Abel Hadden
fronts for Andrew Wakefield, the
campaigner "too busy" to
explain
This page
is research from an investigation by Brian Deer for The Sunday
Times of London and the UK's Channel 4
Television into a campaign linking the MMR
children's vaccine with autism.
| Go to part I: The Lancet scandal | Go to
part II: The Wakefield
factor
In 20
years of investigations, including
interviews with Nobel laureates and
experts of international distinction,
Brian Deer had never found a doctor
shielded by public relations consultants.
But in Abel Hadden, of Bell Pottinger
Communications, Andrew Wakefield had a
facility to avoid being exposed to
critical questioning. After phone calls
between Deer and Hadden, the exchange
below developed
To: Abel Hadden
29 December 2003 17:50
Dear Abel,
Mercifully, I wasn't
expected to rush out a quicker story on
MMR than I would have wished. In any
event, it would have seemed somewhat
incongruous to run an investigation of
this subject alongside the magazine piece
by the music journalist.
Anyhow, I'm still very much
on the case and have pretty much reviewed
the science, which you will know stands
at something like 99.999 per cent
recurring in favour of there being no
link between MMR and autism. Indeed, I am
not aware of any authority in a plausibly
relevant specialty who says otherwise.
This strikes me as surprising. During a
previous vaccine scare, over DTP, many
senior specialists, including paediatric
neurologists and epidemiologists of the
highest distinction advanced the theory
that pertussis shots caused neurological
injury. And they were found, on the
balance of probability, to be wrong.
Inevitably, an inquiry of
the sort I'm conducting will focus
intensely on your client Dr Wakefield.
Although your telephone message before
Christmas suggested that he was busy, I'd
be grateful if you would let him know
that my work continues and that I would
appreciate an opportunity to discuss my
findings with him. Unless, for example, a
measles outbreak suddenly pushes the
issue up the agenda, I'm available at
almost any time up to January 16.
It seems that you also
represent Visceral (at least you call The
Sunday Times when I call them). Could you
also let them know that I am likely to
focus on that body as one of a number of
organisations and individuals who are
campaigning against the national
immunisation programme on the basis of
what appears to me to be a negligible
base of persuasive fact.
MMR is a serious matter,
touching on grave issues of public
safety. You will know that, on this
basis, I interviewed Mrs Rosemary Kessick
of your campaign and, in four hours of
recorded material, found her account of
events surrounding her son's vaccination
and history to be unsatisfactory. It is
my belief that a great deal of material
placed before the public is also of a
misleading nature.
Having studied the media
coverage of MMR, I appreciate that Dr
Wakefield and the others have for the
most part exposed themselves to
journalists they might take to be
sympathetic to the crusade against the
vaccine. I have no such sympathy. If on
that basis they do not wish to speak with
me - which is certainly the impression I
get - that must be a matter for them.
With best wishes, and happy
new year
Brian Deer
From: Abel Hadden
8 January 2004 06:49 :
Apologies for my delay in
getting back to you, as you know I was
out of the office until Monday. As Dr
Wakefield is off to America next week he
hasn't a slot for an interview but he has
said that he is happy to work as late as
is necessary to give you written answers
to any direct questions that you'd like
to put to him. I know that you
particularly wanted to talk to him face
to face and I'm sorry that this won't be
possible but if you let me have your
questions as soon as you can I will
endeavour to get him to answer them
before he departs. I look forward to
hearing from you, AH
To: Abel Hadden
09 January 2004 10:45
Dear Abel,
Thanks for your reply to my
request to speak with Dr Andrew
Wakefield. I too am under some pressure
of work, and for this reason I'm glad to
be able to extend the suggested time
frame within which I would be available
to talk with Dr Wakefield.
Perhaps you might suggest
some time before Friday 23 January. I'm
sure you would agree that it would not be
appropriate for me to submit written
questions, and that the conduct of public
affairs should not be carried forward in
such a manner. If Dr Wakefield remains
incommunicado I will, in due course,
supply you with a concise statement of
the thrust of my report and will take
account of any statement he chooses to
make in response.
