Re: MMR doctor given legal aid thousands Deer Grhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Guest guest]

Yes, well we all know about Deer and his personal dislike of

Dr Wakefield.

>

> Here it is--

>

> _http://www.timesonlhttp://wwwhttp://wwwhttp://www.timhttp://_

> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524335,00.html)

>

> The Sunday Times December 31, 2006

>

> MMR doctor given legal aid thousands

> Deer

> ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the

MMR

> vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was

paid

> more than £400,000 by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine

was unsafe.

>

> The payments, unearthed by The Sunday Times, were part of £3.4m

> distributed from the legal aid fund to doctors and scientists who

had

> been recruited to support a now failed lawsuit against vaccine

> manufacturers.

>

> Critics this weekend voiced amazement at the sums, which they said

> created a clear conflict of interest and were the " financial

engine "

> behind a worldwide alarm over the triple measles, mumps and

rubella shot.

>

> " These figures are astonishing, " These figures are

astonishing,<WBR> " sai

> MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.

>

> " This lawsuit was an industry, and an industry peddling what

turned

> out to be a myth. "

>

> According to the figures, released under the Freedom of

Information

> Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses.

>

> Wakefield's work for the lawyers began two years before he

published

> his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in February

> 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.

>

> This suggestion, followed by a campaign led by Wakefield, caused

> immunisation rates to slump from 92% to 78.9%, although they have

> since partly recovered. In March this year the first British

child in

> 14 years died from measles.

>

> Later The Lancet retracted Wakefield's claim and apologised after

a

> Sunday Times investigation showed that his research had been

backed

> with £55,000 from lawyers, and that the children in the study

used as

> evidence against the vaccine were also claimants in the lawsuit.

>

> At the time Wakefield denied any conflict of interest and said

that

> the money went to his hospital, not to him personally. No

disclosure

> was made, however, of the vastly greater sums that he was

receiving

> directly from the lawyers.

>

> The bulk of the amount in the new figures, released by the Legal

> Services Commission (LSC), covers an eight to 10-year period. All

> payments had to be approved by the courts.

>

> Those who received money include numerous Wakefield associates,

> business partners and employees who had acted as experts in the

case.

>

> Five of his former colleagues at the Royal Free hospital, north

> London, under whose aegis The Lancet paper was written, received a

> total of £183,000 in fees, according to the LSC.

>

> Wakefield now runs a business in Austin, Texas, two of whose

employees

> are listed as receiving a total of £112,000 in fees, while a

Florida

> physician, who appointed the former surgeon as his " director of

> research " , was paid £21,600, the figures show.

>

> All have appeared in media reports as apparently confirming

> Wakefield's claims.

>

> It is understood that the payments †" for writing reports,

attending

> meetings and in some cases carrying out research †" were made at

hourly

> rates varying between £120 and £200, or £1,000 a day.

>

> " There was a huge conflict of interest, " said Dr March, an

animal

> vaccine specialist who was among those recruited. " It bothered me

> quite a lot because I thought, well, if I'm getting paid for doing

> this, then surely it's in my interest to keep it going as long as

> possible. "

>

> March, who the LSC allowed almost £90,000 to research an aspect

of

> Wakefield's theories, broke ranks this weekend to denounce both

the

> science of the attack and the amount that the case had cost in

> lawyers' and experts' fees.

>

> " The ironic thing is they were always going on about how, you

know,

> how we've hardly got any money compared with the other side, who

are

> funded by large pharmaceutical companies. And I'm thinking,

judging by

> the amounts of money you're paying out, the other side must be

living

> like millionaires,like milli

>

> Also among those named as being paid from the legal aid fund was a

> referee for one of Wakefield's papers, who was allowed £40,000. A

> private GP who runs a single vaccines clinic received £6,000,

the LSC

> says.

>

> Following The Sunday Times investigation, immunisation rates have

> risen and the General Medical Council launched an inquiry. This

is due

> to culminate in a three-month hearing next summer, where Wakefield

> faces charges †" which he denies †" of dishonesty over his

research.

>

> The LSC is also unlikely to escape criticism. Three years ago the

> commission, which administers a £2 billion budget to give poor

people

> access to justice, acknowledged that the attempt to make a case

> against MMR with taxpayers' money was " not effective or

appropriate " a

>

> The total cost for the attack on the vaccine was £14,053,856,

plus Vat.

>

> Following media campaigning, lawyers eventually registered 1,600

> claimants in the lawsuit. None received any money.

>

> This weekend Earl Howe, a Conservative party health spokesman,

called

> for a parliamentary inquiry. " It's astonishing,for a parliamentary

i

> crying out for select committee scrutiny. "

>

> Wakefield said in a statement that he had worked on the lawsuit

for

> nine years, charged at a recommended rate, and gave money to

charity.

>

> " This work involved nights, weekends and much of my holidays, such

> that I saw little of my family during this time, " he said. " I

believed

> and still believe in the just cause of the matter under

investigation.a

>

> Document 1 | Document 2

>

[Guest guest]

Perhaps Mr Deer would care to discover and publish how much was spent

on the experts etc for the defence by the drug companies - almost

certainly a lot more. perhaps he would also care to point out that

the legal aid payments were all taxed by the court (ie audited with a

fine toothcomb) before payment was made.

