Dr. Wakefield Comments After the GMC Recants; Will Dr. Andrew Wakefield Be Next?

The General Medical Council is trying to erase a huge mistake.

The General Medical Council is trying to erase a huge mistake.

The General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom has cleared the medical flack surrounding one of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s medical colleagues, Professor John Walker-Smith, and recanted their censure against him.  In a press release dated March 7, 2012, GMC cleared Walker-Smith by overturning its decision of “guilty of serious professional misconduct.”  Even the judge ruled that the hearings were a farce—wow!

In view of that happening, I asked Dr. Wakefield, “What’s the difference between medical practice and medical research AND whether procedures performed on children were clinically necessary?”  Dr. Wakefield answered, “Medical (clinical) practice is for the benefit of the individual patient whereas research is conducted to improve knowledge and hopefully provide future benefits to sufferers generally. The procedures performed on the Lancet children were deemed clinically necessary by the clinical team caring for those children.”

Doctor’s answer prompted me to ask, “Why is that seemingly so important to the GMC?” to which Dr. Wakefield said, “What appears to have been important to the GMC was obtaining convictions in spite of the evidence.”   After considering that, I could not help but ask, “Isn’t it within a medical doctor’s jurisdiction to perform tests needed to determine cause?”  Doctor’s reply was absolutely brilliant and something the GMC probably doesn’t want to consider, “Yes, and it could be considered clinical malpractice not to have done so.” 

Embellishing upon Doctor’s last comment, I found myself asking, “What’s exploratory surgery about?  It’s done often in the USA when physicians are stumped.  Should they be punished for doing it?”  Consider his candid remark, “I interpret this term as meaning, for example, a diagnostic laparotomy to explore the abdomen when other tests have failed to find the source of a patient’s symptoms. As long as the obvious tests have been done and are negative or do not provide an adequate explanation, then it is appropriate.”

Normally I would have asked if that were applicable in the issue that got him struck from the register, but since he’s brought a lawsuit regarding the issue, I felt it best not to go there.  But I was inquisitive enough to ask, “Do you know the status of Dr. Simon Murch?” And his answer just about floored me, “I believe he is working as an academic pediatric gastroenterologist in the UK.”  Oh! Say I, hmmm.  If Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch seem to be back in the good graces of the GMC, why not Dr. Wakefield, I thought.

So I asked, “Why do you think the GMC reinstated Dr. Walker-Smith?  The fact that he is retired, does that have anything to do with it, e.g., he won’t be practicing because of his age even though he’s cleared to do so?”  Dr. Wakefield then said, “The GMC had no choice but to reinstate him in view of the fact that Judge Mitting quashed their deeply flawed decision.”   Now, I wish I knew more about the British legal system and the GMC, in particular, because if what Dr. Wakefield says is the real reason—and I have no reason to doubt it—then the next logical step would be to reinstate Dr. Wakefield.  Something smells rather fishy about this entire Wakefield saga, in my opinion, and I wish the GMC would make right its apparent position regarding all physicians it struck from the register during this most disturbing of medical fiascos, in my opinion.

In spite of what I may think, I had to ask, “What can you say to MDs and researchers who feel you were on the right track regarding the MMR vaccine/autism/gut link, but don’t know what to do about following through to publication that may end in sanctions against them?”  His answer was “typical golden Wakefield,” “Decide why you chose the profession you did, do your job without compromise in the best interests of the patients, or pack up and get out.”  Gulp! And swallow hard, but that’s what a dedicated professional should do.  There’s a saying that goes something like this, “Lay down the cheese and see how many mice will come.”  In medical research the cheese often is money or grants, while the mice are the ever-anxious-to-please researchers.

As a result of what may be regarded as having to remove some stale “egg on its face” as a result of striking from the register eminent physicians, I understand that the GMC is planning some significant reforms to its fitness practice review.  So, I asked Dr. Wakefield what reform suggestions he would give GMC after having been through its bullying mill.  His answer could not have been more succinct: “This is a very big question. They need to operate entirely free from government pressures and conflicts of interest,” to which I only could add, applause, applause, and applause.

A few of the parents of the “Lancet” children showed up for the GMC’s decision on Professor Walker-Smith.  To see a short YouTube of their remarks, please click on http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u55MNglDkos .

Something still bothers me. If Professor Walker-Smith has been exonerated, what’s happened with other physicians involved—since there were at least a dozen doctors at the Royal Free Hospital, not only Dr. Andrew Wakefield—who found the same results as Wakefield did.  However, only three doctors were brought up on misconduct charges: Walker-Smith, Wakefield, and Dr. Simon Murch.  It seems like games of professional bullying or pin the tail on some donkey transpired.  Is a vaccine’s reputation more important than finding, revealing, and publicizing something new in medical research that can help or direct understanding about an apparently newly emerging health anomaly?  Isn’t that what medical science is supposed to be about?  Or, is it science according to Big Pharma and its minions where ever they may be: the UK or the USA?

For the record, let’s get the Wakefield story correct.  Dr. Wakefield never said there was a definite link between vaccines and the MMR vaccination, only that there was a possible connection and reason for concern that ought to be investigated.  Dr. Wakefield’s story reminds one of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’s tragic encounter when he suggested that physicians wash their hands after doing autopsies on women who died in child birth BEFORE going into the birthing wards and examining women in labor.  Semmelweis cut childbirth fever deaths from 30 percent to about 3 percent in his wing of the hospital, yet his colleagues considered him a nut case.  So, what do physicians do today, especially surgeons?  Scrub and prepare for 10 to 20 minutes before surgery—isn’t that the routine?  Oh the games grown men play, especially when high-stake money is involved, as with Big Pharma and its vaccines, in my opinion.