When my research is
complete, it will be a matter of months
since I first requested an opportunity to
discuss my work with him. During your
complaint to Sunday Times executives on
the same day that I approached you, you
were made aware that I am a serious,
medically-orientated investigative
reporter, who might be taken to know
something about matters of childhood
vaccination. I have been employed by The
Sunday Times under various arrangements
since 1981. In these circumstances, I had
hoped you would see merit in Dr Wakefield
having the opportunity to help shape my
research agenda: to point me in what he
might regard to be the right direction.
Even now, I invite you to
suggest to Dr Wakefield that the most
sensible course - on a matter of such
serious public concern as the safety of
children - would be to for him to
negotiate an opportunity for us to talk
on the telephone.
With best wishes,
Brian Deer
From: Abel Hadden
12 January 2004 11:49
Thanks for getting back to
me.
Unfortunately Dr Wakefield
is off to America in the next day or so
and therefore really doesn't have any
time left for a face to face meeting- and
experience has taught him not to do
telephone interviews with journalists he
does not know. Your kind offer of
extending the deadline doesn't help
either as he is still going to be
overseas on the 23rd. However Dr
Wakefield has asked me to repeat his
offer to respond to any questions you may
wish to put him, he'd hate you to have to
submit an article on this subject without
him being able to have the opportunity to
comment.
Incidentally, and it's only
a very small point, my initial contact
with the Sunday Times in this regard was
not a 'complaint'! I look forward to
hearing from you, Abel H
From: Abel Hadden
21 January 2004 10:01
I am concerned that I
haven't heard from you since my note of a
little over a week ago, though I do
appreciate that these things can go
missing. I have marked this one high
importance and tagged it to let me know
if you receive it. Dr Wakefield is in
America but he has sent me a note asking
whether you had any questions for him as
we discussed. I look forward to hearing
from you, Abel H
To: Abel Hadden
21 January 2004 10:19
Dear Abel,
Thanks for your reminder.
I'm sorry I didn't let you know I
received it. I didn't realize you were
expecting an acknowledgement. I hope to
be in contact with you again shortly.
With best wishes,
Brian Deer
From: Abel Hadden
22 January 2004 11:33
Thanks for this - when do
you think your piece might appear?
Robert Sawyer at the charity
Visceral sent me a note a while back
following one of your emails to make the
following point: **His statement that
'Visceral is one of a 'number of
organisations and individuals who are
campaigning against the national
immunisation programme' is misinformed.
Charities may lobby, but they may not
campaign. Visceral has not conducted any
activities of a campaigning nature. The
Trustees of the charity have been
scrupulous in their observation of this
point, as have AW and myself. In any
event the members of the charity support
the principle of mass immunisation and
have been careful to make this clear in
all our activities. We have refused
funding from organisations opposed to
immmunisation. Any statement or inference
that suggests that Visceral is in any way
campaigning will be answered in the
strongest possible terms. You should note
that the law on this point is well
documented. **
I look forward to hearing
from you,
AH
To: Abel Hadden
22 January 2004 11:48
Dear Abel,
Thanks for your email. Mr
Sawyer is not in fact correct in his
understanding of charity law. I have some
background in this area, and for your
convenience attach an appropriate link.
There is nothing at all to stop charities
campaigning, and a great many do. They
must not, however, involve themselves in
party politics. I hope Visceral finds
this helpful.
These kind of
misunderstandings can be very
time-consuming, and I really would
suggest to you that an open and frank
discussion between us is by far the most
sensible way to proceed. I have called Mr
Sawyer a couple of times. The first time
he declined to answer a couple of trivial
questions. The second time, he declined
to come to the phone.
This doesn't seem to be a
very constructive way to proceed over a
matter as serious as the health and
safety of children. The aggressive tone
of the communication from Mr Sawyer,
which you have passed on to me, is really
quite unnecessary.
