Did Wakefield keep patient medical records in his personal possession?

[Guest guest]

Did Wakefield keep patient medical records in his personal possession?

Deer recently gave an interview on EconTalk. The transcript and recording are up on the site as "Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud." I wrote about this recently for LeftBrainRightBrain and ever since I've had a nagging feeling that I missed something important. Something was wrong.

The sentence that was bugging me was this:

The next stage which was very unfortunate for him was that we got a court order against him requiring him to hand over to our lawyers the hospital medical records of the children.

Now I know why this bugs me. Mr. Wakefield should not have had access to the records. Take a look at the time line Deer produced. The lawsuit was in 2005:

January 2005: Wakefield initiates libel lawsuits, funded by the Medical Protection Society, against the Sunday Times, Channel 4, and Deer over Deer's website, claiming that all allegations are false and defamatory

By this time, Wakefield had left the Royal Free Hospital. In fact, he had been gone for over 3 years:

October 2001: Wakefield is asked to leave the Royal Free after failing to mount a large scale controlled study to confirm or refute his claims about MMR

Which leaves me with the nagging question: How did Wakefield produce the patient records for Deer?

Edited to add: Note, commenter sheldon101 in the discussion below puts forth the very plausible explanation that these records would have been available to Wakefield due to the GMC proceedings which had been initiated against him by this time.

One of the big talking points of late amongst the supporters of Wakefield is the charge that Deer somehow illegally obtained copies of medical records for the children involved in the Wakefield research program. In a strange twist of fate, it appears that it is Mr. Wakefield who had them in his possession.

If true, we must ask whether this was appropriate for him to keep the records. Was it even legal? Wakefield was, at this time, not at the Royal Free Hospital. He was not the treating physician for the children at any time. Had he obtained permission from the Royal Free to take those records with him? Could the Royal Free have even granted such permission? Did he have written permission from the parents, all the parents, before taking the records?

It is a very interesting question. One which I hope Mr. Wakefield will address.

As an aside, Mr. Wakefield recently disclosed a "new" document which clears him of wrongdoing ("New document confirms that there was no fraud". This new document was a handout from Prof. - for a Wellcome Trust meeting, entitled "Enterocolitis and disintegrative disorder following MMR: a report of the first seven cases".

Just a note. This "new" document was entered into the GMC record on Day 74 when Prof. - was on the stand. It didn't clear them then.

Is this perhaps new to Mr. Wakefield? Did he miss that day at the GMC? Well, no. Wakefield refers to this document in his complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (although he gets the year wrong as `06 instead of `96), and he refers to it in his book, "Callous Disregard" (page 202. It's citation 73 for that chapter).

I guess Mr. Wakefield's definition of "new" and mine differ. As do our definitions of "ethical" and many other definitions.

>> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T> > Dr Wakefield video interview - accuses BMJ of being hijacked with false reporting> > Please view the HTML of this email to see the message.>

[Guest guest]

Did Wakefield keep patient medical records in his personal possession?

Deer recently gave an interview on EconTalk. The transcript and recording are up on the site as "Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud." I wrote about this recently for LeftBrainRightBrain and ever since I've had a nagging feeling that I missed something important. Something was wrong.

The sentence that was bugging me was this:

The next stage which was very unfortunate for him was that we got a court order against him requiring him to hand over to our lawyers the hospital medical records of the children.

Now I know why this bugs me. Mr. Wakefield should not have had access to the records. Take a look at the time line Deer produced. The lawsuit was in 2005:

January 2005: Wakefield initiates libel lawsuits, funded by the Medical Protection Society, against the Sunday Times, Channel 4, and Deer over Deer's website, claiming that all allegations are false and defamatory

By this time, Wakefield had left the Royal Free Hospital. In fact, he had been gone for over 3 years:

October 2001: Wakefield is asked to leave the Royal Free after failing to mount a large scale controlled study to confirm or refute his claims about MMR

Which leaves me with the nagging question: How did Wakefield produce the patient records for Deer?

Edited to add: Note, commenter sheldon101 in the discussion below puts forth the very plausible explanation that these records would have been available to Wakefield due to the GMC proceedings which had been initiated against him by this time.

One of the big talking points of late amongst the supporters of Wakefield is the charge that Deer somehow illegally obtained copies of medical records for the children involved in the Wakefield research program. In a strange twist of fate, it appears that it is Mr. Wakefield who had them in his possession.

If true, we must ask whether this was appropriate for him to keep the records. Was it even legal? Wakefield was, at this time, not at the Royal Free Hospital. He was not the treating physician for the children at any time. Had he obtained permission from the Royal Free to take those records with him? Could the Royal Free have even granted such permission? Did he have written permission from the parents, all the parents, before taking the records?

It is a very interesting question. One which I hope Mr. Wakefield will address.

As an aside, Mr. Wakefield recently disclosed a "new" document which clears him of wrongdoing ("New document confirms that there was no fraud". This new document was a handout from Prof. - for a Wellcome Trust meeting, entitled "Enterocolitis and disintegrative disorder following MMR: a report of the first seven cases".

Just a note. This "new" document was entered into the GMC record on Day 74 when Prof. - was on the stand. It didn't clear them then.

Is this perhaps new to Mr. Wakefield? Did he miss that day at the GMC? Well, no. Wakefield refers to this document in his complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (although he gets the year wrong as `06 instead of `96), and he refers to it in his book, "Callous Disregard" (page 202. It's citation 73 for that chapter).

I guess Mr. Wakefield's definition of "new" and mine differ. As do our definitions of "ethical" and many other definitions.

>> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T> > Dr Wakefield video interview - accuses BMJ of being hijacked with false reporting> > Please view the HTML of this email to see the message.>

[Guest guest]

Did Wakefield keep patient medical records in his personal possession?

