Dr. Andrew Wakefield is suing Brian Deer and BMJ's Fiona Godlee for defamation..

[currer]

It is important to hear Wakefield's side of the story as he has been unable to give it for years because he was waiting for the GMC hearing and was not allowed to make any public statement - which gave the other side a field day.

I was shocked when I listened to the interview between Wakefield and Dr Mercola, as the story we have been told has been so biased against Wakefield.

If you cannot get the link to work google "Dr Mercola interviews Andrew Wakefield" - youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsFW5phHas

 

[markmc20001]

It is important to hear Wakefield's side of the story as he has been unable to give it for years because he was waiting for the GMC hearing and was not allowed to make any public statement - which gave the other side a field day.

I was shocked when I listened to the interview between Wakefield and Dr Mercola, as the story we have been told has been so biased against Wakefield.

If you cannot get the link to work google "Dr Mercola interviews Andrew Wakefield" - youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsFW5phHas

Good info on treating guts in that first video at 6:45. I couldn't understand the meds mentioned, but sounded like Dr Wakefield improved the sleep and other stuff in some of the sick kids with various "anti-inflamatory treatments.

Good to hear Wakefield do some talking for a change, I know Anderson Cooper on CNN(possible CIA agent) interviewed Wakefield and barely Let Dr Wakefield speak.

Might be more illuminating if another main stream media outlet, like one of Rupert Murdoch's News papers("News of the World" possibly?) or TV stations, interview Dr Wakefield.

 

[lookinglass]

Well, I actually took the time to look at the talks of Andrew Wakefield before I made my judgement. I was quite critical of the MMR vaccine and shocked after I read about mercury in the vaccines. After looking at both sides (and the anti-vaxx side quite lacking in the fact department) I find you accusing me of basically being brainwashed a bit off, to say the least.

Did you on the other hand take a look at what Brian Deer has to say?

Everyone read what Brian Deer initially had to say - but no longer. You must be aware of where this journalist is coming from. He is in a partnership with one Fiona Godlee of the British Medical Journal and they are both now being rightly sued by Wakefield for libel and defamation.
Deer is fond of boasting that Wakefield once attempted to sue him before and failed. Wakefield had to drop his case because of costs and on his counsels advice. - The case never "failed".

Godlee and Deer have the full support of the Pharma world and have been pursuing their own wild theories of conspiracy and institutional fraud within the research institutions of the UK medical establishment.

 

[Chris]

Hi; a friend just sent me this, a real hummer--read this, and then wonder if the media are going to pick up on it, or if it will just fall into silence again, where it has been for the last 12 years:
http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/cdcfdaexperts.htm . This of course is the US and not GB, but.... the drug companies are international. Hope it gets wide publicity! Chris

 

[currer]

Quote from the link below :-
"Dr. Bernier, pg. 113: "We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information*, so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data. The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So to basically consider this embargoed information. That would help all of us to use the machinery that we have in place for considering these data and for arriving at policy recommendations."

[*This never happened. SafeMind.org obtained this transcript via the Freedom of Information Act. Data published later were diluted into insignificance by including additional data from an HMO that had very uncharacteristic results.]

 

[currer]

Quote from the link below.:-
Dr. Weil, pg. 75: I think that what you are saying is in term of chronic exposure. I think that the alternative scenario is that this repeated acute exposures, and like many repeated acute exposures, if you consider a dose of 25 micrograms on one day, then you are above threshold. At least we think you are, and then you do that over and over to a series of neurons where the toxic effect may be the same set of neurons or the same set of neurologic processes; it is conceivable that the more mercury you get, the more effect you are going to get.

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 76: What I have done here, I am putting into the model instead of mercury, a number of antigens that the children received, and what do we get? Not surprisingly, we get very similar estimates as what we got for Thimerosal because every vaccine put in the equation has Thimerosal. So for speech and the other ones maybe its not so significant, but for the overall group it is also significant.Here we have the same thing, but instead of number of antigens, number of shots. Just the number of vaccinations given to a child, which is also for nearly all of them significantly related.