If the GMC is still holding on to its arrogant position that “There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Dr Wakefield’s] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked,” may I respectfully inform the GMC that a study performed by a team of doctors at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, involved 275 children that confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s findings regarding bowel disease and the measles virus.  Here are the results: 70 out of 82 children tested positive for the measles virus, but just not any ordinary measles virus.

One of the Wake Forest physicians, Dr. Stephen Walker, stated that their research pointed to a vaccine measles strain that was injected into the children and not a wild, natural strain of measles virus that normally transmits from child to child.  Interesting?  Here’s Dr. Walker’s remark, “Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.”

Perhaps the GMC isn’t up to date on reading the medical literature, or they would be hightailing it to overturn the unwarranted decision against Dr. Andrew Wakefield.  If GMC had taken the time to do their ‘homework’ they would have found that the Wake Forest University study proves that in the gastro-intestinal tract of children diagnosed with autism, the vaccine measles virus was found in their gut.  How did it get there, if not by vaccination, especially with the MMR vaccine?  Infants and toddlers normally don’t drink measles-laced formula.

If the Wake Forest study is not enough, how about the 2001 study by Dr. John O’Leary, Professor of Pathology, done at the St. James Hospital and Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, that came up with the same findings as Wake Forest and Dr. Wakefield.  Okay, we now have three confirming studies that can no longer be consider the ‘Wakefield hypothesis’.

The article “Persistent measles virus infection of the intestine: confirmation by immunogold electron microscopy,” by Lewin, Dhillon, Sim, Mazure, Pounder, and Wakefield [1] April 1995 still appears on PubMed Central’s web site at NIH.  The last line of the Abstract for that article states:

This study provides the first direct confirmation of persistent measles virus infection of the intestine.

Something does not comport, and I hope you can follow this.  Why would the U.S. National Institutes of Health still have Dr. Wakefield’s findings published as part of its medical library information IF those findings were not respectable?  The PDF file of the article is available at this link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382498/ .

If the above is not sufficient for the GMC to rethink Dr. Wakefield’s unwarranted striking from the register with immediate reinstatement, then how about their studying the following:

  1. Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883
  2. Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. “The sequences obtained from the patients with ulcerative colitis and children with autism were consistent with being vaccine strains. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759242

Perhaps the GMC’s significant reforms they anticipate introducing ought to include a statement of regret and an apology to all physicians affected by the apparent witch hunt or bullying tactics that transpired with regard to respectable men of medicine who were trying to move the ball farther down the court in the baffling world of childhood diseases that are emerging simultaneously with—or as a result of—the global vaccination mandates agenda.

 

 

References

http://www.politicolnews.com/new-2011-autism-studies-links-to-mmr-vaccines/

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382498/

 

 

Photo Credit: Pink Sherbert Photography

  • Misramadhu

    Some really interesting information here.  I havent read the whole article but will come back to go through it carefully.   Very good point to make that the children had  only vaccine strain measles rather than wild measles.  That is incredibly interesting.  Lots of questions hidden there-  Does wild measles ever result in bowel disease ?   One fact to be borne in mind through everything is that whatever may be seen by researchers today is likely to be different from what was seen during the days of large quantities of mercury being injected into children.  

  • Celia Ingrid Farber

    Excellent article—exactly what nobody else had put their finger on. It struck me very powerfull what you wrote–I hadn’t thought of it, exactly like that–the GMC HAD to deal with Walker-Smith, and is now ignoring the elephant in the room: What then, about Dr. Wakefield? The burden is on GMC to address this. How can the GMC be compelled to address it? Is the GMC’s present position that Dr. Wakefield remains struck from the registry because he seemed to be promoting a “link” between entero-colitis, MMR, and autism, alone, just he? So there was no medical misconduct in fact, or “fraud, and yet…..Wakefield dangles over the cliff still because…what? Because his insurance didn’t cover taking this to the highest court in the UK like Walker Smith’s did? Isn’t the GMC AUTOMATICALLY compelled to restore Wakefield to the registry based on this ruling? Catherine Frompovich, can you pursue this question? Does the GMC have a press department?

  • http://vactruth.com Jeffry John Aufderheide

    Great interview, Catherine!

    Parents are pretty adamant their children became autistic right after vaccination. The implications are enormous which explains why they want to destroy doctors and researchers like the ones mentioned here.

  • Spearce

    This is a great article, Catherine. The people making the comments have brought up good points, too. I hope the GMC will do the right thing, finally, and reinstate Dr. Wakefield without having to have another expensive legal battle.

  • Spearce

    In early 1988, my third son had a bad reaction to the 15-month MMR vaccine about a week and a half after being vaccinated. I had stopped breastfeeding him I believe right before he was given that vaccine, because I had just found out I was expecting another baby and thought I should “save the nutrients” for my unborn baby. The bad reaction that my son had to the vaccine was a fever and diarrhea. I mention the breastfeeding because I think he wouldn’t have been quite so sick if I had still been breastfeeding him.

    Then, when he had his second MMR vaccine at age five, about three weeks later, he had severe constipation. He suffered with constipation for many years after that. I think that happens to a lot of children after their MMR shots.

    Another thing I found out later was that, even though I didn’t have a record of it in own files for this son until he was 20 years old, I believe that at age two months, he could have been given the first dose of the Hib vaccine, which was mercury-containing, along with the oral polio vaccine and the DPT (which contained mercury).