Deer recently gave an interview on EconTalk. The transcript and recording are up on the site as "Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud." I wrote about this recently for LeftBrainRightBrain and ever since I've had a nagging feeling that I missed something important. Something was wrong.

The sentence that was bugging me was this:

The next stage which was very unfortunate for him was that we got a court order against him requiring him to hand over to our lawyers the hospital medical records of the children.

Now I know why this bugs me. Mr. Wakefield should not have had access to the records. Take a look at the time line Deer produced. The lawsuit was in 2005:

January 2005: Wakefield initiates libel lawsuits, funded by the Medical Protection Society, against the Sunday Times, Channel 4, and Deer over Deer's website, claiming that all allegations are false and defamatory

By this time, Wakefield had left the Royal Free Hospital. In fact, he had been gone for over 3 years:

October 2001: Wakefield is asked to leave the Royal Free after failing to mount a large scale controlled study to confirm or refute his claims about MMR

Which leaves me with the nagging question: How did Wakefield produce the patient records for Deer?

Edited to add: Note, commenter sheldon101 in the discussion below puts forth the very plausible explanation that these records would have been available to Wakefield due to the GMC proceedings which had been initiated against him by this time.

One of the big talking points of late amongst the supporters of Wakefield is the charge that Deer somehow illegally obtained copies of medical records for the children involved in the Wakefield research program. In a strange twist of fate, it appears that it is Mr. Wakefield who had them in his possession.

If true, we must ask whether this was appropriate for him to keep the records. Was it even legal? Wakefield was, at this time, not at the Royal Free Hospital. He was not the treating physician for the children at any time. Had he obtained permission from the Royal Free to take those records with him? Could the Royal Free have even granted such permission? Did he have written permission from the parents, all the parents, before taking the records?

It is a very interesting question. One which I hope Mr. Wakefield will address.

As an aside, Mr. Wakefield recently disclosed a "new" document which clears him of wrongdoing ("New document confirms that there was no fraud". This new document was a handout from Prof. - for a Wellcome Trust meeting, entitled "Enterocolitis and disintegrative disorder following MMR: a report of the first seven cases".

Just a note. This "new" document was entered into the GMC record on Day 74 when Prof. - was on the stand. It didn't clear them then.

Is this perhaps new to Mr. Wakefield? Did he miss that day at the GMC? Well, no. Wakefield refers to this document in his complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (although he gets the year wrong as `06 instead of `96), and he refers to it in his book, "Callous Disregard" (page 202. It's citation 73 for that chapter).

I guess Mr. Wakefield's definition of "new" and mine differ. As do our definitions of "ethical" and many other definitions.

>> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T> > Dr Wakefield video interview - accuses BMJ of being hijacked with false reporting> > Please view the HTML of this email to see the message.>

[Guest guest]

Did Wakefield keep patient medical records in his personal possession?

Deer recently gave an interview on EconTalk. The transcript and recording are up on the site as "Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud." I wrote about this recently for LeftBrainRightBrain and ever since I've had a nagging feeling that I missed something important. Something was wrong.

The sentence that was bugging me was this:

The next stage which was very unfortunate for him was that we got a court order against him requiring him to hand over to our lawyers the hospital medical records of the children.

Now I know why this bugs me. Mr. Wakefield should not have had access to the records. Take a look at the time line Deer produced. The lawsuit was in 2005:

January 2005: Wakefield initiates libel lawsuits, funded by the Medical Protection Society, against the Sunday Times, Channel 4, and Deer over Deer's website, claiming that all allegations are false and defamatory

By this time, Wakefield had left the Royal Free Hospital. In fact, he had been gone for over 3 years:

October 2001: Wakefield is asked to leave the Royal Free after failing to mount a large scale controlled study to confirm or refute his claims about MMR

Which leaves me with the nagging question: How did Wakefield produce the patient records for Deer?

Edited to add: Note, commenter sheldon101 in the discussion below puts forth the very plausible explanation that these records would have been available to Wakefield due to the GMC proceedings which had been initiated against him by this time.

One of the big talking points of late amongst the supporters of Wakefield is the charge that Deer somehow illegally obtained copies of medical records for the children involved in the Wakefield research program. In a strange twist of fate, it appears that it is Mr. Wakefield who had them in his possession.

If true, we must ask whether this was appropriate for him to keep the records. Was it even legal? Wakefield was, at this time, not at the Royal Free Hospital. He was not the treating physician for the children at any time. Had he obtained permission from the Royal Free to take those records with him? Could the Royal Free have even granted such permission? Did he have written permission from the parents, all the parents, before taking the records?

It is a very interesting question. One which I hope Mr. Wakefield will address.

As an aside, Mr. Wakefield recently disclosed a "new" document which clears him of wrongdoing ("New document confirms that there was no fraud". This new document was a handout from Prof. - for a Wellcome Trust meeting, entitled "Enterocolitis and disintegrative disorder following MMR: a report of the first seven cases".

Just a note. This "new" document was entered into the GMC record on Day 74 when Prof. - was on the stand. It didn't clear them then.

Is this perhaps new to Mr. Wakefield? Did he miss that day at the GMC? Well, no. Wakefield refers to this document in his complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (although he gets the year wrong as `06 instead of `96), and he refers to it in his book, "Callous Disregard" (page 202. It's citation 73 for that chapter).

I guess Mr. Wakefield's definition of "new" and mine differ. As do our definitions of "ethical" and many other definitions.

>> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T> > Dr Wakefield video interview - accuses BMJ of being hijacked with false reporting> > Please view the HTML of this email to see the message.>