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.
|