    I think he (my third son) must have had the Hib vaccine because when he was almost 20 years old, I asked the public health nurse for his vaccine records and the paper they mailed to me showed that he had had the Hib vaccine twice, once at age two months and again when he was 27 and one-half months old. I had never entered a Hib vaccine in his shot record that I kept in my files, though, so I kept thinking that none of my sons had ever had the Hib vaccine, until I got my third son’s shot record. But I know the public health nurse’s office made at least one mistake, for sure. On that shot record that they mailed me, they indicated that he had been given a 6th dose of DPT vaccine when he was 18 and one-half YEARS old! We KNOW that isn’t true because I had learned the truth about vaccines when he was 12 years old and I had gotten religious exemptions for all vaccines, for him and his younger brother, in the summer of 1999, which was about six years before they put in his record that he had had that 6th DPT vaccine! So, maybe he never did get the Hib vaccines, either. I’ll never know for sure.

    Oh, another thing, he definitely got his 5th DPT shot, his second MMR shot, and his 4th oral polio vaccine all on the same day, when he was five and one-half years old! No wonder he had the constipation problem for many, many years after that.

  • curious

    you may already know this but just in case.
    40 UK children killed by MMR – and the true picture
    could be 10 times worse

    27 October
    2010Forty children have died after a routine vaccination such as MMR and
    2,100 more have suffered a serious reaction, UK health authorities have been
    forced to disclose this week – and these figures are just the tip of the
    iceberg.

    Two of the vaccinated children have been left with permanent brain damage, and
    1500 others have suffered neurological reactions, including 11 cases of brain
    inflammation and 13 cases of epilepsy and coma.  Overall, there have been
    more than 2,100 adverse reactions to a childhood vaccine in the UK in the last
    seven years.

    The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) was
    forced to reveal the figures following a request from a journalist under
    freedom of information legislation.

    The true picture is likely to be far worse.  The MHRA cases are only those
    that doctors have reported; if the doctor does not believe the vaccine has
    caused the reaction, he will not report it.  It is suspected that just 10
    per cent of all deaths and reactions from vaccines are ever reported; if so,
    this means that 400 children have died from a vaccine and 21,000 have suffered
    an adverse reaction in the UK alone.  The true situation will be far worse
    in countries such as the US where childhood vaccination is compulsory.

    Last month, the UK government was forced by a court to pay damages to a
    mother whose son was left with severe brain damage after an MMR vaccination. 
    Another 500 similar cases are currently going through the UK courts.
    These figures represent a major setback in the relationship between doctors and
    parents.  Most parents have accepted the reassurances of doctors and
    health authorities that the vaccines are safe, and that they are doing the best
    for their child and the community.
    Now, if things go wrong, they may be less inclined to believe the doctor’s
    denials that the vaccine is to blame.
    (Source: Sunday Times, October 24, 2010).

  • Davidstevens

    I developed a treatment in 1998 called CKT http://www.chirokinetictherapy.com
    which is particularly effective in removing allergy symptoms including anaphylaxis.

    In the main if not always I have found vaccinations to be the prime cause behind the allergy epidemic, as they alter the immune response causing a variety of allergic reactions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lowell-Hubbs/1285214003 Lowell Hubbs

    If the MMR shots were not causing autism, then as well biomedical treatment such as elimination of typically allergenic foods which help heal the gut and leaky gut as result of the MMR damage, would not be resulting in the profound improvements in autistic symptoms that are being seen in such increasing numbers of children. 

    When as well heavy metal detox and antiviral detox has as well been needed for some children to see these amazing improvements far beyond anything mainstream medical circles could ever do, then it directly implicates the vaccines in general. Parents need to research the options and as well beware of doctors using less than effective methods as well. Learn what works, and it may not be a once size fits all all situation. Things often as well can get worse before they get better, and a healing crisis as to detoxification can occur. It is simply how the body works. 

    I ran across something today, that will shake the ground under you, it literally did for me. This is what vaccine damage can do, and it is real. This is why the vaccine truth information is there. They want you to believe this is rare; is it?

    Ella Dís moving some more may 2011
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c1rRNhmTHs&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVqVqvAlWko&feature=related

    Ella Dis 2011
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZXHCgukrPg&feature=related

  • Laraine Abbey

    Brilliant article!  Absolutely brilliant.  You have outdone yourself with this article Catherine and surely have helped our shared hero, Andy Wakefield. You have clearly added to the mounting evidence, that the GMC and Brian Deer are guilty of a serious injustice.

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    Thank you.  I appreciate that compliment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Foster/1310502858 David Foster

    Some info excerpted from a “Letter to the Editor” sent to Newsweek back in 2000 following their article “Understanding Autism” which overlooked research by Wakefield and others:

    Dr. Wakefield’s findings were replicated by Dr. John O’Leary
    using at least 4 different techniques.[2] He located,
    quantified, and sequenced measles virus in the gut of 24 out
    of 25 (96%) autistic children, but in only 1 of 15 (6.6%) control
    children. He studied samples from the same children as did
    Dr. Wakefield, so this was a direct confirmation of Dr.
    Wakefield’s findings in a subset of these children.

