorial board.
27. This is shown in a deposition by BMJ Deputy Editor Jane Smith in Wakefield’s case against the BMJ, its editor-in-chief Fiona Goodlee and Brian Deer. https://www.rescuepost.com/files/ex-c-bmj-smith-depo-1.pdf …
28. Here’s the cover page from that deposition of BMJ Deputy Editor Jane Smith recorded in June 2012.pic.twitter.com/NKoUq6HLuH
29. Smith said in the deposition that she didn’t ask the person who reviewed Deer’s article, Dr. Markovitch -- who, notably, was an associate editor of BMJ and therefore not an external reviewer -- to examine whether Deer’s articles were medically or scientifically accurate.pic.twitter.com/2IPQ2wfs9i
30. Here’s another page of Smith’s deposition. In it, she states Markovitch was not asked to review GMC transcripts or children’s medical records or overall the accuracy of the Lancet article.pic.twitter.com/7ghd0jbKHL
31. Also, Jane Smith admits in that sworn deposition that she did not check the veracity of the information. For example, she didn’t read the testimony of Walker-Smith or Wakefield in the GMC hearings.pic.twitter.com/mLgRbBeOpx
32. And in this section of her deposition Smith admits that there was no evidence that Wakefield fabricated or faked or altered anything (!).pic.twitter.com/U5CBKPPp2s
33. Another big problem: Deer didn’t declare his conflict of having initiated the GMC proceedings and then writing about the proceedings for theBMJ. Here’s the section of AHRP article w Deer’s BMJ conflict of interest statement, then discussing his having been the GMC complainantpic.twitter.com/fEvMA32oAV
34. Here’s the original of the info in that last paragraph, from the court case of Walker-Smith vs Deer. The judge confirms Deer was the GMC complainant. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/3289.html&query=(wakefield)+AND+(Deer)+AND+(Eady …)pic.twitter.com/zyp5Xhsb9p
35. And here’s the definitive proof that Deer was the complainant that initiated the GMC proceedings: Deer’s email to the GMC initiating the complaint. https://www.rescuepost.com/files/deer1st_complaint1.pdf …pic.twitter.com/PtRw44YZo2
I'll end this thread and start a third one. Stay tuned...
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
