On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:36:26 +0100, "john" wrote:


Question 7: Dr Andrew Wakefield - Drawn Out Trial
Why did it take so long for the charges to be brought against you, Murch and
Walker-Smith? I think that is really a question for the prosecuting council
I don't know,

I don't suppose for one moment it had anything to do with Wakefields
propensity for hiring lawyers and employing delaying tactics?

and I suspect it may go to the quality of the charges
themselves, the reliability of the charges. How do you construe a charge
out of 'you caused this child to have a lumbar puncture'? What does that
mean?

It was all clearly explained in the judgment. Has he not read it?

I know that may sound very
pompous to say that but actually orthodox medicine is on trial here.

It sounds extraordinarily pompous given that he was found guilty of
dishonesty. It wasn't his poor research which was investigated but
his arrogant, misleading and dishonest behaviour.

Question 11 Dr Andrew Wakefield - The Frighteners
How do you feel about the lack of support shown by fellow doctors generally?
(inaudible, letters?) from GPs and psychiatrists, and others saying this is
what happened to this child, and we are right behind with you. Where are
you? I don't see you, but that is OK, that's OK, I don't feel any antipathy
towards them. It is just human nature. Maybe they are not sufficiently
persuaded that they are ready to come all the way out.

Isn't a bit more likely that in view of his dishonesty, bad science,
and use of the law to suppress information and critics that he has no
supporters?