    In addition, Dr. Wakefield’s and Dr. O’Leary’s findings
    were replicated again by Dr. H. Kawashima in Japan. He was
    able to identify the measles virus as being consistent with
    the vaccine strain of the measles virus in the MMR vaccine,
    thus directly implicating the MMR vaccine as the source of
    measles virus in the gut in these children.[3]

    In a correspondence to the Lancet (1998;352:234-5), researchers
    from Georgetown University Medical Center provide support for
    Dr. Wakefield’s hypothesis, that lesions in the gut may lead
    to CNS disturbances. They have studied such disorders as
    migraine, infantile colic, abdominal epilepsy, and attention
    deficit hyperactivity disorder, and have found associations
    between these disorders and disturbances in the gut. They
    propose “that similar mechanism(s) may be involved in the
    pathogenesis of the CNS dysfunction in the patients described
    by Wakefield and co-workers”.[4]

    Of particular importance in their correspondence is the
    following statement:

       “Although Wakefield’s study, which suggests a connection
       between the CNS and the gut in patients previously
       immunised with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine,
       did not prove an association, it has stimulated further
       discussion and opened unanticipated lines of investigation
       concerning the role of ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia
       as a predictive marker of gastrointestinal inflammation
       responsible for immunologically mediated tissue injury in
       other target organs sites.” [4]

    So you see, not only has an association between vaccines and
    autism been demonstrated, but a possible mechanism has been
    described.[5]  Another group, which has been studying autism
    for 11 years and has studied over 1200 autistic children, has
    reached the conclusion that “autism results from the action of
    peptides originating outside the body affecting neurotransmitters
    within the CNS”. These peptides are a result of incomplete
    digestion that could very well be caused by the kind of damage
    to the gut wall that Dr. Wakefield found in autistic children.
    It is believed that the attenuated measles virus in the MMR
    vaccine causes an “infection in the intestines and produces
    the hyperplasia [abnormal growth] and an increased
    permeability of the intestinal wall”.[6]

    Dr. Vijendra Singh provided convincing evidence that this
    condition is in fact an autoimmune insult. He found
    autoantibodies to myelin basic protein and neuron-axon
    filament protein in autistic children, suggesting that
    these childrens’ immune systems are attacking their
    brain tissue.[7] In further studies, he found an
    association between measles virus antibody and brain
    autoantibodies (the more measles virus antibody, the more
    brain autoantibodies present). [8] As he summarizes: “[this]
    supports the hypothesis that a virus-induced autoimmune
    response may play a role in autism”.

    [...]

    But later Dr. Ken Aitkin, an authority on autism and himself
    a member of the MRC, admitted that the Department of Health
    did not accurately put forward the conclusions reached by the
    MRC. “We did not conclude that autism was not linked to MMR.
    The view was that there was a problem which needed to be looked
    at very carefully and there was not enough evidence to rule
    out a link”. [13]  And later still, Dr. Aitkin actually agreed
    to act as an expert witness on behalf of parents suing 3 vaccine
    manufacturers for alleged damage done to their children by
    MMR vaccine!

    1. Testimony before Congressional Oversight Committee
       on Autism and Immunisation. Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield MB.,
       BS FRCS. April 6, 2000.

       http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.06.04/index.htm

    2. Testimony before Congressional Oversight Committee
       on Autism and Immunisation. Dr. John O’Leary MD, PhD,
       MSc, MRCPath. April 6, 2000.

       http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.06.04/index.htm

    3. Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral
       mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel
       disease and autism.
       Kawashima H, Mori T, Kashiwagi Y, Takekuma K, Hoshika A, Wakefield A

       Dig Dis Sci 2000 Apr;45(4):723-9

    4. Correspondence in Lancet, 1998; 352: 234-5.
       Aderbal Sabra, Joseph A Bellanti, Angel R Colsn,
       International Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of
       Immunology, and Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown
       University Medical Center, Washington, DC

    5. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis,
       and pervasive developmental disorder in children.
       Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al.
       Lancet 1998; 351: 637-41.

    6. Autism: a gut feeling.
       Paul Shattock, OBE, Director of Autism Research Unit,
       University of Sunderland.
       What Doctors Don’t Tell You, February 1999, Volume 9,
       No 11, pg 12.

    7. Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with
       autistic behavior. Singh, V.K.,
       Journal of Neuroimmunology. 66,143-145, 1996.

    8. Serological Association of Measles Virus and Human
       Herpesvirus-6 with Brain Autoantibodies in Autism.
       Vijendra K. Singh, Sheren X. Lin, and Victor C. Yang.
       Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology, Vol. 89, No. 1,
       October, pp. 105-108, 1998.

    [...]

    13. Viewpoint: MMR: Defector in the ranks, Lynne McTaggart.
       What Doctors Don’t Tell You, November 1999, Volume 10,
       No 7, pg 5.
     

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    This just came Mar. 12, 2012 from OneClick at

    http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=7008#newspost

    “Meanwhile, VG has revealed eight Norwegian infants of eight to 12
    weeks underwent clinical trials of Pandemrix to discover whether it was safe to
    give the vaccination to someone that age. They are believed to be the youngest
    in the world to have been tested.

    “Makers GlaxoSmithKline followed the infants over a course of 11
    months afterwards. Whilst representatives alleged there were no serious side
    effects, the vaccine is no longer recommended for anyone under the age of 20.”

    In view of the ethics and legal problems Dr. Wakefield
    encountered with his suggested recommendations regarding measles and gut
    involvement, what should be done to the researchers who pulled off the clinical
    trials on infants aged 8 to 12 weeks, as discussed above. 
    Are your infants and toddlers safe in a hospital or anywhere, where doctors and nurses hang out during these days of the ‘Vaccine Inquisition’?  What about school children?  Did you read Christina England’s VacTruth article about the 14 year old girl vaccinated by a SCHOOL nurse with 4 vaccines in one day AGAINST her mother’s expressed wishes?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lowell-Hubbs/1285214003 Lowell Hubbs

    Thank you ..David! And lets also ask why if the CDC is actually a purveyor of real science, that they have not recognized those studies which have been there all along. They yet lie to the parents and the public, that no such studies have ever been done that found nor replicated the finding of the same and even more results. Yet they want us to trust the CDC, and FDA for all and every question to be answered? Really?

