Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

Rate this topic

Guest guest

By Guest guest
in Health, Medicine and Natural Healing 12

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

What a great day!!!!

>

>

> The GMC's massive abuse of process

>

> The welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication

> that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to

> discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some

of

> the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at

> Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with

> total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the

> highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> This decision shows that:

>

> 1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive

> order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the

> separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

>

> 2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did

> warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were

> entirely appropriate for the children's needs.

>

> 3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by

> journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the

> British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also

> unfounded.

>

> The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of

> paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which

> supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the

much

> disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly

> investigated.

>

> Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:

>

> a. We have to ask why this has happened?

>

> b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to

> discredit Dr. Wakefield?

>

> c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children

> were well?

>

> Background Information:

>

> No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of

> children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had

> nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by

> Prof. - and the other doctors.

>

> Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken

> seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians.

>

> The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents

> who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical

> condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders

and

> bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community

> as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been

> mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report

> and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

>

> How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are

> described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton

> was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication.

>

> " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where

> to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and

> I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could

> play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee

> while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible

> lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him

> directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue

> Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

>

> Horton continues (p.13):

>

> '....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had

> said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A

> senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a

> North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he

> was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

> The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was

> unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in

> which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after

> being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC

> journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able

> to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his

> reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever

> one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of

> malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

>

> JABS believes this is really about:

>

> • the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR

> vaccine damage issue.

> • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their

> children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

> • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed

> independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

> • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism

> with bowel disease.

>

> JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

>

> Tel: 01942 713565

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

What a great day!!!!

>

>

> The GMC's massive abuse of process

>

> The welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication

> that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to

> discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some

of

> the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at

> Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with

> total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the

> highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> This decision shows that:

>

> 1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive

> order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the

> separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

>

> 2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did

> warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were

> entirely appropriate for the children's needs.

>

> 3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by

> journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the

> British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also

> unfounded.

>

> The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of

> paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which

> supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the

much

> disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly

> investigated.

>

> Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:

>

> a. We have to ask why this has happened?

>

> b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to

> discredit Dr. Wakefield?

>

> c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children

> were well?

>

> Background Information:

>

> No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of

> children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had

> nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by

> Prof. - and the other doctors.

>

> Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken

> seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians.

>

> The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents

> who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical

> condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders

and

> bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community

> as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been

> mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report

> and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

>

> How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are

> described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton

> was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication.

>

> " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where

> to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and

> I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could

> play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee

> while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible

> lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him

> directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue

> Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

>

> Horton continues (p.13):

>

> '....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had

> said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A

> senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a

> North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he

> was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

> The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was

> unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in

> which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after

> being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC

> journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able

> to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his

> reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever

> one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of

> malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

>

> JABS believes this is really about:

>

> • the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR

> vaccine damage issue.

> • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their

> children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

> • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed

> independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

> • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism

> with bowel disease.

>

> JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

>

> Tel: 01942 713565

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

What a great day!!!!

>

>

> The GMC's massive abuse of process

>

> The welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication

> that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to

> discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some

of

> the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at

> Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with

> total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the

> highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> This decision shows that:

>

> 1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive

> order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the

> separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

>

> 2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did

> warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were

> entirely appropriate for the children's needs.

>

> 3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by

> journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the

> British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also

> unfounded.

>

> The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of

> paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which

> supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the

much

> disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly

> investigated.

>

> Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:

>

> a. We have to ask why this has happened?

>

> b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to

> discredit Dr. Wakefield?

>

> c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children

> were well?

>

> Background Information:

>

> No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of

> children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had

> nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by

> Prof. - and the other doctors.

>

> Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken

> seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians.

>

> The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents

> who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical

> condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders

and

> bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community

> as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been

> mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report

> and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

>

> How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are

> described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton

> was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication.

>

> " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where

> to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and

> I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could

> play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee

> while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible

> lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him

> directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue

> Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

>

> Horton continues (p.13):

>

> '....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had

> said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A

> senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a

> North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he

> was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

> The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was

> unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in

> which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after

> being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC

> journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able

> to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his

> reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever

> one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of

> malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

>

> JABS believes this is really about:

>

> • the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR

> vaccine damage issue.

> • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their

> children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

> • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed

> independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

> • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism

> with bowel disease.

>

> JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

>

> Tel: 01942 713565

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Some good news at last!!!

 

M x

 

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.

The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated.

Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield?

c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors.

Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication. " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

• undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Thanks for keeping us all informed Manid - this is brilliant news!

 

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication. " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. " Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Thanks for keeping us all informed Manid - this is brilliant news!

 

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication. " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. " Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Thanks for keeping us all informed Manid - this is brilliant news!

 

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication. " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. " Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Thanks for posting Mandi - wonderful. Will this now impact gmc's verdict against Wakefield in 2010- ie could case be reviewed again? Janet To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine.. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah!!!!! The tide is turning!!!!

x

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah!!!!! The tide is turning!!!!

x

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah!!!!! The tide is turning!!!!

x

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Link to report on the bbc website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17283751

Margaret

>

>

> The GMC's massive abuse of process

>

> The welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication

> that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to

> discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some

of

> the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at

> Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with

> total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the

> highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> This decision shows that:

>

> 1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive

> order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the

> separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

>

> 2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did

> warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were

> entirely appropriate for the children's needs.

>

> 3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by

> journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the

> British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also

> unfounded.

>

> The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of

> paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which

> supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the

much

> disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly

> investigated.

>

> Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:

>

> a. We have to ask why this has happened?

>

> b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to

> discredit Dr. Wakefield?

>

> c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children

> were well?

>

> Background Information:

>

> No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of

> children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had

> nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by

> Prof. - and the other doctors.

>

> Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken

> seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians.

>

> The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents

> who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical

> condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders

and

> bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community

> as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been

> mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report

> and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

>

> How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are

> described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton

> was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication.

>

> " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where

> to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and

> I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could

> play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee

> while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible

> lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him

> directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue

> Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

>

> Horton continues (p.13):

>

> '....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had

> said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A

> senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a

> North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he

> was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

> The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was

> unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in

> which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after

> being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC

> journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able

> to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his

> reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever

> one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of

> malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

>

> JABS believes this is really about:

>

> • the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR

> vaccine damage issue.

> • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their

> children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

> • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed

> independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

> • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism

> with bowel disease.

>

> JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

>

> Tel: 01942 713565

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Link to report on the bbc website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17283751

Margaret

>

>

> The GMC's massive abuse of process

>

> The welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication

> that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to

> discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some

of

> the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at

> Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with

> total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the

> highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> This decision shows that:

>

> 1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive

> order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the

> separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

>

> 2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did

> warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were

> entirely appropriate for the children's needs.

>

> 3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by

> journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the

> British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also

> unfounded.

>

> The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of

> paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which

> supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the

much

> disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly

> investigated.

>

> Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:

>

> a. We have to ask why this has happened?

>

> b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to

> discredit Dr. Wakefield?

>

> c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children

> were well?

>

> Background Information:

>

> No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of

> children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had

> nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by

> Prof. - and the other doctors.

>

> Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken

> seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians.

>

> The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents

> who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical

> condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders

and

> bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community

> as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been

> mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report

> and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

>

> How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are

> described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton

> was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication.

>

> " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where

> to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and

> I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could

> play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee

> while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible

> lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him

> directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue

> Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

>

> Horton continues (p.13):

>

> '....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had

> said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A

> senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a

> North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he

> was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

> The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was

> unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in

> which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after

> being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC

> journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able

> to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his

> reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever

> one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of

> malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

>

> JABS believes this is really about:

>

> • the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR

> vaccine damage issue.

> • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their

> children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

> • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed

> independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

> • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism

> with bowel disease.

>

> JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

>

> Tel: 01942 713565

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Link to report on the bbc website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17283751

Margaret

>

>

> The GMC's massive abuse of process

>

> The welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication

> that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to

> discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some

of

> the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at

> Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with

> total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the

> highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> This decision shows that:

>

> 1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive

> order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the

> separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

>

> 2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did

> warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were

> entirely appropriate for the children's needs.

