Jump to content

Talk:Brian Deer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.27.240.189 (talk) at 20:48, 11 February 2024 (→‎External links modified). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Intro mirrors description on Deer's personal website

Hi. the first paragraph of this article is almost verbatim Deer's description of himself on his own website, briandeer.com. even if Deer didnt make the entry himself, he still technically wrote it, albeit unwittingly, which iirc is not allowed


The External Links section also contains multiple links to different reviews of his book, which is unusual

briandeer.com: Brian Deer is a British-born investigative journalist, best known for inquiries into medicine, the drug industry, and social issues for The Sunday Times, and for his books 'The Doctor Who Fooled the World' and 'Blind Trial'

Wikipedia: Brian Deer is a British investigative reporter, best known for inquiries into the drug industry, medicine and social issues for The Sunday Times. Deer's investigative nonfiction book, The Doctor Who Fooled the World, was published in September 2020 by Johns Hopkins University Press. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:6DEC:596C:9C18:7D1 (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sourcing

Much of this content is only sourced to or via Deer's own website. Better sourcing is still needed.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honest editing is needed even more. Inserting the fact that Deer's documentary was "the core subject of a libel case" and withholding the fact that the plaintiff (whom even the judge clearly suggested was engaging in a SLAPP strategy) ended up paying the costs of the defendant, even under the UK libel laws which dramatically favor plaintiffs, is dishonest.
Honestly, do you have any shame? You add as a reference a story whose title is "MMR Doc drops libel case versus Channel Four", but you withhold the fact that Wakefield dropped the libel case and only inform people that the libel case was once brought?? Don't try and say anything about WP:AGF because there's no way good faith would have resulted in such selective reporting. -- 192.250.175.25 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT Shot info (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1]], thank you. But fixing an individual instance of highly selective editing only fixes part of the problem. The other part is that the selective editor, who put in only the parts that fit his viewpoint and withheld those that didn't, has done so and will do so again on who knows how many other occasions. That part is not fixed by alerting that editor that his withholding was discovered and seen for what it is, but it may give that editor cause to think twice before withholding key information in the future. -- 192.250.175.25 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wakefield's autism study declared "an elaborate fraud"

Breaking News: Landmark autism study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was "an elaborate fraud", CNN.

Kathleen and Eliot will talk with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, and JB Handley, the father of an autistic child and founder of Generation Rescue, about the following breaking story:
(CNN) – A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday. An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study - and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible. "It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

It will be interesting to hear what JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue, has to say about this. This wasn't simple carelessness, but "elaborate fraud". Not only has Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine, he should be imprisoned. This probably won't make any difference to those who are involved in the vaccine controversy movement. Facts never do. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprising to those who follow this, but Wakefield's coworker Prof. Walker-Smith was vindicated as the claims of "elaborate fraud" by the GMC were themselves proved to be an elaborate fraud in the High Court appeal. www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html [unreliable fringe source?]#ixzz1pC6wlnal] Carltonh (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was posted on naturalnews.com, then it must be true. They've never posted anything misleading, false, or outright insane, right? :) For those of us who have brainwashed by the medical-industrial complex and prefer sources with a reputation for "factual accuracy", here's the BBC's coverage: [2]. Probably worth noting Walker-Smith's successful appeal, although perhaps we should draw the distinction that the finding is in no way vindication for Andrew Wakefield (a distinction lost on some). MastCell Talk 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is some additional questionable information about Brian Deer, that should merit further investigation. There is some information provided on this website, which could offer the tip of the iceberg in regards to the matter. [3] Has anyone looked into this information from unbiased sources - the BBC not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.245.164 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ: "a deliberate fraud"

Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school. In an accompanying editorial, Fiona Godlee and colleagues say that Andrew Wakefield's (pictured) article linking MMR vaccine and autism was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud. In a linked blog, Brian Deer analyses the similarities between the MMR scare and the case of the "Piltdown Man."

Editorial: "falsification of data"

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare

Brian Deer series "exposes the bogus data behind the claims"

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, Part 1

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school.

Source doesn't mention Deer

The newspaper article which is provided to reference that celebrity psychiatrist, Raj Persaud, was suspended from practising medicine due to reporting by Deer does not mention Deer's reporting at all. A better source must be produced to establish this causation. __meco (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added one story and found a radio interview at Deer's site, where the witness in the case talks about Deer being the journalist, but don't really know how to ref radio interviews. It is here: http://briandeer.com/audio/persaud.mp3 81.108.171.172 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brian Deer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brian Deer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Deer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Deer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted ageist attack on subject

I would ask editors to give examples where a subject is exposed in this way to an ageist attack, duplicating the subject's date of birth already on the page, as per Wiki policy. Age is, in the UK at least, where this guy lives, a protected characteristic, like race, religion, sexual orientation and so forth. So in seeking to make capital in this way, adding no new information to the page, I guess the insinuation is that Deer is too old, or something like that. I'd invite the editor to give examples of a Wikipedia policy to repeat the date of birth in the text in this way. Maybe try,say, Bill Clinton, or Adolf Hitler. Having never seen this before, I have reverted the reversion, and request the rationale for departing from Wikipedia's normal customs, before an edit war develops.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Deer&oldid=1206318383"