    Research References, supporting and replicating Dr. Andrew Wakefields work and 1998 Lancet study
    http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    David Foster,
    Thank YOU so very much for enhancing my article with the documentation you have posted. The science is out there!  I truly appreciate when my readers share information they have researched, as I believe that’s the only way the facts about vaccine damage to the CNS, DNA, plus the precipitation of chronic diseases at very early ages in the young will be brought to light and exposed to parents and those who are beginning to question the supposed safety of vaccines.

    The research, documentation, and data are accumulating exponentially, and yet the U.S. CDC and FDA still are in the dark ages back with Jenner about vaccines and vaccinations. 

    Personally, I think it’s a shame that we have such lame federal and public health agencies, and an even more lame U.S. Congress whose members are influenced by Big Pharma’s thousand or more lobbyists who prowl Capitol Hill, DC, influencing Congress with their greenbacks–but that’s my opinion.

    Please keep sharing your knowledge, and thank you again.

  • Frankemkey

    The truth is on the way !!!

  • http://twitter.com/lizditz Liz Ditz

    As I often do, I have made a roundup of posts about both the UK high court’s ruling on Professor Walker-Smith and Brian Deer’s anti-SLAPP suit.  I’ve included this post in the list at my blog, I Speak of Dreams “UK High Court Quashed Rulings Against John Walker-Smith; Means NOTHING about Andrew Wakefield”  

    http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2012/03/walker-smith-ruling-means-nothing-about-wakefield.html

    I’ll continue to update the latter post daily.

  • Argus

    “. . . Gmc Recants; Will Dr. Andrew Wakefield Be Next?”

    What a silly question in the headline to this article! Anyone that has looked at the GMC proceedings regarding Wakefield and Walker-Smith along with the court ruling on Walker-Smith’s appeal can see that isn’t even a possibility.  Catherine, care to explain how that might even happen?

    The unethical actions the GMC found proved against Walker-Smith were completely separate and different from the unprofessional conduct they found Wakefield to have been guilty of. Reversing the findings against Walker-Smith changes nothing in Wakefield’s fitness to practice case.

    But more than that, Walker-Smith won his appeal by persuading the judge that he had been duped by Andy – didn’t know the children that received inappropriate invasive medical tests were the subject of research and not being treated for illness for which the tests would be indicated.  How does that help?

    One more thing about Wakefield – he appends his name with the letters “FRCS” (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons”.  Yet he is not a member of this group.*  Can someone that lies about something like this be telling the truth about other things?

    Some “hero”.

    *this is easy to check – FRCS has a website where you can look up member’s names.

  • Argus

    “. . . Gmc Recants; Will Dr. Andrew Wakefield Be Next?”

    What a silly question in the headline to this article! Anyone that has looked at the GMC proceedings regarding Wakefield and Walker-Smith along with the court ruling on Walker-Smith’s appeal can see that isn’t even a possibility.  Catherine, care to explain how that might even happen?

    The unethical actions the GMC found proved against Walker-Smith were completely separate and different from the unprofessional conduct they found Wakefield to have been guilty of. Reversing the findings against Walker-Smith changes nothing in Wakefield’s fitness to practice case.

    But more than that, Walker-Smith won his appeal by persuading the judge that he had been duped by Andy – didn’t know the children that received inappropriate invasive medical tests were the subject of research and not being treated for illness for which the tests would be indicated.  How does that help?

    One more thing about Wakefield – he appends his name with the letters “FRCS” (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons”.  Yet he is not a member of this group.*  Can someone that lies about something like this be telling the truth about other things?

    Some “hero”.

    *this is easy to check – FRCS has a website where you can look up member’s names.

  • Argus

    Of course, the biggest reason the GMC decision against Andy won’t ever be reversed . . . HE DID NOT FOLLOW THROUGH IN FILING AN APPEAL.

    Perhaps because he realized this would mean going to court, where he would have to give testimony under oath, which carried the risk of perjury for him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lowell-Hubbs/1285214003 Lowell Hubbs

    I want YOU Argus, to back up every claim you just made, with proof! For every claim you made, please excerpt the proof from the legal document you say you took it from. I am not finding what you claim to. In fact I think you just make up everything as you go.  

    PROFESSOR JOHN WALKER-SMITHAppellant- and -GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCILRespondenthttp://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/english-court-exonerates-mmrautism-doctor-uk-general-medical-given-sound-thrashing/Here below was what was originally charged and accused of Professor John Walker- Smith, HOW, is that any different than what Wakelfield is accused of in regard to the actual treatment of the said children in the said Lancet study? The only other issue is conflict of interest in regard to Wakefields representation in a said lawsuit seeking compensation for such children affected. Where Argus, do you see in that proceeding Professor Smith, hand it all off to Wakefield, as to the claim of not knowing or being aware of what was going on as to the diagnostic testing given to and provided to those children; that by professor Smith? Why as well has not the GMC’s clear conflict of interest as to and regarding the pharmaceutical companies, Merck and GSK, received the same and any equal examination and reprimand?    This case is being considered by a Fitness to Practise Panel applying the General Medical Council’s Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988Date: 24 May 2010 Professor John Angus WALKER-SMITHDetermination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanction:http://www.gmc-uk.org/Professor_Walker_Smith_SPM.pdf_32595970.pdfThe Appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith Against the United Kingdom General Medical Council (Wakefield Case)http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/02/the-appeal-of-prof-john-walker-smith-against-the-united-kingdom-general-medical-council-wakefield-ca.htmlHow the GMC framed Doctors Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murchhttp://www.cryshame.co.uk//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=125&Itemid=135

    Interview With Andrew Wakefield at The Health Freedom Expo – The Robert Scott Bell Show
    Uploaded 3/6/2012
    http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=94CF5BC3E4557C489FEBFB9875E26FD8 

    Doctor from MMR controversy wins High Court appeal – next up, Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself
    http://www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.htmlDr. Andrew Wakefield takes legal action against Brian Deer, BMJ and Godlee
    http://www.naturalnews.com/034974_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_lawsuit.html

    Dr Andrew Wakefield answers critics in video interview, says BMJ has been hijacked by false journalism
    http://www.naturalnews.com/031211_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ.html

    Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Co-Author on Controversial Lancet “MMR Paper” Exonerated of All Charges of Professional Misconduct

    Prof. John Walker-Smith won his appeal today against the GMC, the UK’s medical regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in the 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician in the UK.

