What in the world do you have against industrial shredders? What have they ever done to you?
Wakefield is scum, without doubt. But I don’t see anything in that link revealing that patent application to have come from him. I would dearly like to be corrected on this. I have a couple of acquaintances who are pro-wakefield, and I dearly love pointing out just how vile their prophet is.
Anti vax nut logic. Vaccine makers who make a tiny profit on the MMR vaccine are corrupt and can’t be trusted. Andrew Wakefield makes thousands lying about the MMR vaccine and he’s ethically just fine.
The real irony for the MMR vaccine equals autism crowd is that the MMR vaccine is one of the few known ways of preventing autism. Cogenital rubella syndrome can cause autism.
Oh that’s perfect. Thank you ever so much.
Here is the Complaint/Petition;
par.3. Venue and Jurisdiction:
Pliantiff was a resident of Travis County when the Cause of Action took place.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/BritMedJ.pdf
ALL complaints, state and federal, now must state a specific V & J clause, this is standard. Whether the pleading will be dismissed on the basis of subject or personal jurisdiction matters is a wait and see.
This claim should have been filed in Federal court, regardless of the venue.
God, those comments are depressing. So many nutjobs, so few sane people.
Although you’ve been given the link, don’t expect your acquaintances to care. In my long, long years involved with this issue, I have yet to see a Wakefield supporter and fan change their mind, even when presented with evidence such as this. Even when I walk them through the original research study and point out all the weaknesses in the design that were apparent even before Brian Deer did his amazing investigation. Even after Wakefield’s medical credentials were stripped off by the GMC.
They, like the delusional people I used to work with, simply incorporate that information into their ongoing story of Brave Sir Andrew fighting the Dragon of Big Pharma, in spite of the Conspiracy Against Him.™
Why do you think his Attorney chose state court then?
Either because he’s stupid*, or because it’s a pro forma show of resistance for his supporters (as suggested by Andy L in post 6). All three defendants are aliens, including the BMJ itself.
*I doubt it’s this, because his attorney is admitted in two federal appellate circuits.
You Wakefield haters are unpatriotic. 
I know of one - just one, Craig Willoughby (who’s affiliated with the antivax website Age of Autism).
Overall though, you’re correct - despite all the well-documented revelations of inept, ethically challenged research and concealment of gross conflicts of interest, Wakefield remains idolized by his supporters.
What’s most depressing is that after all the money that’s been poured down the rathole of repeatedly having to demonstrate that vaccines do not cause autism, even more money will be wasted by Wakefield supporters donating to his “justice fund”. Those funds could have done some good if sent to organizations funding research into true causes and treatment of autism.
Well, if federal court has original subject matter jurisdiction or such under Title 28, maybe 1441, the defendant’s can file a Petition for removal, then see what happens.
I get psychotically angry about Wakefield, and this is one of the reasons why. We’ve lost millions of research dollars (already difficult to get), and hundreds of thousands of research hours, studying a link that NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Misled by an unethical charlatan, we’ve pandered to the conspiracy-theory crowd by continuing to try to find a cause that should never have been the focus of research in the first place.
I’m convinced that we’ve lost 14 years of time in the fight to understand autism, time and money we’ll never get back, and it’s all because of Wakefield. I don’t understand how parents of children with autism aren’t LIVID at him for misleading the scientific community for so long. Instead, they elevate him to the level of a saint, and worship at his feet.
Well, I’m not Bricker, but don’t hold that against me. On the strength of *Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., *465 U.S. 770 (1984), jurisdiction won’t be a problem here.
Note that neither Keeton nor Hustler are based out of New Hampshire. Keeton chose that state as the forum because it was the only state left whose statute of limitations had not already expired. Under the single publication rule, which allows a prevailing defamation plaintiff to be awarded damages for injuries resulting from the defamation in all jurisdictions (and not just the forum state), Keeton was able to do an end-run around those other SoLs.
Recall also minimum contacts applies to the defendant; the plaintiff is free to choose his or her forum.
Yes, that’s why I noted that BMJ is an alien publication rather than simply a foreign one. Unlike Hustler, it’s not circulated in any US state. You can, as far as I am aware, have a subscription to the main (UK) edition delivered to the US, but that would appear to be the limit of its contacts.
Here’s a question: Has any scientific journal ever been successfully sued for libel?
I would think that the very nature of science would make that an uphill battle. Researchers publish papers all the time that eventually turn out to be less than accurate (though rarely as damaging as Wakefield’s original paper in the Lancet). You don’t see the cold fusion guys suing for libel because they were proven wrong. What, exactly, is Wakefield claiming is libel other than him being wrong, and has anybody ever even come close to winning a case like that?
Nature (ironically, another British publication) is being sued for libel right now. The plaintiff is representing himself, so I wouldn’t put this one in the “successful category” just yet.
Mohamed El Naschie is a crank. I’ll let others fill in more details, but just from the article you linked, he says “Senior people are above this childish, vain practice of peer review.”
That’s insane. That statement does not exist in the same plane of reality the rest of us do, instead living where the moon drips treacle on all the good little diamond dogs before the jeweled crabs come to eat their dreams. He isn’t just proclaiming himself above the rules, he’s saying that he is somehow above every practice we have for determining whether scientific work has value. If we drop peer review, for anyone, we go back to the Dark Ages, when Aristotle was unquestionably correct, even when he said things like “Women have fewer teeth than men” (which is not, in point of fact, accurate).