On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:18:56 -0000, "john" wrote:
And so it came to be
Anyone interested in facts rather than the ramblings of a failed hack
can find the GMC verdict at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/F...lete-Corrected
Dr Wakefield and colleagues had applied to the research ethics committee at
the Royal Free Hospital to carry out research programme 172/96, this
programme was to study children who had inflammatory bowel disease.
Not quite, 172/96 covered research funded by the Legal Aid Board via
the solicitors Wakefield was working for. (Page 10/11 of the
findings).
The defence case had been straightforward and unlike the prosecution case,
had seemed more or less unarguable. Around 1994, various parents whose
children suffered from terrible bowel problems, and regressive autism,
sometimes immediately after their MMR vaccination, began to approach the
Royal Free Hospital, wishing the country's gastrointestinal experts to
examine them and give a diagnostic opinion.
You forgot the bit about them arriving via the solicitors Wakefield
was working for.
Dr Wakefield's
involvement in these cases had deepened when it began to become evident that
many of the children were suffering from a new, or novel bowel illness. Dr
Wakefield was, after all, the head of the Experimental Gastrointestinal Unit
at the Royal Free Hospital.
and paid specialist for the claimants solicitor.
In 1997, before any formal research trials were begun or carried out, Dr
Wakefield with a number of other colleagues, began to assemble 'a case
review paper', which involved recording the cases of 12 children who had
arrived at the Royal Free consecutively in the preceding few years.
"Consecutively"? Almost all of these children [through their parents]
were actually clients and contacts of a UK solicitor, Richard Barr. In
February and June 1996, Barr wrote to numerous clients and contacts,
mainly people who'd got in touch following publicity and advised them
that those whose children had any of a list of possible symptoms of
Crohn's disease [such as bouts of diaorrhea, gut pain or even mouth
ulcers] should contact him for possible referral to Wakefield.
" the Panel is satisfied that these referrals did not constitute
routine referrals to the gastroenterology department. "
(Findings P45/46)
"c. The description of the referral process in the Lancet paper was
therefore,
i. irresponsible,
Found proved
ii. misleading,
Found proved
iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information in the
paper was accurate;
Found proved
In reaching its decision, the Panel concluded that your description
of the referral process as “routine”, when it was not, was
irresponsible and misleading and contrary to your duty as a senior
author. "
‘35. a. In a letter to the Lancet volume 351 dated 2 May 1998, in
response to the suggestion of previous correspondents that there was
biased selection of patients in the Lancet article, you stated that
the children had all been referred through the normal channels (e.g.
from general practitioner, child psychiatrist or community
paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms,
Admitted and found proved
b. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 32.a., 34.a. and 34.b.
this statement was,
i. dishonest,
Found proved.
ii. irresponsible,
Found proved
iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information
provided by you was accurate;
Found proved "
No money was used or received from
outside the National Health Service, for either the clinically necessary
evaluation of the children or for the case review study.
Not quite :-
"f. On 6 June 1996 Mr Barr submitted copies of the Costing
Proposal and the Legal Aid Board Protocol to the Legal Aid Board,
Found proved
g. On 22 August 1996 the Legal Aid Board agreed to provide a
maximum cost of £55,000 to fund the items in the Costing Proposal as
proposed by you and as set out at paragraph 3.d.,
(amended) Found proved
h. The Legal Aid Board provided funding in two installments of
£25,000, in late 1996 and in 1999 respectively, which was paid into an
account which was held by the Special Trustees of the
Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust for the purposes of your research
generally,
Admitted and found proved
i. The money provided by the Legal Aid Board was not needed for
the items listed at paragraphs 3.d.i. and ii. above, which were funded
by the NHS;
Admitted and found proved "
In 1998, Dr Wakefield along with eleven other authors published 'a case
review' paper in the Lancet. The paper charted the details of 12 children
who had sequentially arrived at the Royal Free Hospital in search of
clinical treatment for serious bowel conditions.
Nope, it charted the details of a group of children sent by a
solicitor Wakefield worked for.
In 2003,
legal aid was withdrawn from the claim being prepared by parents against
three vaccine manufacturers.
Because the _claimants_ received the report by Dr Bustin on the
failures in Unigenetics upon which they relied. It was the
_claimants_ lawyers who told the court they no longer had a
sustainable case.
"The actions proceeded and expert evidence was exchanged. At this
stage, three leading counsel for the claimants in the group action
produced a lengthy advice. They advised that, as the evidence stood,
there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that the MMR vaccine
could cause ASD"
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/155.html