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9262180.htm

    Doctor struck off in MMR jab row wins fight to clear his name: High Court judge overturns the GMC’s ruling

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111481/Doctor-struck-MMR-controversy-clears-GMC-dismissal-ruled-High-Court.html 

    Here is some more real science for you! What about all those studies the CDC says do not exist? 
    http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

    I ask you as well Argus, how much supporting science and replicating science finding the same thing and outcome would and should be enough for you or anyone else? How about the CDC itself; why do they continue to deny the existence of these studies? Why as well do they continue to deny the existence of so many children that have been greatly helped by dietary restrictions that heal the MMR damaged gut? In fact many children have been helped to the point that no autism diagnosis is any longer evident. That is and all of this is a pretty big elephant in the room, you are entirely ignoring, Argus! 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lowell-Hubbs/1285214003 Lowell Hubbs

    As well Argus, In regard to also your statement, below:[Of course, the biggest reason the GMC decision against Andy won't ever be reversed . . . HE DID NOT FOLLOW THROUGH IN FILING AN APPEAL.Perhaps because he realized this would mean going to court, where he would have to give testimony under oath, which carried the risk of perjury for him.]Really, Argus? Wow, what is the reason that you have so much fear and to lose if the truth as to the MMR vaccine is acknowledged and known? Perhaps there is another explanation you overlooked, excerpted below, from the article below:The Canary Party has learned in our interviews with the physicians, that while John Walker-Smith received funding to appeal the GMC decision from his insurance carrier, his co-author Andrew Wakefield did not — and was therefore unable to mount an appeal in the high court. This year, however, Dr. Wakefield, who now conducts his research in the US, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal for falsely accusing him of “fraud.” The suit, case number D-1-GN-12-000003, is currently underway in District Court in Travis County, Texas, where Wakefield now lives. The ruling today bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s suit against Deer, on whose reporting the entire GMC hearing was based.Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Co-Author on Controversial Lancet
    “MMR Paper” Exonerated of All Charges of Professional Misconduct

     

    Prof. John Walker-Smith won his appeal today against the
    GMC, the UK’s medical regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew
    Wakefield for their roles in the 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions
    about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been
    returned to the status of a fully licensed physician in the UK.

     

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9262180.htm

  • Catherine J Frompovich

    Lowell, Thank you for setting the record straight with Argus.

  • Argus

    Oh, yes, Lowell really set things straight.  Let’s take this point by point.
    “. . .while John Walker-Smith received funding to appeal the GMC decision from his insurance carrier, his co-author Andrew Wakefield did not”
    So the weak defense he mounted during the GMC hearing convinced his insurance carrier not to throw good money after bad by funding an appeal?  If he couldn’t convince them the charges were unproven, how would he convince a judge?  More to the point, this path is closed to him now, so I ask again – what is the procedure or process that is going to reverse the GMC’s decision and restore his license?
    “Dr. Wakefield, who now conducts his research in the US”
    Hahahaha – you’re kidding, right? What research? What has he published (in a peer-reviewed journal) showing results?
    “The ruling today bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s suit against Deer, on whose reporting the entire GMC hearing was based.”
    An outright lie.  While Brian Deer’s reporting brought the situation to the GMC’s attention – this group  did its own investigation and uncovered the evidence to prove the charges using their own powers to examine medical records and interview witnesses.
    And Lowell, here’s the proof you have requested from me:
    http://www.skeptic.com/doubtful-news/wakefield-tries-to-sue-bmj-and-deer-gets-slapped/
    I like this quote the best:
    “Because Dr. Wakefield cannot satisfy his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute, his claims must be dismissed and he must be ordered to pay Defendants’ their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in defending this action [emphasis added]. Moreover, given Dr. Wakefield’s long history of frivolous libel litigation, including against Deer in the United Kingdom, the Court should award additional sanctions to deter Dr. Wakefield from attempting to use the legal system to harass and intimidate journalists covering this matter of paramount public concern.”

  • Argus

    Oh, yes, Lowell really set things straight.  Let’s take this point by point.
    “. . .while John Walker-Smith received funding to appeal the GMC decision from his insurance carrier, his co-author Andrew Wakefield did not”
    So the weak defense he mounted during the GMC hearing convinced his insurance carrier not to throw good money after bad by funding an appeal?  If he couldn’t convince them the charges were unproven, how would he convince a judge?  More to the point, this path is closed to him now, so I ask again – what is the procedure or process that is going to reverse the GMC’s decision and restore his license?
    “Dr. Wakefield, who now conducts his research in the US”
    Hahahaha – you’re kidding, right? What research? What has he published (in a peer-reviewed journal) showing results?
    “The ruling today bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s suit against Deer, on whose reporting the entire GMC hearing was based.”
    An outright lie.  While Brian Deer’s reporting brought the situation to the GMC’s attention – this group  did its own investigation and uncovered the evidence to prove the charges using their own powers to examine medical records and interview witnesses.
    And Lowell, here’s the proof you have requested from me:
    http://www.skeptic.com/doubtful-news/wakefield-tries-to-sue-bmj-and-deer-gets-slapped/
    I like this quote the best:
    “Because Dr. Wakefield cannot satisfy his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute, his claims must be dismissed and he must be ordered to pay Defendants’ their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in defending this action [emphasis added]. Moreover, given Dr. Wakefield’s long history of frivolous libel litigation, including against Deer in the United Kingdom, the Court should award additional sanctions to deter Dr. Wakefield from attempting to use the legal system to harass and intimidate journalists covering this matter of paramount public concern.”