Dr. Guess, pg. 77: "So this essentially is a 7% risk per antigen, an antigen is like in DPT you've got three antigens."

 

[natasa778]

Professor Walker-Smith is asking Mr Justice Mitting at London's High Court to rule that he was denied a fair hearing.

BMJ news article:

The General Medical Council panel that found Andrew Wakefields colleague John Walker-Smith guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck him off the medical register in 2010 was dealing with a task that was beyond it, his barrister told the High Court in London this week.

Stephen Miller QC told Mr Justice Mitting at the start of a two week appeal hearing that the panel ignored evidence that paediatric gastroenterologists at the Royal Free Hospital in London, headed by Professor Walker-Smith, were carrying out investigations that were clinically indicated and undertaken for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment and not for a research project.

http://www.facebook.com/CryShame.JWS

some good links on there, on is on BBC radio 4 programme about GMC corruption in general

 

[Firestormm]

Attorney for Prof. Walker-Smith: alleged link between MMR and autism utterly disproved

Prof. John Walker-Smith was a colleague of Andrew Wakefield, a co-author on the now-retracted 1998 Lancet paper and shared the same fate as Mr. Wakefield after the General Medical Council Hearings: he was struck off the medical register.

Prof. Walker-Smith has appealed (Mr. Wakefield did not). A few news stories have come up about this appeal. In Doctor struck off over MMR controversy appeals against ruling, the Guardian notes:

'Prof John Walker-Smith tells high court he was denied a fair hearing before he was struck off by the General Medical Council'

Many are looking to this appeal for vindication of Mr. Wakefield and his theories on MMR being linked to and causal in autism. Prof. Walker-Smiths attorney appears to have made a rather clear statement to the contrary:

'Miller said it had been important that the disciplinary panel separate out research from the clinical medicine but that was a task that appeared to be beyond them.

The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine has now been utterly disproved in the opinion of respectable medical opinion.

Miller said that was exactly the position.'

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/20...ink-between-mmr-and-autism-utterly-disproved/

Guardian 13 February 2012: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/13/doctor-struck-off-mmr-appeals

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Erm

The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine has now been utterly disproved in the opinion of respectable medical opinion.

Miller said that was exactly the position.

Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Miller said: There are still doubters and believers on that.

Are we to believe the Judge was saying the link between the MMR vaccine and the vaccine (what?) has now been utterly disproved?

HUH?

Any more accurate quotations around on what was actually said?

 

[natasa778]

Erm

Are we to believe the Judge was saying the link between the MMR vaccine and the vaccine (what?) has now been utterly disproved?

HUH?

Any more accurate quotations around on what was actually said?

I believe it was judge and the attorney confirming. But this is nothing surprising as they absolutely HAVE to do that (ie play the 'no-link-of-MMR-to-autism') card to stand any chance of Walker-Smith getting a fair hearing now. Even the judge himself would be putting himself and his career on the line unless he makes absolutely clear that this case is not linked to proving or disapproving anything to do with autism and vaccines, but merely establishing whether GMC ruling was fair or not.

It is reminiscent of those dozens (there could be hundreds) of families who got millions in compensation for vaccine-induced autism in their kids. The trick was not to mention Autism at all anywhere in court papers, but use words like 'encephalopathy', brain damage with autism-like features (!) etc. As soon as you mention the A word the case is thrown out of the window. The stakes are too high, no judge would play with their careers so (even though they will readily compensate for vaguely named 'vaccine-induced static encephalopathy' etc).

These people are threading on a mine field and they know that one wrong step can blow them away.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

I believe it was judge and the attorney confirming. But this is nothing surprising as they absolutely HAVE to do that (ie play the 'no-link-of-MMR-to-autism') card to stand any chance of Walker-Smith getting a fair hearing now. Even the judge himself would be putting himself and his career on the line unless he makes absolutely clear that this case is not linked to proving or disapproving anything to do with autism and vaccines, but merely establishing whether GMC ruling was fair or not.