Margaret

> >

> > Here it is--

> >

> > _http://www.timesonlhttp://wwwhttp://wwwhttp://www.timhttp://_

> > (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524335,00.html)

> >

> > The Sunday Times December 31, 2006

> >

> > MMR doctor given legal aid thousands

> > Deer

> > ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the

> MMR

> > vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was

> paid

> > more than £400,000 by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine

> was unsafe.

> >

> > The payments, unearthed by The Sunday Times, were part of £3.4m

> > distributed from the legal aid fund to doctors and scientists

who

> had

> > been recruited to support a now failed lawsuit against vaccine

> > manufacturers.

> >

> > Critics this weekend voiced amazement at the sums, which they

said

> > created a clear conflict of interest and were the " financial

> engine "

> > behind a worldwide alarm over the triple measles, mumps and

> rubella shot.

> >

> > " These figures are astonishing, " These figures are

> astonishing,<WBR> " sai

> > MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.

> >

> > " This lawsuit was an industry, and an industry peddling what

> turned

> > out to be a myth. "

> >

> > According to the figures, released under the Freedom of

> Information

> > Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses.

> >

> > Wakefield's work for the lawyers began two years before he

> published

> > his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in

February

> > 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.

> >

> > This suggestion, followed by a campaign led by Wakefield, caused

> > immunisation rates to slump from 92% to 78.9%, although they have

> > since partly recovered. In March this year the first British

> child in

> > 14 years died from measles.

> >

> > Later The Lancet retracted Wakefield's claim and apologised

after

> a

> > Sunday Times investigation showed that his research had been

> backed

> > with £55,000 from lawyers, and that the children in the study

> used as

> > evidence against the vaccine were also claimants in the lawsuit.

> >

> > At the time Wakefield denied any conflict of interest and said

> that

> > the money went to his hospital, not to him personally. No

> disclosure

> > was made, however, of the vastly greater sums that he was

> receiving

> > directly from the lawyers.

> >

> > The bulk of the amount in the new figures, released by the Legal

> > Services Commission (LSC), covers an eight to 10-year period. All

> > payments had to be approved by the courts.

> >

> > Those who received money include numerous Wakefield associates,

> > business partners and employees who had acted as experts in the

> case.

> >

> > Five of his former colleagues at the Royal Free hospital, north

> > London, under whose aegis The Lancet paper was written, received

a

> > total of £183,000 in fees, according to the LSC.

> >

> > Wakefield now runs a business in Austin, Texas, two of whose

> employees

> > are listed as receiving a total of £112,000 in fees, while a

> Florida

> > physician, who appointed the former surgeon as his " director of

> > research " , was paid £21,600, the figures show.

> >

> > All have appeared in media reports as apparently confirming

> > Wakefield's claims.

> >

> > It is understood that the payments †" for writing reports,

> attending

> > meetings and in some cases carrying out research †" were made

at

> hourly

> > rates varying between £120 and £200, or £1,000 a day.

> >

> > " There was a huge conflict of interest, " said Dr March, an

> animal

> > vaccine specialist who was among those recruited. " It bothered me

> > quite a lot because I thought, well, if I'm getting paid for

doing

> > this, then surely it's in my interest to keep it going as long as

> > possible. "

> >

> > March, who the LSC allowed almost £90,000 to research an aspect

> of

> > Wakefield's theories, broke ranks this weekend to denounce both

> the

> > science of the attack and the amount that the case had cost in

> > lawyers' and experts' fees.

> >

> > " The ironic thing is they were always going on about how, you

> know,

> > how we've hardly got any money compared with the other side, who

> are

> > funded by large pharmaceutical companies. And I'm thinking,

> judging by

> > the amounts of money you're paying out, the other side must be

> living

> > like millionaires,like milli

> >

> > Also among those named as being paid from the legal aid fund was

a

> > referee for one of Wakefield's papers, who was allowed £40,000.

A

> > private GP who runs a single vaccines clinic received £6,000,

> the LSC

> > says.

> >

> > Following The Sunday Times investigation, immunisation rates have

> > risen and the General Medical Council launched an inquiry. This

> is due

> > to culminate in a three-month hearing next summer, where

Wakefield

> > faces charges †" which he denies †" of dishonesty over his

> research.

> >

> > The LSC is also unlikely to escape criticism. Three years ago the

> > commission, which administers a £2 billion budget to give poor

> people

> > access to justice, acknowledged that the attempt to make a case

> > against MMR with taxpayers' money was " not effective or

> appropriate " a

> >

> > The total cost for the attack on the vaccine was £14,053,856,

> plus Vat.

> >

> > Following media campaigning, lawyers eventually registered 1,600

> > claimants in the lawsuit. None received any money.

> >

> > This weekend Earl Howe, a Conservative party health spokesman,

> called

> > for a parliamentary inquiry. " It's astonishing,for a

parliamentary

> i

> > crying out for select committee scrutiny. "

> >

> > Wakefield said in a statement that he had worked on the lawsuit

> for

> > nine years, charged at a recommended rate, and gave money to

> charity.

> >

> > " This work involved nights, weekends and much of my holidays,

such

> > that I saw little of my family during this time, " he said. " I

> believed

> > and still believe in the just cause of the matter under

> investigation.a

> >

> > Document 1 | Document 2

> >

>