  • Laraine Abbey

    According to Judith Mitchell (Mrs)|Head of Membership & Events Department|
    The Royal College of Surgeons of England he passed the RCSs test to be a Fellow and wasa member for ten years until 1996 after which time he chose not to renew his membership.

  • Argus

    Hasn’t been a member since 1996!!! And yet, to this day he claims he is so.
    Doesn’t do much for his credibility, does it?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lowell-Hubbs/1285214003 Lowell Hubbs

    What I asked you for Argus, was for you to excerpt your said and claimed to information on John Walker-Smith, from the hearing document. You evaded my question.
     
    And Argus, how do you call this propaganda filled piece, proof of anything as to Wakefield-at all??? How is that? All it is-is the same old, same old, regurgitation of the same promotional of Brian Deer’s  false information. The information is even interconnected to second king of misinformation, Orac and his promoting minions.
     
    http://www.skeptic.com/doubtful-news/wakefield-tries-to-sue-bmj-and-deer-gets-slapped/
     
    So Argus, what the GMC is hoping for is to get the said Texas court proceeding dismissed without being heard; and without any discovery process at all, correct? What are they so scared of? The best thing they could do is let the proceeding happen and kick his butt, right? Getting exonerated would really be the nails in the coffin, right? No, but they don’t want that? And why is that?
     
    Anti-SLAPP Law in Texas
     
    Note: This page covers information specific to Texas. For general information concerning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), see the overview section of this guide.
     
    Excerpted:
     
    The Texas Citizens Participation Act, H.B. No. 2973, allows you to counter a SLAPP suit against you based on your statements in exercise of your right of free speech, petition, or association. The statute provides for a special motion to dismiss, and allows (with some exceptions) for a stay of discovery proceedings while your motion is being considered. If your motion to dismiss is successful, the court will award you attorneys’ fees, court costs, and possibly punitive damages against the party that filed the lawsuit.
     
    One of the benefits of the anti-SLAPP statute is that it enables you to get the SLAPP suit dismissed quickly. After receiving your motion to dismiss, the court must hold a hearing on your motion within thirty days, unless the court’s docket is overbooked. Once your motion to dismiss is filed, discovery proceedings on the claim will be stayed, or postponed, until the court disposes of the motion – that is, the plaintiff generally may not ask you to produce documents, sit for a deposition, or answer formal written questions. However, the court may allow some limited discovery as long as it is relevant to the motion to dismiss.
     
    Texas courts follow a two-step process when deciding a motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP law. First, you (as the party looking to invoke the anti-SLAPP statute) must show “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the plaintiff’s claim is “based on, relates to, or is in response to” your exercise of the speech/petition/association rights described above. Once you successfully show that your online writing involves the exercise of those rights, the burden shifts to the plaintiff for step two. The plaintiff must establish “by clear and specific evidence” a prima facie case for each part of his or her original claim; if the plaintiff fails to show this, the court will dismiss the claim.
     
    Whoever loses the motion to strike (either you or the plaintiff) has the right to an immediate appeal.

    —————— 
     
    And as to your statement here below; where is your proof of that said situation, to be fact??? Is it an assumption, or actually verifiable fact? It doesn’t seem as well that you have a very reliable source. It would seem to me that any insurance carrier would not have a choice but to allow an appeal, based on paid or provided coverage of the right to an appeal; that provided that Wakefield had such insurance coverage. That would make no sense as to typically how insurance works.
     
    [“. . .while John Walker-Smith received funding to appeal the GMC decision from his insurance carrier, his co-author Andrew Wakefield did not”. So the weak defense he mounted during the GMC hearing convinced his insurance carrier not to throw good money after bad by funding an appeal?  If he couldn’t convince them the charges were unproven, how would he convince a judge?  More to the point, this path is closed to him now, so I ask again – what is the procedure or process that is going to reverse the GMC’s decision and restore his license?]
     
    Quoting you again Argus:
     
    [I like this quote the best:
    “Because Dr. Wakefield cannot satisfy his burden under the anti-SLAPP statute, his claims must be dismissed and he must be ordered to pay Defendants’ their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in defending this action [emphasis added].
     
    And without the case even seeing one single second of the hearing process, this claim has been determined as fact and a done deal, right? No chance of it even being heard. That’s desperate, Argus; and your sources are desperate as well, and fearful of the possible ramifications of Wakefield’s public exoneration, in any form.  You can read the case document as it was filed in that court, and clearly see that there are valid reasons and cause for that case to be heard in that court.
     
    What are you connected to Argus, that you are so angry, upset, and fearful of the truth ever coming out?
     
    By the way, did you ever figure out that indeed the findings and result of Wakefields study have been replicated and found the same findings in other studies, but on a larger scale? If you actually read this article you would know that, and you said earlier that had never been done.
     
    http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

    Brian Deer’s Charges Against Wakefield Are False: Documents Analyzed by Outside Expert

    http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2011-11-10/brian-deers-charges-against-wakefield-are-false-documents-analyzed-by-outside-expert/

    Fact:  The Texas Jury Is Going To Hate Brian Deer…

    And that would spell THE END for the British Medical Journal…

    http://www.bolenreport.com/Andrew%20Wakefield/briandeer3.htm

    Excerpted from the above article:

    It is a simple fact that Brian Deer, under pressure, does not do well…

    I am going to show you a video on Youtube, taken of Brian Deer being nicely confronted by the parents of the twelve children mentioned in the Wakefield Lancet study.  It is a real eye opener.  It demonstrates the REAL Brian Deer clearly and concisely.

