Revisiting James Murdoch, Brian Deer, The Sunday Times, GlaxoSmithKline and the Attack on Andrew Wakefield

So I started writing a long piece on the James Murdoch/Sunday Times/GSK/Wakefield development, but Dan Olmsted and John Stone did it faster and better than I, so I will just point you there and add my .02.  Which is...

How long does this ridiculous charade have to go on?!

I mean how many of those who have quite obviously be put to task defending an indefensible vaccine program have to be revealed as... well... less than earnest, by main stream sources, before those earnest people in the medical profession, who really care about health outcomes and the public trust, throw up their hands and say... "Well... yes... this has become quite absurd.  Let's stop all the nonsense and sit down at the table with our critics and deal with the real problems."

Let's make a short list of the industry protectionist standard bearers at the various levels and their credibility... well let's call them "weaknesses."

Julie Gerberding:  Claims that she never bothered to read the Poling case, that vaccines can and cannot cause autism, that children with mitochondrial disorders can develop "autism like syndrome" from their vaccines, then upon leaving her post at CDC became the head of vaccines for Merck, who makes the MMR vaccine that damaged Hannah Poling.

Paul Offit: Reprimanded by Congress for his conflicts of interest, successfully sued by the head of Jenny McCarthy's charity for lying about him in a book, had the OC Register retract an article where he made false accusations against CBS News, makes stupid and irresponsible claims that a baby can safely receive 100,000 vaccines at once, gets caught misleading the public and failing to disclose conflicts of interest on a regular basis.

David Gorski: Forgot to mention that he was developing a cancer/autism drug for vaccine maker Sanofi for like five years or something while attacking vaccine safety activists and autism treatment advocates.

Paul Thorsen:  Middle aged club kid under indictment for conspiracy and fraud.

Brian Deer: Lied to families about his name to get them to agree to interviews, feels qualified to diagnose GI disorders on the street despite having no medical background, does not even know the basics of the vaccine causation arguments or who is on what side, routinely says things that are at best, embarrassing, at worst, suggest some ... issues.

Seth Mnookin:  An admitted criminal.

GlaxoSmithKline: Who has the time. Just google "Glaxo Fraud."

And now James Murdoch and the Sunday Times.

Lets take a step into the way back machine and revisit my little chart on the obnoxious level of conflict of interest in those who were... *ahem* protecting the British people's interest by examining the conflicts of interest of Dr. Wakefield and his co-authors in a paper that pointed out that 8 kids started having serious GI problems after MMR and also had developmental disabilities. I have faded out the later comers to the game to focus on the players who started all this bother:

Click to see it full sized

We have of course been pointing out Murdoch's little credibility problem with being placed on the board of GlaxoSmithKline after his Sunday Times began the whole Wakefield attack, but of course, we were just conspiracy theorists for pointing out that little conflict of interest. How dare we impugne the integrity of blah, blah, blah...

So now we learn that Murdoch the Younger is not above doing horrid, and bottom feeder like things to make a buck.  Possibly not even illegally obtaining the private medical information of the child of the leader of his country. If Mr. Brown's son's cystic fibrosis is not something to be handled sacredly, earnestly and above board, what's next, having reporters lie about who they are to autism parents to get info for a hit piece on their doctor?  Oh... never mind.

But no fear for Murdoch that GSK will turn on him... despite his failing morality, he still far exceeds the standards of respectability required to be a board member of GSK, who is standing behind their man for all he has done for their company:

James Murdoch to remain on GSK's board

* Drugmaker says Murdoch has made strong contribution

* Investigations need to run their course

* News Corp executive also sits on Sotheby's board

By Ben Hirschler

LONDON, July 15 (Reuters) - GlaxoSmithKline , Britain's biggest drugmaker, said James Murdoch continued to serve as a non-executive director, and it would watch investigations into the phone-hacking scandal engulfing his family's newspaper business.

The 38-year-old heir apparent to his father Rupert Mordoch's News Corp joined GSK's board in 2009, since when he has made "a strong contribution", a GSK spokesman said on Friday.

In recent days, James Murdoch's reputation has taken a pummelling, with critics saying he was too slow to realise the enormity of the scandal at News International, the British newspaper unit he chairs.

GSK -- a group with plenty of experience of corporate controversy, ranging from rows over executive pay to safety alarms about some of its medicines -- will watch developments closely and is not rushing to any judgments.

"With regard to the activities that are alleged to have taken place at News International, we believe that the full facts must be established and the ongoing investigations be allowed to take place and come to a considered conclusion," the spokesman said.

James Murdoch was paid 98,000 pounds ($158,000) in shares for serving on GSK's board in 2010. He is member of both the drugmaker's corporate responsibility and remuneration committees.

He is also a non-executive director of U.S.-listed auction house Sotheby's .

The News International chairman said on Friday his company would take out adverts in rival British newspapers this weekend to apologise to the nation for wrongdoing at the News of the World, the Sunday paper at the centre of the scandal. ($1 = 0.620 pound) (Editing by Dan Lalor)

(Note that the story is published by Reuters, whose CEO is also on the board of Merck. That other MMR maker. Conspirators Corporate Synergists must stick together, you know)

He has made one hell of a contribution!  He made the salvation of MMR possible.  GSK can't very well abandon their hit man.  If he falls completely, then might more people wake up to the idea that what was done to Wakefield was a scapegoating?  Best to see if you can get away with keeping him on to assure your "corporate responsibility", and hope no one notices that you are trying to keep him propped up to keep your skeletons in the closet.

Can anyone name ONE person who has been out in front in the vaccine defense that actually has a good reputation, is an earnest person and is free of serious conflicts of interest?  I can't think of any at the moment.

So... when the next one pops up, I am going to start the clock running and see how long it takes for their questionable history to start to come to light.

It is just stupid at this point.