>

> 3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by

> journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the

> British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also

> unfounded.

>

> The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of

> paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which

> supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the

much

> disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly

> investigated.

>

> Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:

>

> a. We have to ask why this has happened?

>

> b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to

> discredit Dr. Wakefield?

>

> c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children

> were well?

>

> Background Information:

>

> No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of

> children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had

> nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by

> Prof. - and the other doctors.

>

> Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken

> seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians.

>

> The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents

> who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical

> condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders

and

> bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community

> as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been

> mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report

> and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

>

> How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are

> described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton

> was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication.

>

> " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where

> to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and

> I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could

> play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee

> while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible

> lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him

> directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue

> Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

>

> Horton continues (p.13):

>

> '....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had

> said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A

> senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a

> North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he

> was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

> The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was

> unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in

> which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after

> being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC

> journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able

> to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his

> reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever

> one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of

> malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

>

> JABS believes this is really about:

>

> • the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR

> vaccine damage issue.

> • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their

> children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

> • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed

> independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

> • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism

> with bowel disease.

>

> JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

>

> Tel: 01942 713565

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Fantastic !! Thanks Mandi xx

>

>

> The GMC's massive abuse of process

>

> The welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication

> that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to

> discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some

of

> the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at

> Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with

> total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the

> highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

>

> This decision shows that:

>

> 1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive

> order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the

> separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

>

> 2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did

> warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were

> entirely appropriate for the children's needs.

>

> 3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by

> journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the

> British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also

> unfounded.

>

> The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of

> paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which

> supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the

much

> disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly

> investigated.

>

> Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:

>

> a. We have to ask why this has happened?

>

> b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to

> discredit Dr. Wakefield?

>

> c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children

> were well?

>

> Background Information:

>

> No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of

> children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had

> nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by

> Prof. - and the other doctors.

>

> Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken

> seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians.

>

> The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents

> who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical

> condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders

and

> bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community

> as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been

> mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report

> and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

>

> How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are

> described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton

> was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication.

>

> " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where

> to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and

> I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could

> play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee

> while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible

> lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him

> directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue

> Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

>

> Horton continues (p.13):

>

> '....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had

> said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A

> senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a

> North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he

> was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

> The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was

> unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in

> which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after

> being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC

> journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able

> to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his

> reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever

> one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of

> malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

>

> JABS believes this is really about:

>

> • the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR

> vaccine damage issue.

> • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their

> children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

> • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed

> independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

> • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism

> with bowel disease.

>

> JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

>

> Tel: 01942 713565

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Exciting news! Fantastic.

> >

> >

> > The GMC's massive abuse of process

> >

> > The welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication

> > that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to

> > discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some

of

> > the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at

> > Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with

> > total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at

the

> > highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.

> >

> > This decision shows that:

> >

> > 1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive

> > order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the

> > separate Legal Aid Board funded project.

> >

> > 2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did

> > warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted

were

> > entirely appropriate for the children's needs.

> >

> > 3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by

> > journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the

> > British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also

> > unfounded.

> >

> > The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of

> > paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which

> > supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the

much

> > disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly

> > investigated.

> >

> > Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:

> >

> > a. We have to ask why this has happened?

> >

> > b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to

> > discredit Dr. Wakefield?

> >

> > c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children

> > were well?

> >

> > Background Information:

> >

> > No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of

> > children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had

> > nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by

> > Prof. - and the other doctors.

> >

> > Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken

> > seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians.

> >

> > The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents

> > who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical

> > condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum

disorders and

> > bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community

> > as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been

> > mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the

report

> > and would a GMC hearing have taken place?

> >

> > How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are

> > described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr

Horton

> > was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication.

> >

> > " ...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where

> > to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and

> > I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could

> > play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee

> > while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some

possible

> > lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact

him

> > directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue

> > Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest. "

> >

> > Horton continues (p.13):

> >

> > '....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had

> > said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A

> > senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in

a

> > North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he

> > was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.

