Re: Prof Exonerated - hoorah!

[Guest guest]

great news finally ....

>

>

> 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

>

[Guest guest]

great news finally ....

>

>

> 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

>

[Guest guest]

great news finally ....

>

>

> 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

>