Can a journalist ever be too good at their job? "Yes," says Dr David L Lewis, a retired commentator on sewage sludge and dental equipment hygiene.
In January 2011 Lewis attended an anti-vaccine conference in Montego Bay, Jamaica, as a guest of the organizers, and struck up a collaboration over canapes and coconuts with disgraced "MMR ex-doctor" Andrew Wakefield.
Within months of meeting Wakefield, Lewis - who has no qualifications in medicine or pathology - began hawking abuse of me, in conspiracy theory terms, along the lines he sets out in these recordings.
Quite simply, be claims that the content of my award-winning journalism on the three-in-one measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is so technically awesome that he deduced, as a scientist, it could not have been accomplished by me. My knowledge of my subject was not something to be welcomed, but proof of some dastardly plot.
As he says, above, to the conference, held some time ago in Chicago:
“It doesn’t make sense. These are well-written articles by someone who has considerable expertise in medical practise.”
Then in a recent internet "radio" interview with an anti-vaccine campaigner:
"It struck me right off, that a reporter who has no training in science or medicine, which is the case of Brian Deer, would not be capable of writing such articles; they’re too articulate in medical terminology and other things."
And, as he previously argued in a bizarre 167-page complaint to the BMJ in December 2011:
“The scientific and medical content of his articles are well beyond what any individual with no formal training in science or medicine would normally be able to write.”
I'm thinking this would have to be a journalistic first: accuracy as evidence of malfeasance.