> > The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was

> > unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in

> > which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide

after

> > being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a

BBC

> > journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able

> > to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his

> > reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever

> > one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of

> > malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'

> >

> > JABS believes this is really about:

> >

> > • the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the

MMR

> > vaccine damage issue.

> > • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their

> > children's disease and to investigate appropriately.

> > • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed

> > independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

> > • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism

> > with bowel disease.

> >

> > JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

> >

> > Tel: 01942 713565

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Fabulous news! Here's to justice!Sent from my iPhone

Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah!!!!! The tide is turning!!!!

x

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Fabulous news! Here's to justice!Sent from my iPhone

Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah!!!!! The tide is turning!!!!

x

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Fabulous news! Here's to justice!Sent from my iPhone

Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah, Oh Yeah!!!!! The tide is turning!!!!

x

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

No I don;t think so, he is going the other route is USA of sueing Deer and BMJ but this result will add to his case I think

Mx

Thanks for posting Mandi - wonderful. Will this now impact gmc's verdict against Wakefield in 2010- ie could case be reviewed again? Janet

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine.. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

No I don;t think so, he is going the other route is USA of sueing Deer and BMJ but this result will add to his case I think

Mx

Thanks for posting Mandi - wonderful. Will this now impact gmc's verdict against Wakefield in 2010- ie could case be reviewed again? Janet

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine.. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

No I don;t think so, he is going the other route is USA of sueing Deer and BMJ but this result will add to his case I think

Mx

Thanks for posting Mandi - wonderful. Will this now impact gmc's verdict against Wakefield in 2010- ie could case be reviewed again? Janet

To: Autism-Biomedical-Europe From: Mum231ASD@...Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:50:39 -0500Subject: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

The GMC's massive abuse of processThe welcome decision to exonerate Prof. - is a clear indication that the GMC's case against the Royal Free doctors was manufactured to discredit any association between bowel disease, autism conditions and some of the parents' reported link to the MMR vaccine.. The allegations levelled at Prof. - and the Royal Free team now have to be viewed with total scepticism as nothing more than a witch hunt by vested interests at the highest level in Government, media and the pharmaceutical industry.This decision shows that:1. The 1998 Lancet paper was an early report of cases seen in consecutive order on the basis of clinical need and nothing whatever to do with the separate Legal Aid Board funded project.2. The children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were very ill and did warrant serious clinical investigation and the investigations conducted were entirely appropriate for the children's needs.3. The allegations of fraud based on this misconstruction, propagated by journalist Deer, politician Evan , the Murdoch press and the British Medical Journal (and rubberstamped by the GMC) are therefore also unfounded.The decision vindicates Prof. - (one of two world pioneers of paediatric gastroenterology) after years of false allegations, which supports the ethicality of the Royal Free research and the integrity of the much disputed 1998 Lancet paper. The children were genuinely sick and properly investigated. Very serious questions arise about the basis of this prosecution:a. We have to ask why this has happened? b. Was Prof. - unfairly targetted simply as a means to discredit Dr. Wakefield? c. Why was it necessary for the GMC to make out that very sick children were well? Background Information:No parent of a child had complained. No child had been injured. Parents of children who had been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London had nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by Prof. - and the other doctors. Parents reported that their children's conditions were not being taken seriously or treated appropriately by their own GPs or paediatricians. The 1998 Lancet report referred to eight of the twelve children's parents who directly associated the MMR vaccine with their children's medical condition. This association between MMR vaccine, autistic spectrum disorders and bowel disease warranted further investigation by the scientific community as called for by the publishing doctors. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report would there have been any criticism of the report and would a GMC hearing have taken place?How the charges (the start of the witch hunt) were first thought of are described in Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton was the editor of the 1998 Lancet publication."...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest." Horton continues (p.13):'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Wakefield'.The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'JABS believes this is really about:• the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue. • the freedom of medical professionals to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately. • undertaking scientific research and having it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship. • the association between the MMR vaccine and a form of regressive autism with bowel disease.JABS is a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.Tel: 01942 713565

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...