I think it would be helpful
if you could use your good offices to
ensure that a proper dialogue is
established.
With best wishes,
Brian Deer
From: Abel Hadden
22 January 2004 01:09
I'll try but as I said
before a number of people, who might
otherwise have been quite happy to talk
to you, are worried by the experiences of
Rosemary Kessick who is well-known to
them. What is your current view as to the
possible timing of your article
appearing? A
To: Abel Hadden
Sent: 22 January 2004 13:37
Dear Abel,
As far as I am concerned,
the issues you allude to with reference
to Ms Rosemary Kessick are twofold.
Firstly, I researched that
aspect of my inquiries into MMR under a
different name to my usual by-line. I
believe this was wholly justified in the
public interest, was reported to my
manager and legal advisors before the
fact, and was a strategy thoroughly born
out by what Ms Kessick told me. I was
anxious to obtain a forensically certain
account of what Rosemary Kessick says now
about the circumstances of her child's
undoubted misfortune. I am proud of the
work I do and am not apologetic for
denying Rosemary Kessick the opportunity
to Google me before our four-hour
interview.
Secondly, that interview was
recorded. The email circulated by
Rosemary Kessick following our meeting,
when she did not in fact know that I had
used a different name to my byline,
contained multiple untruths and was
plainly intended to damage my standing in
the eyes of my principal employer.
Rosemary Kessick may be entitled to some
latitude, given her situation, however I
should tell you that the contents of that
email were intended to be defamatory and
were substantially false.
Despite her conduct, I
regard the matter of Rosemary Kessick to
be closed. My questions for her have been
asked and answered. I have questions for
you and your clients Andrew Wakefield and
Visceral. I cannot compel you to answer
them, or to have any dealings with me at
all. However, as I have said before, I am
investigating MMR and the conduct of
those who have campaigned for and against
it. This is a matter of serious public
concern and I am a journalist who might
reasonably be taken to be appropriate for
such an inquiry.
Again, I hope you will see
the wisdom of engaging in the kind of
open dialogue that I believe the public
would expect.
With best wishes,
Brian
From: Abel Hadden
22 January 2004 02:10
I wasn't present during your
interview and therefore don't hold any
views on whatever did or did not take
place. However many of the people to whom
you wish to talk, have known Rosemary
Kessick for a long time and therefore
trust her and this, I believe, is making
your article the harder to research. As I
thought I had explained, neither Dr
Wakefield nor Visceral are clients, in
the sense that they don't currently pay
fees to Bell Pottinger, though two years
or so ago I did give them some advice for
which they paid (before I worked here).
The best I can offer is to make your case
to them and report back, as I have been
doing for some time now. Also I do need
to have some idea of the timing of your
article in the Sunday Times because as
I've said, Dr Wakefield is away in
America. I am trying to be as helpful to
your needs as I can,
AH
To: Abel Hadden
22 January 2004 14:38
To: Abel Hadden
Dear Abel,
I fear we may now have a
problem. You say that Andrew Wakefield
and Visceral are not your clients. On
that basis it is not possible for me to
continue this conversation with you. I
understand that you have communicated my
desire to speak with them, and the
reasons, for which I am grateful.
If you would be so kind as
to suggest who, if anyone, they wish to
nominate to receive communications, which
may be legally privileged, I would be
grateful if you could let me know.
I would also be grateful if
you would regard this exchange as
confidential, other than to Dr Wakefield
and Visceral.
Thanks for your help.
With best wishes,
Brian
From: Abel Hadden
22 January 2004 14:50
I am nominated to receive
media communications on their behalf. If
I wasn't, we wouldn't have been
exchanging emails! I must ask you again,
what is your likely timing on this
article, please?