    Oh my, is it revealing.  Very revealing.

    Like both Stephen Barrett (quackwatch) and Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD (bobbie baratz – the former president of the National Council Against Health Fraud) Brian Deer is a person so arrogant, so self-deluded, that he, like the other two, cannot personally deal with being publicly challenged over his questionable claims. 

    Neither Stephen Barrett, nor Robert Baratz survive well in the courtroom, nor in public debate – juries, and judges dislike them immensely once they are forced out of their comfort positions, and questioned about their real knowledge and veracity.  Brian Deer is, obviously, the same. 

    Push a megalomaniac and they react – and not well.  The video shows that graphically.

    In fact, it is so revealing I can see why Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) are going all out to try and get a Dismissal in the Texas Wakefield v Deer, et al, case, long before this case ever gets to trial.

    Why?  Because Brian Deer is the very best witness Andy Wakefield could bring for the Plaintiff.  I am not exaggerating one bit.  Wait until you see the video. This is the REAL Brian Deer.  This is the Brian Deer that a jury of twelve people in Travis County, Texas (Austin – the Texas State Capital) is going to see.  This is the Brian Deer the Texas jury is going to hate. 

    Deer, in the beginning of the video is telling the parents of the Lancet 12 that none of their children had bowel disease, over and over and over again, as you can see – treating those parents as though they were stupid.  As we know, of course, all of them DID have bowel disease.

    Take a look at this Argus! That’s the man you are supporting! Worthless.

    Brian Deer Outside The GMC

    http://youtu.be/2ACosZDJdno

  • Laraine Abbey

    This, I think, is an even better documentary for showing how bizarre are Brian Deer’s journalism and comments.  Particularly, note that he keeps denying bowel disease, despite the parents telling him that their autistic children have diarrhea and constipation.  Even a colostomy bag on an infant fails to get Deer to capitulate that they have bowel disease.

    Argus is either a pharmaceutical or medical shill, or at the least has his head up his––you know where.

    In either event, Lowell, they are going down.  Now that parents are aware of possible vaccine damage, they will no longer accept the old line of ‘coincidence’, ‘not related’, ‘couldn’t be related’, etc.  The parents will continue bringing forth their stories with each damaged child and “the truth shall set us free”.

  • Laraine Abbey

    This, I think, is an even better documentary for showing how bizarre are Brian Deer’s journalism and comments.  Particularly, note that he keeps denying bowel disease, despite the parents telling him that their autistic children have diarrhea and constipation.  Even a colostomy bag on an infant fails to get Deer to capitulate that they have bowel disease.

    Argus is either a pharmaceutical or medical shill, or at the least has his head up his––you know where.

    In either event, Lowell, they are going down.  Now that parents are aware of possible vaccine damage, they will no longer accept the old line of ‘coincidence’, ‘not related’, ‘couldn’t be related’, etc.  The parents will continue bringing forth their stories with each damaged child and “the truth shall set us free”.

  • Laraine Abbey

     Correction, I forgot to put the better documentary in last post.

    It is:  http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/selective-hearing-brian-deer-and-the-gmc/

  • Johnfryer

    John Walker Smith found guilty by the GMC and now found INNOCENT.

    The GMC are PROVABLY not INFALLIBLE.

    But the INORDINATE length and refusal to listen to science and the INSISTENCE to listen to the world expert on GUT ILLNESS and SALACIOUS journalism made this a very DEAR error for the GMC who have so far corrected HALF of their ERROR.

    The study was just a small study and even if it were 100 per cent INCORRECT it does not justify this kind of length, depth and detail of enquiry.

    In the event it has been REPLICATED both before and after and anyone not aware that most multi vaccines with measles have proved dangerous is ignoring FACT.

    We still have no answer to whether mixing several live viruses is at all safe.

    But the current alarming and rising rate of autism is just another proof modern medical science would be better to restart at ZERO knowledge than insist on the current less than ZERO knowledge.

    High autism: What high autism?

    Sudden infant death: What sudden infant death?

    Shaken Baby syndrome after vaccines: Hanf EM HIGH!

    SEARCH AND DESTROY: the Big HARMAs answer to CRITICISM within the medical enmity.

  • healthybaby

    Someone should update Wikipedias pages about Wakefield

  • Argus

    If you knew anything you wouldn’t ask such ridiculous questions.
    Have you even read the transcripts of the GMC proceedings?
    It is not hard to find them on-line.

  • Argus

    Catherine, isn’t it time for another interview and update from Wakefield? He’s had months now to present his evidence and advance the case to trial. What’s the reason for the delay in obtaining justice?

  • Argus

    Catherine, isn’t it time for another interview and update from Wakefield? He’s had months now to present his evidence and advance the case to trial. What’s the reason for the delay in obtaining justice?

  • Rajugentleman301

    nice post
    cable mx

  • Nemesis

     How much are they paying you?

  • courageandhope

    The Wikipedia pages are complete defamation, but Wikipedia takes the position otherwise. Best to simply warn people not to trust Wikipedia as a source for anything in my opinion. I have caught Wikipedia in too many errors, and it is not always easy to get them to change things, when people are invested in perpetuating untruths.

  • courageandhope

    Dr. Wakefield’s jurisdictional appeal of his defamation and slander case against Brian Deer, the British Medical Journal, and Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, was heard May 22, 2013 in the Texas Third Court of Appeal. It may take a month to six months for that court to render its decision.