It is reminiscent of those dozens (there could be hundreds) of families who got millions in compensation for vaccine-induced autism in their kids. The trick was not to mention Autism at all anywhere in court papers, but use words like 'encephalopathy', brain damage with autism-like features (!) etc. As soon as you mention the A word the case is thrown out of the window. The stakes are too high, no judge would play with their careers so (even though they will readily compensate for vaguely named 'vaccine-induced static encephalopathy' etc).

These people are threading on a mine field and they know that one wrong step can blow them away.

That's not my point Natasa. My point is about accuracy, in this case in the reporting of conversations. Do you see what problem I've identified above?

 

[Firestormm]

Only source is as quoted, unless you want to ring the Judge? I can't see a problem with the language either...

The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine has now been utterly disproved in the opinion of respectable medical opinion.

Miller said that was exactly the position.'

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/20...ink-between-mmr-and-autism-utterly-disproved/

Guardian 13 February 2012: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/13/doctor-struck-off-mmr-appeals

Or the Journalist, maybe court records. But I don't have/haven't seen/read anything else I'm afraid.

 

[natasa778]

Angela, they were quoting Guardian article, which appears to be passed on by Press Association. Are you thinking PA might have 'accidentally misquoted' what was really said? Or that Guardian might have 'edited' the report?

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Ok Firestorrm, here we go -

What is MMR? It is a vaccine.

According to the Guardian, the judge allegedly asked a QC whether the link between one vaccine and another vaccine has been utterly disproved, and the QC allegedly said that was exactly the position.

Are we there yet?

The Guardian report was gobbledegook. Unless another site/newspaper has quoted that conversation accurately (or possibly the stenographer in court), we can't know what exactly they were talking about.

I've highlighted this problem on the leftbrainrightbrain site too.

Of course - people will fill in the uncertainty with their own preconceptions (they went running with it over at leftbrainrightbrain - and I think you might have too Firestormm) but they are incorrect to do this.

Sadly, absurd mistakes like this can be blown up into 'truths' very easily.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Angela, they were quoting Guardian article, which appears to be passed on by Press Association. Are you thinking PA might have 'accidentally misquoted' what was really said? Or that Guardian might have 'edited' the report?

Thanks Natasa for asking.

I think the Guardian have either misquoted what was said (likely by accident but possibly due to journalist or sub-editor's preconceptions), or the judge and QC have got confused themselves in court. The judge may have said the wrong thing and the QC affirmed without realising what the judge was saying.

These seem the most likely explanations. There may be something else I've not thought of.

Because of the seriousness of the situation though - it is important that the facts are established. I don't know how much problems this inaccuracy will cause for the court case and reporting on it, or for other people such as Wakefield. Hell, we see how quickly misinformation and confusion is used to shore up dearly held beliefs every day in the world of ME, causing chaos usually.

 

[Firestormm]

Measles, Mumps and Reubella and diseases Angela aren't they? And a vaccine was developed to tackle all three together. Sorry am I missing something here?

Just because it is commonly called the 'MMR Vaccine' doesn't mean the quote is wrong or that the Judge and the defending barrister didn't know what they meant.

Perhaps he could have said 'alleged link between the vaccine and autism' or the Journo could have phrased it differently, but I don't think it detracts from it's meaning.

It was followed by:

'Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Miller said: "There are still doubters and believers on that."'

I think you are being rather 'picky' on this one. You could email the Journo of course but nobody else seems to have as much problem with it's interpretation. At least not in the other places I have seen the article - and the quote - posted.

Even the Guardian article is titled '...MMR controversy...'

Edit:

OK. Maybe not everybody where you have posted this: http://peoplewithme.com/Thread-Guardian-Newspaper-on-John-Walker-Smith-spot-the-bollox

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Measles, Mumps and Reubella and diseases Angela aren't they? And a vaccine was developed to tackle all three together. Sorry am I missing something here?

Just because it is commonly called the 'MMR Vaccine' doesn't mean the quote is wrong or that the Judge and the defending barrister didn't know what they meant.

Perhaps he could have said 'alleged link between the vaccine and autism' or the Journo could have phrased it differently, but I don't think it detracts from it's meaning.