A
To: Abel Hadden
22 January 2004 15:24
Dear Abel,
Please don't think that I am
being disrespectful or awkward, but when
one is dealing with matters of reputation
my experience tells me that certain
formalities should be observed. One of
the most important is that information of
a potentially critical nature about an
individual should normally only be shared
with persons who have an interest in that
material and where there is a duty to
supply it. I have found that these
concepts sound simple, but can actually
be quite narrowly defined. To give a
specific example: if Mr X was your
client, and I were to tell you that I
believed he murdered his mother-in-law
and buried her body under the patio, that
communication - assuming I believed it to
be true - would be legally privileged.
Even if I was wrong about the death,
where the body was buried, or indeed the
family status between the alleged
perpetrator and victim, Mr X would find
it difficult to profitably sue me. On the
other hand, if I just told anybody of my
suspicions, and the mother-in-law emerged
safe and well after a well-earned holiday
on the Costa Brava, I could be in some
difficulty.
I should make it clear that
I have no knowledge of any dealings
between Andrew Wakefield, Robert Sawyer,
mothers-in-laws or patios, but I do I
need to be quite sure as to whether you
professionally represent them or not. You
say they are not your clients, and I had
previously assumed that they were. If you
are simply an interested bystander kindly
helping out, I fear I must find more
direct channels through which to engage
with them.
As for publication dates: I
realize that it was you who told me when
The Sunday Times magazine piece by the
music journalist was intended to run (I
wasn't paying that much attention), but
decisions about publication are taken by
those of the great and good who have
responsibility for such matters. In my
experience, this information is rarely
shared with outsiders except where that
is required for professional reasons. In
short, I don't know - and I doubt whether
at this moment anybody else does either.
The request and offer to
talk with Dr Wakefield and Mr Sawyer to
discuss important matters relating to the
safety of children remain on the table.
Best wishes,
Brian
From: Abel Hadden
22 January 2004 17:26
Having been closely involved
with Visceral, its trustees and Dr
Wakefield since 2002 I am a great deal
more involved 'than simply an interested
bystander'.
However, if you feel unable
to act through me, so be it. Robert
Sawyer asks me to assure you that
Visceral's articles prevent them from
campaigning. He apologises if you felt
his words came across as aggressive - it
was not his intention.
I appreciate what you say
about face to face meetings but with Dr
Wakefield in America and all that we have
gone over beforehand, questions submitted
is going to be the only realistic way
forward. Both Dr Wakefield and Robert
Sawyer look forward to receiving your
questions in due course.
AH
Abel
Hadden: What Goes Around Comes Around
Press
release: 09 - 05 - 03
Abel Hadden
returns to Bell Pottinger Consultants
Abel Hadden, one of the
first consultants to join (what was then)
Lowe Bell Communications in 1987, has
returned to (what is now) Bell Pottinger
Consultants in Curzon Street.
During his time away, Abel
ran the 100-strong London office of
Edelman for four years with specific
client involvements including freight
specialist UPS (across Europe), insurance
giants Commercial Union, publisher
HarperCollins, Orangina, Food from Sweden
and Eli Lilley.
In 1998, Abel left to form
his own reputation management agency,
Abel Hadden & Company. Clients
included the Royal Albert Hall, The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, the Jill Dando Fund, the National
Greyhound Racing Club, unique cruise
liner The World, Dr Andrew Wakefield/MMR
and Diageo’s range of Classic Malts.
Abel’s expertise lies
in the management of complex and
wide-reaching reputation issues for
organisations, brands and individuals.
Sometimes planned and sometimes not, the
media, in today’s climate, and how
it is handled almost always plays a
pivotal role in the positive resolution
of such situations.
At Bell Pottinger
Consultants, Abel is reunited not only
with a number of colleagues, but also
with HM the Sultan of Brunei for whom
he handled personal media relations prior
to 1994.
END
Postscript
In the
event, Andrew Wakefield refused under any
circumstances to be interviewed by Brian
Deer. When he eventually met three Sunday
Times journalists in February 2004, none
of whom knew much about medicine or MMR,
and so couldn't follow-up on many
important questions, it was strictly on
the condition, laid down by Wakefield,
that Brian Deer was not present at the
meeting.
|