Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Where can I read the true facts then???

[emkana]

I gather from the other facts that tonight's Dispatches was questionable. But watching it I did feel that there are a few unanswered questions, and I find it very regrettable that Dr. Andrew Wakefield didn't sit down with Brian Deer (or whatever his name is) and replied to the allegations.
What about the fact that his research assistant didn't find the measles virus?
What about him being part of an organisation that sells dubious products?
Those are just some of the questions that spring to mind.
It seems people on here that Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being treated unfairly, but where can I read his side of the argument, after watching the programme?

[dinny]

Try jabs.org for links/info.

See other thread for Wakefield's statement re Dispatches.

[emkana]

I saw his statement, but it doesn't answer all the questions! It just says that the allegations are unfounded and defamatory, but some of the allegations are left unanswered IMO!

[bonym]

Oh emkana, I agree with what you're saying - didn't want to post on the other thread about this that was started last night (although I only started reading it halfway throught the programme and haven't caught up with it since). as everyone seems to be on Dr Wakefield's side, and I didn't want to be inflammatory I must admit that I was open-minded before watching the programme, and didn't really warm to Brian Deer, but certainly didn't feel that Wakefield came across as trustworthy - as you say, there are a lot of unanswered questions and if he has nothing to hide, why did he act as though he did? There were a lot of seemingle eminent people who were questioning Dr Wakefield's work and I don't know that they would have come forward if they didn't believe that all was ok.

[edam]

I'm not surprised Wakefield wouldn't talk to Brian Deer, Deer has thrown a lot of sh*t at Wakefield in the past. Deer made a big fuss about how clever he, Deer, is last year by rehashing some very old and unfair allegations and presenting them as a 'new' story. (basically said Wakefield didn't tell anyone his original study into nine patients was funded by the Legal Aid Board. Actually Wakefield did make that clear shortly after his original study was published and years before Deer's story. At the time medical journals didn't routinely ask authors to declare potential conflicts of interest so it wasn't unusual for Wakefield's study to be printed without mention of funding sources but Wakefield was swift to provide the information when it was raised as an issue.

Don't hold any particular brief for Wakefield, and I was concerned about what the molecular biologist had to say, but Deer didn't explain whether these were the results of the study or just one part of it. Would be far more convinced if Deer gave a balanced version, outlining the facts, instead of polemic.