It was followed by:

'Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Miller said: "There are still doubters and believers on that."'

I think you are being rather 'picky' on this one. You could email the Journo of course but nobody else seems to have as much problem with it's interpretation. At least not in the other places I have seen the article - and the quote - posted.

Even the Guardian article is titled '...MMR controversy...'

Edit:

OK. Maybe not everybody where you have posted this: http://peoplewithme.com/Thread-Guardian-Newspaper-on-John-Walker-Smith-spot-the-bollox

Are you kidding me Firestormm?

You are calling me 'picky' because I've identified gobbledegook, and you are trying to defend a sentence that makes no sense whatsoever? In order to allow you to substitute your own word based on your own preconceptions?

You are calling me 'picky' because I've called for clarity?

Why - I think that is just what you've done!

Wow. You have just exhibited a classic shoot-the-messenger move in order to defend your cognitive dissonance on this one. That really takes a brass neck!

By the way - people HAVE identified the nonsensical sentence elsewhere, including the leftbrainrightbrain site you put the link to, eventually. I believe other people have written to the Guardian like I have too for clarification. They must be a bit picky too... NOT.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

my 'picky' email to the Guardian corrections/clarification editor

----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: reader@guardian.co.uk
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:55 PM
Subject: Correction/clarification to article on John Walker Smith today


Dear Madam or Sir,

I refer to the article in Monday's Guardian "Doctor struck off over MMR controversy appeals against ruling":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...k-off-mmr-appeals?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

The article at one points reads:

The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine has now been utterly disproved in the opinion of respectable medical opinion.

Miller said that was exactly the position.

Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Miller said: There are still doubters and believers on that.

MMR is a vaccine. Did the judge actually say that a link between one named vaccine and another (un-named but called 'the) vaccine has been 'utterly disproved'? And did Walker-Smith's QC say that was 'exactly' the position?

It is like saying the link between a named dog (let's call her Daisy) and another, un-named (but called 'the') dog, had been 'utterly disproved'.

Either the journalist has misquoted the judge and QC, in which case you should correct, or the judge and QC made these mistakes in court, in which case you should clarify. There may even be another explanation I have not thought of.

It makes a difference because Guardian Readers cannot know confidently what has been allegedly 'utterly disproved', or how these relate to what might have been said, by the judge and the QC, about autism and bowel disorder (as mentioned above).

There is already so much confusion and misinformation (not to mention ideology) inherent in the various discourses around the MMR vaccine. I believe it is the Guardian's duty to establish the correct quotes so as not to add to this woeful quagmire.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require more information/clarification.

Best wishes

 

[Firestormm]

Thanks V99 for spotting the amendment to the original article:

'The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and autism "has now been utterly disproved" in the opinion of "respectable medical opinion".

Miller said that was "exactly" the position.

Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Miller said: "There are still doubters and believers on that."

A campaign support group, Cryshame, said before Monday's hearing: "We are confident that Professor Walker-Smith will be found innocent of the findings the GMC has determined against him.

"The measure of British justice is tested by the way it treats a man of Professor Walker-Smith's stature following his distinguished and unblemished career."

Cryshame is a group of parents who say they saw their children regress into autism in their second year and ask why this happened.

The parents say one consequence of the GMC's decision against the professor is that they now face serious difficulties in finding NHS treatment for autistic children with bowel disease.

This article was amended on 18 February 2012. The original said the judge asked Miller whether the alleged link "between MMR and the vaccine" had been disproven. This has been corrected.'

That's that then. Phew! 'Cognitive dissonance' now is that discriminatory?

 

[natasa778]

Firestormm, you seem to be repeatedly bolding all the worn-out statements (are you appealling to authority? or hoping that repeating a myth enough times makes it somehow credible?), while skipping all the important and relevant bits.

"The parents say one consequence of the GMC's decision against the professor is that they now face serious difficulties in finding NHS treatment for autistic children with bowel disease."

is the part that really needs highlighting, bolding and repeating all over again. It is much more relevant to CFS/ME (aka 'your disease') than whatever anyone says or thinks about the bits you bolded.