BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR DOCTOR
 

http://www.box.net/shared/zks6g0ekub


[2010 April pdf] BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR
DOCTOR "It is extraordinary that a journal like the BMJ should have
reduced itself to this sort of tabloid medicine from an entirely unqualified
and biased source. The egregious errors in Deer's report should cause
embarrassment to the BMJ's editors. In a relentless and misguided effort to
distract attention from vaccine safety issues, agenda-driven journalism has
once again made a mockery of medicine."

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR DOCTOR
 

john wrote:
http://www.box.net/shared/zks6g0ekub


[2010 April pdf] BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR
DOCTOR "It is extraordinary that a journal like the BMJ should have
reduced itself to this sort of tabloid medicine from an entirely unqualified
and biased source. The egregious errors in Deer's report should cause
embarrassment to the BMJ's editors. In a relentless and misguided effort to
distract attention from vaccine safety issues, agenda-driven journalism has
once again made a mockery of medicine."

Wakefield lost his license, in part because of inappropriate tests done
on kids and lying about conflicts of interest.

And, now you believe Wakefield the liar?

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR DOCTOR
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:24:16 +0100, "john" wrote:


BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR
DOCTOR

Claims the "Autism File" magazine whose "scientific advisors" include
Andrew Wakefield and his publicist "Dotty Stotty" aka Carol Stott.

The BMJ article can be read at :-

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/apr15_2/c1127

a related editorial is at
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/apr15_2/c1807
and offers a somewhat different view of the claims made in the Autism
File article.

More lies from Brian Deer
 

That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer

More lies from Brian Deer
 

In message , john wrote:

That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer

How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions -+

More lies from Brian Deer
 

"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message
...
In message , john wrote:

That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer

How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.



No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now the
GMC farrago is over

More lies from Brian Deer
 

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:36:46 +0100, "john" wrote:



No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now the
GMC farrago is over

He has already tried it once without success, what makes you think he
will do better if he tries again?

More lies from Brian Deer
 

In message , john wrote:
"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message
...
In message , john wrote:

That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer

How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.


No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now the
GMC farrago is over

Nice historical revisionism there, Scudamore. The GMC proceedings
were *after* Wakefield paid Deer to settle the suit that Wakefield
filed, plus Deer's legal bills.

However, since you're so sure that Wakefield will refile that claim
I'm willing to make this interesting. How about five hundred pounds
on whether he refiles in two years or less? You're pretty sure of
yourself, so it should be easy money.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions -+

More lies from Brian Deer
 

"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message
...
In message , john wrote:
"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message
...
In message , john wrote:

That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer

How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.


No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now
the
GMC farrago is over

Nice historical revisionism there, Scudamore. The GMC proceedings
were *after* Wakefield paid Deer to settle the suit that Wakefield
filed, plus Deer's legal bills.

However, since you're so sure that Wakefield will refile that claim
I'm willing to make this interesting. How about five hundred pounds
on whether he refiles in two years or less? You're pretty sure of
yourself, so it should be easy money.


Wakefield dropped that claim as Deer wanted all his documents that related
to the gmc case and he didn't want to let him have them for obvious reasons.

More lies from Brian Deer
 

In message , john wrote:


"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message
...
In message , john wrote:
"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message
...
In message , john wrote:

That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer

How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.


No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now
the
GMC farrago is over

Nice historical revisionism there, Scudamore. The GMC proceedings
were *after* Wakefield paid Deer to settle the suit that Wakefield
filed, plus Deer's legal bills.

However, since you're so sure that Wakefield will refile that claim
I'm willing to make this interesting. How about five hundred pounds
on whether he refiles in two years or less? You're pretty sure of
yourself, so it should be easy money.


Wakefield dropped that claim as Deer wanted all his documents that related
to the gmc case and he didn't want to let him have them for obvious reasons.

Lawyer: "Your Honor, I object!"
Judge: "Why?"
Lawyer: "Because it's devastating to my case!"

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions -+