A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 10th 09, 01:56 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
JOHN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 583
Default "Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"

"Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"





Dear Friends


We really need your help and support in signing the petition linked below -
ignore the donation request it is not relevant to our campaign. Dr. Andrew
Wakefield has worked so hard to maintain his work and to help autistic
children and he (and his family) have paid the high price of leaving our
home country in order that this can continue. Now, 5 years on with a 2 year
disciplinary enquiry still ongoing the smear has started again and it is
clearly intended to destroy his reputation world-wide. The evidence
presented to the UK enquiry by Andy and his two colleagues went so well that
it would seem that this is a last ditch attempt and one which must be
thwarted.



Please sign the petition with everyone in the family also signing and
forward it to as many people as you possibly urgently.

Thanks so much.



www.ipetitions.com/petition/wakefield





(Ignore the second screen where it asks you to pay - you can just log out).



Isabella Thomas



The petition



Five years after launching a campaign to discredit the work of Dr Andrew
Wakefield, freelance journalist Brian Deer and the Sunday Times in the UK
made additional allegations on Sunday 8th February 2009. Three pages of
articles while offering no new evidence accused Dr Wakefield of having
'fixed' research data. These allegations have no basis in fact and have been
fully addressed during Dr Wakefield's response to the GMC prosecution, now
well into its second year.



This petition will bring attention to the scientific evidence in support of
Dr Wakefield's position and demand a formal enquiry into the activities of
Brian Deer, the Sunday Times and their connection and co-operation with the
vaccine industry.



Throughout the 1990's Dr Andrew Wakefield, a research scientist at the Royal
Free Hospital and his colleagues, were contacted by parents of a large
number of children suffering from a form of inflammatory bowel disease with
a regressive developmental disorder. Many of the parents who brought these
children to the hospital reported that their children had become seriously
ill after receiving the MMR vaccination.



In February 1998, a press briefing was organized by the Dean of the medical
school at the Royal Free Hospital to coincide with the publication of a
peer-reviewed case series in the The Lancet. At the press briefing, Dr
Wakefield suggested the precautionary alternative that there could be a
return to single vaccines whilst concerns regarding MMR were investigated.
This signalled the beginning of an orchestrated and oppressive campaign to
discredit Dr Wakefield.



In 2004, Brian Deer lodged a complaint against Dr Wakefield, with the
General Medical Council (GMC) of the UK. Since that time Deer has been
supported in his drive to discredit Dr Wakefield by influential lobbyists
and lobby groups supported by major pharmaceutical companies. No parent has
ever complained to the GMC about Dr Wakefield, or the other doctors whose
cases are only now being heard.



The GMC took more than three years to frame their charges against Dr
Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, none of which
questioned the underlying scientific and medical findings in the original
paper.



The 'trial' of these three doctors - all co-authors of The Lancet paper -
began in July 2007 and although this hearing was due to finish within four
months, it is still continuing, almost two years later.



In the attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield and the other defendants, the
prosecution, employed and paid for by the GMC, has suggested that none of
the children referred to the Royal Free Hospital were actually ill. In order
to support this suggestion, they have had to ensure that none of the parents
of vaccine damaged children appear at the hearing. Meanwhile, in the
background, Brian Deer has mounted significant attacks on these parents,
accusing them of manufacturing information about the illnesses suffered by
their children, and about its cause.



The GMC panel finished hearing the evidence and, at the time of writing, has
been in recess awaiting the closing speeches of counsel, due to begin in
March. The prosecution, during presentation of evidence from 'witnesses to
fact' and the cross examination of the three defendants, has consistently
failed to make a case out of Deer's allegations. In the last weeks of the
hearing, it became clear that this failure was disturbing Deer. As his case
collapsed, he resorted to writing to the GMC re-affirming his views about Dr
Wakefield's unproven guilt and instructing the GMC in how they should have
conducted the prosecution.



So upset was Deer by the evidence of Professor Murch who claimed that Deer
might have breached the Data Protection Act and gained access to patient
records, that he allegedly confronted and attempted to intimidate the
professor in the foyer of the GMC hearing rooms while Professor Murch was
giving evidence.



In the new attack on Dr Wakefield that appeared in the Sunday Times on
February 8th 2009 Deer cited no new evidence. Furthermore, if allegations
relating to 'altered records' held any merit at all, they would have been
included in the hundred odd original GMC charges that the prosecution pored
over for three years, whilst preparing its case.



The current attack comes five years - almost to the day - after Deer first
began his campaign against Dr Wakefield in February 2004. It also comes as a
clear indication that the government, the vaccine industry and the Sunday
Times are fearful of losing 'their' case at the GMC. There is a
transatlantic aspect to this fear, as more legal and medical decisions are
made public in the US, which endorse the clinical and research positions
taken by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues in Britain.



This fear of losing is generated by the fact that if the GMC do not find the
three doctors guilty of the charges against them, the voice of the parents
will finally be heard and the scandal of over one and a half thousand
unrecognised vaccine damaged children in the UK and many, many thousands
worldwide will be brought to the attention of the public.



Deer's new attack on Dr Wakefield is equally an attack on the parents and
children who sought treatment at the Royal Free Hospital and represents a
new low for British journalism. The parents of vaccine damaged children will
not be silenced and research into possible causes and treatments will
continue. Members of the public, parents, doctors and scientists worldwide
are now calling for a formal enquiry into the activities of Brian Deer, the
Sunday Times and their connection and co-operation with the vaccine
industry.



In the following weeks, the organisations endorsing this statement will join
together in providing clear documentation in support of the science to date.
Please follow the links given in the right hand panel for a progress update.


  #2  
Old February 10th 09, 03:38 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default "Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:56:39 -0000, "JOHN" wrote:


Dr. Andrew
Wakefield has worked so hard to maintain his work and to help autistic
children and he (and his family) have paid the high price of leaving our
home country in order that this can continue.


The "high price" of earning more money and enjoying a vastly better
standard of living than he could ever have hoped for had he stayed in
research or in the UK?

it is clearly intended to destroy his reputation world-wide.


The only reputation he has world wide is hardly worth protecting.

Throughout the 1990's Dr Andrew Wakefield, a research scientist at the Royal
Free Hospital and his colleagues, were contacted by parents of a large
number of children suffering from a form of inflammatory bowel disease with
a regressive developmental disorder.


Actually he was contacted by the solicitors for a small number of
children trying to put together a compensation claim. He was paid
about $6-800,000 at the time for his work.

In February 1998, a press briefing was organized by the Dean of the medical
school at the Royal Free Hospital to coincide with the publication of a
peer-reviewed case series in the The Lancet.


One which was not attended by Professor Walker-Smith as he disapproved
of medical research being debated prematurely in the mass media. He
has recalled that the only enthusiasm for the conference came from
Wakefield.

At the press briefing, Dr
Wakefield suggested the precautionary alternative that there could be a
return to single vaccines whilst concerns regarding MMR were investigated.


I don't suppose this would have had anything to do with him having
patented a single vaccine some time before? His "precautionary"
recommendation was not included in the Lancet paper and not in any way
supported by it.

Not a single member of the team which produced the paper publicly
endorsed Wakefield's anti-MMR stand. Wakefields claim was repudiated
by Professor Zuckerman and by the paediatricians in his own team. Dr
Murch, Dr Thomson and Professor Walker-Smith subsequently wrote to The
Lancet to disassociate themselves from Wakefield's call for separate
vaccines

The GMC took more than three years to frame their charges against Dr
Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, none of which
questioned the underlying scientific and medical findings in the original
paper.


Others have discredited that paper so comprehensively that most of the
authors withdrew their names from it. The measles virus it claimed
was found was simply laboratory error, no one else has reproduced its
results.

In the attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield and the other defendants, the
prosecution, employed and paid for by the GMC, has suggested that none of
the children referred to the Royal Free Hospital were actually ill. In order
to support this suggestion, they have had to ensure that none of the parents
of vaccine damaged children appear at the hearing.


Probably because no such claim was made.

In the following weeks, the organisations endorsing this statement will join
together in providing clear documentation in support of the science to date.


That will be a change.
  #3  
Old February 11th 09, 01:01 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default "Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"


"JOHN" wrote in message
...
"Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"





Dear Friends


We really need your help and support in signing the petition linked
below - ignore the donation request it is not relevant to our campaign.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield has worked so hard to maintain his work and to help
autistic children and he (and his family) have paid the high price of
leaving our home country in order that this can continue. Now, 5 years on
with a 2 year disciplinary enquiry still ongoing the smear has started
again and it is clearly intended to destroy his reputation world-wide. The
evidence presented to the UK enquiry by Andy and his two colleagues went
so well that it would seem that this is a last ditch attempt and one which
must be thwarted.



Please sign the petition with everyone in the family also signing and
forward it to as many people as you possibly urgently.

Thanks so much.



www.ipetitions.com/petition/wakefield





(Ignore the second screen where it asks you to pay - you can just log
out).



Isabella Thomas



The petition



Five years after launching a campaign to discredit the work of Dr Andrew
Wakefield, freelance journalist Brian Deer and the Sunday Times in the UK
made additional allegations on Sunday 8th February 2009. Three pages of
articles while offering no new evidence accused Dr Wakefield of having
'fixed' research data. These allegations have no basis in fact and have
been fully addressed during Dr Wakefield's response to the GMC
prosecution, now well into its second year.



This petition will bring attention to the scientific evidence in support
of Dr Wakefield's position and demand a formal enquiry into the activities
of Brian Deer, the Sunday Times and their connection and co-operation with
the vaccine industry.



Throughout the 1990's Dr Andrew Wakefield, a research scientist at the
Royal Free Hospital and his colleagues, were contacted by parents of a
large number of children suffering from a form of inflammatory bowel
disease with a regressive developmental disorder. Many of the parents who
brought these children to the hospital reported that their children had
become seriously ill after receiving the MMR vaccination.



In February 1998, a press briefing was organized by the Dean of the
medical school at the Royal Free Hospital to coincide with the publication
of a peer-reviewed case series in the The Lancet. At the press briefing,
Dr Wakefield suggested the precautionary alternative that there could be a
return to single vaccines whilst concerns regarding MMR were investigated.
This signalled the beginning of an orchestrated and oppressive campaign to
discredit Dr Wakefield.



In 2004, Brian Deer lodged a complaint against Dr Wakefield, with the
General Medical Council (GMC) of the UK. Since that time Deer has been
supported in his drive to discredit Dr Wakefield by influential lobbyists
and lobby groups supported by major pharmaceutical companies. No parent
has ever complained to the GMC about Dr Wakefield, or the other doctors
whose cases are only now being heard.



The GMC took more than three years to frame their charges against Dr
Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, none of which
questioned the underlying scientific and medical findings in the original
paper.



The 'trial' of these three doctors - all co-authors of The Lancet paper -
began in July 2007 and although this hearing was due to finish within four
months, it is still continuing, almost two years later.



In the attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield and the other defendants, the
prosecution, employed and paid for by the GMC, has suggested that none of
the children referred to the Royal Free Hospital were actually ill. In
order to support this suggestion, they have had to ensure that none of the
parents of vaccine damaged children appear at the hearing. Meanwhile, in
the background, Brian Deer has mounted significant attacks on these
parents, accusing them of manufacturing information about the illnesses
suffered by their children, and about its cause.



The GMC panel finished hearing the evidence and, at the time of writing,
has been in recess awaiting the closing speeches of counsel, due to begin
in March. The prosecution, during presentation of evidence from 'witnesses
to fact' and the cross examination of the three defendants, has
consistently failed to make a case out of Deer's allegations. In the last
weeks of the hearing, it became clear that this failure was disturbing
Deer. As his case collapsed, he resorted to writing to the GMC
re-affirming his views about Dr Wakefield's unproven guilt and instructing
the GMC in how they should have conducted the prosecution.



So upset was Deer by the evidence of Professor Murch who claimed that Deer
might have breached the Data Protection Act and gained access to patient
records, that he allegedly confronted and attempted to intimidate the
professor in the foyer of the GMC hearing rooms while Professor Murch was
giving evidence.



In the new attack on Dr Wakefield that appeared in the Sunday Times on
February 8th 2009 Deer cited no new evidence. Furthermore, if allegations
relating to 'altered records' held any merit at all, they would have been
included in the hundred odd original GMC charges that the prosecution
pored over for three years, whilst preparing its case.



The current attack comes five years - almost to the day - after Deer first
began his campaign against Dr Wakefield in February 2004. It also comes as
a clear indication that the government, the vaccine industry and the
Sunday Times are fearful of losing 'their' case at the GMC. There is a
transatlantic aspect to this fear, as more legal and medical decisions are
made public in the US, which endorse the clinical and research positions
taken by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues in Britain.



This fear of losing is generated by the fact that if the GMC do not find
the three doctors guilty of the charges against them, the voice of the
parents will finally be heard and the scandal of over one and a half
thousand unrecognised vaccine damaged children in the UK and many, many
thousands worldwide will be brought to the attention of the public.



Deer's new attack on Dr Wakefield is equally an attack on the parents and
children who sought treatment at the Royal Free Hospital and represents a
new low for British journalism. The parents of vaccine damaged children
will not be silenced and research into possible causes and treatments will
continue. Members of the public, parents, doctors and scientists worldwide
are now calling for a formal enquiry into the activities of Brian Deer,
the Sunday Times and their connection and co-operation with the vaccine
industry.



In the following weeks, the organisations endorsing this statement will
join together in providing clear documentation in support of the science
to date. Please follow the links given in the right hand panel for a
progress update.


Thanks, John. I just signed the petition.

  #4  
Old February 11th 09, 01:13 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default "Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:56:39 -0000, "JOHN" wrote:


Dr. Andrew
Wakefield has worked so hard to maintain his work and to help autistic
children and he (and his family) have paid the high price of leaving our
home country in order that this can continue.


The "high price" of earning more money and enjoying a vastly better
standard of living than he could ever have hoped for had he stayed in
research or in the UK?

it is clearly intended to destroy his reputation world-wide.


The only reputation he has world wide is hardly worth protecting.

Throughout the 1990's Dr Andrew Wakefield, a research scientist at the
Royal
Free Hospital and his colleagues, were contacted by parents of a large
number of children suffering from a form of inflammatory bowel disease
with
a regressive developmental disorder.


Actually he was contacted by the solicitors for a small number of
children trying to put together a compensation claim. He was paid
about $6-800,000 at the time for his work.

In February 1998, a press briefing was organized by the Dean of the
medical
school at the Royal Free Hospital to coincide with the publication of a
peer-reviewed case series in the The Lancet.


One which was not attended by Professor Walker-Smith as he disapproved
of medical research being debated prematurely in the mass media. He
has recalled that the only enthusiasm for the conference came from
Wakefield.

At the press briefing, Dr
Wakefield suggested the precautionary alternative that there could be a
return to single vaccines whilst concerns regarding MMR were investigated.


I don't suppose this would have had anything to do with him having
patented a single vaccine some time before? His "precautionary"
recommendation was not included in the Lancet paper and not in any way
supported by it.


You mean like Paul Offit?



Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years

The screaming started four hours after 8-month-old Chaise Irons received a
vaccination against rotavirus, recommended in June 1998 by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for every infant to prevent serious diarrhea.
Within a day he was vomiting and eliminating blood. Doctors performed
emergency surgery, saving him by repairing his intestines, which were
folding in on one another. A doctor later figured out the vaccine caused
Chaise's problem. In October 1999, after 15 reports of such incidents, the
CDC withdrew its recommendation for the vaccination -- not because of the
problem, the agency claims, but because bad publicity might give vaccines in
general a bad name. But a four-month investigation by United Press
International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines
recommended by the CDC -- and a web of close ties between the agency and the
companies that make vaccines."
- Mark Benjamin, United Press International, UPI Investigates: The Vaccine
Conflict


There are few parents of young children today who remember the disastrous
introduction of the first Rotavirus vaccine in June, 1998 and its withdrawal
from the market due to adverse events only 13 months later. Of course, the
parents of children who experienced severe bowel intussusception, like the
child described in UPI's investigative piece quoted above, remember it all
too well.


The Rotashield introduction and withdrawal was such a fiasco it triggered a
Congressional investigation, and a blistering report from the Committee on
Government Reform which was released on August 21, 2000 and titled,
Conflicts in Vaccine Policy (HERE).


And who would you guess was at the center of the Congressional report's
criticism? You guessed it: Dr. Paul Offit.


Continue reading "Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years
(1998-2003)" »


Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding a Hungry Lie


There is a very, very hungry lie, and the lie needs more food. Dr. Paul
Offit is this lie's public chef, but it also gets fed by the Centers for
Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other parties who
have a vested interest in protecting our current vaccine program. The
problem with a lie as big as this one is that it never knows when it has had
enough to eat, and it always needs more food.


It's a simple lie, really. And, it's being told with more and more frequency
lately, which is really no surprise. Lies like this tend to get fatter and
fatter and hungrier and hungrier before they explode, and many, many people
need this lie to be true.


Like many lies, this one has evolved. The lie-tellers used to tell
half-truths, but they seem to have abandoned the half-truths and just gone
for the big, big lie. That's how hungry a lie tends to get. Don't feed me
half-truths, the lie screams, feed me lies!


Like other very big lies, this one retains a lot of credibility with people
who have a lot of credibility. And, we have seen this movie before, whether
it's Colin Powell blessing the presence of WMDs in Iraq or the SEC blessing
the trading prowess of Bernie Madoff. We know how the movie ends.


Stephen Greenspan, a psychologist and expert on gullibility, explains this
recurrent experience of smart people falling for big, hungry lies as due to
"the tendency of humans to model their actions-especially when dealing with
matters they don't fully understand-on the behavior of other humans."
Continue reading "Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding
a Hungry Lie" »


By J.B. Handley


In March of 2007 I wrote an essay titled "Bernie Versus Bryna, the Trouble
with Autism Speaks" that was widely circulated on the web (full text at the
end of this post). At the end of the letter, I encouraged parents to write
Autism Speaks directly to express their frustration with the organization's
direction.


Continue reading "Best of: Bernie vs. Brynna The Trouble with Autism
Speaks" »



Not a single member of the team which produced the paper publicly
endorsed Wakefield's anti-MMR stand. Wakefields claim was repudiated
by Professor Zuckerman and by the paediatricians in his own team. Dr
Murch, Dr Thomson and Professor Walker-Smith subsequently wrote to The
Lancet to disassociate themselves from Wakefield's call for separate
vaccines

The GMC took more than three years to frame their charges against Dr
Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, none of which
questioned the underlying scientific and medical findings in the original
paper.


Others have discredited that paper so comprehensively that most of the
authors withdrew their names from it. The measles virus it claimed
was found was simply laboratory error, no one else has reproduced its
results.

In the attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield and the other defendants, the
prosecution, employed and paid for by the GMC, has suggested that none of
the children referred to the Royal Free Hospital were actually ill. In
order
to support this suggestion, they have had to ensure that none of the
parents
of vaccine damaged children appear at the hearing.


Probably because no such claim was made.

In the following weeks, the organisations endorsing this statement will
join
together in providing clear documentation in support of the science to
date.


That will be a change.


Web
Results 1 - 10 of about 797 for Paul A. Offit vested interest in vaccines.
(0.21 seconds)



  #5  
Old February 11th 09, 12:06 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Peter Bowditch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default "Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"

"Jan Drew" wrote:

You mean like Paul Offit?


Andrew Wakefield patented a measles vaccine. Dr Offit worked on a
patented rotavirus vaccine (which took 16 years of development,
including a safety trial with 70,000 subjects).

Why is Dr Offit wrong to do this and Dr Wakefield right?


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
  #6  
Old February 12th 09, 04:00 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,talk.politics.medicine,uk.people.health
Jan Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,707
Default "Call for Formal Enquiry into Wakefield Witch-hunt"


"Jan Drew" wrote:

You mean like Paul Offit?

Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years


The screaming started four hours after 8-month-old Chaise Irons received a
vaccination against rotavirus, recommended in June 1998 by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for every infant to prevent serious diarrhea.
Within a day he was vomiting and eliminating blood. Doctors performed
emergency surgery, saving him by repairing his intestines, which were
folding in on one another. A doctor later figured out the vaccine caused
Chaise's problem. In October 1999, after 15 reports of such incidents, the
CDC withdrew its recommendation for the vaccination -- not because of the
problem, the agency claims, but because bad publicity might give vaccines in
general a bad name. But a four-month investigation by United Press
International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines
recommended by the CDC -- and a web of close ties between the agency and the
companies that make vaccines."
- Mark Benjamin, United Press International, UPI Investigates: The Vaccine
Conflict


There are few parents of young children today who remember the disastrous
introduction of the first Rotavirus vaccine in June, 1998 and its withdrawal
from the market due to adverse events only 13 months later. Of course, the
parents of children who experienced severe bowel intussusception, like the
child described in UPI's investigative piece quoted above, remember it all
too well.


The Rotashield introduction and withdrawal was such a fiasco it triggered a
Congressional investigation, and a blistering report from the Committee on
Government Reform which was released on August 21, 2000 and titled,
Conflicts in Vaccine Policy (HERE).


And who would you guess was at the center of the Congressional report's
criticism? You guessed it: Dr. Paul Offit.


Continue reading "Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years
(1998-2003)" »


Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding a Hungry Lie


There is a very, very hungry lie, and the lie needs more food. Dr. Paul
Offit is this lie's public chef, but it also gets fed by the Centers for
Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other parties who
have a vested interest in protecting our current vaccine program. The
problem with a lie as big as this one is that it never knows when it has had
enough to eat, and it always needs more food.


It's a simple lie, really. And, it's being told with more and more frequency
lately, which is really no surprise. Lies like this tend to get fatter and
fatter and hungrier and hungrier before they explode, and many, many people
need this lie to be true.


Like many lies, this one has evolved. The lie-tellers used to tell
half-truths, but they seem to have abandoned the half-truths and just gone
for the big, big lie. That's how hungry a lie tends to get. Don't feed me
half-truths, the lie screams, feed me lies!


Like other very big lies, this one retains a lot of credibility with people
who have a lot of credibility. And, we have seen this movie before, whether
it's Colin Powell blessing the presence of WMDs in Iraq or the SEC blessing
the trading prowess of Bernie Madoff. We know how the movie ends.


Stephen Greenspan, a psychologist and expert on gullibility, explains this
recurrent experience of smart people falling for big, hungry lies as due to
"the tendency of humans to model their actions-especially when dealing with
matters they don't fully understand-on the behavior of other humans."
Continue reading "Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding
a Hungry Lie" »


By J.B. Handley


In March of 2007 I wrote an essay titled "Bernie Versus Bryna, the Trouble
with Autism Speaks" that was widely circulated on the web (full text at the
end of this post). At the end of the letter, I encouraged parents to write
Autism Speaks directly to express their frustration with the organization's
direction.


Continue reading "Best of: Bernie vs. Brynna The Trouble with Autism
Speaks" »




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Not a single member of the team which produced the paper publicly
endorsed Wakefield's anti-MMR stand. Wakefields claim was repudiated
by Professor Zuckerman and by the paediatricians in his own team. Dr
Murch, Dr Thomson and Professor Walker-Smith subsequently wrote to The
Lancet to disassociate themselves from Wakefield's call for separate
vaccines



The GMC took more than three years to frame their charges against Dr
Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, none of which
questioned the underlying scientific and medical findings in the original
paper.



Others have discredited that paper so comprehensively that most of the
authors withdrew their names from it. The measles virus it claimed
was found was simply laboratory error, no one else has reproduced its
results.



In the attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield and the other defendants, the
prosecution, employed and paid for by the GMC, has suggested that none of
the children referred to the Royal Free Hospital were actually ill. In
order
to support this suggestion, they have had to ensure that none of the
parents
of vaccine damaged children appear at the hearing.



Probably because no such claim was made.



In the following weeks, the organisations endorsing this statement will
join
together in providing clear documentation in support of the science to
date.



That will be a change.




Web
Results 1 - 10 of about 797 for Paul A. Offit vested interest in vaccines.
(0.21 seconds)

http://www.freemarketproject.org/art...030121246.aspx

http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...030121246.aspx






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't Call It "Algebra"; Call It Something Warm And Fuzzy Way Back Jack[_8_] General 33 July 18th 08 06:00 PM
"Juro" is a newer series that resembles the "Museum," but features asmaller face and more subtle diamond inlays. The men's "Esperanza" model isthe most complex luxury model with the three minute, second andtenth-of-a-sec wholesale2 Spanking 0 April 26th 08 11:52 AM
SARASOTA, FL - Pinellas County needs to call in a "SWAT team" ofcaseworkers and managers to help its troubled foster care system fx Foster Parents 0 November 2nd 07 08:01 AM
Call for Action. Virginia joins Ohio on the short bus for "WantedDaddy" posters John Meyer[_2_] Child Support 8 May 15th 07 02:59 AM
Starting Thursday, June 1 -- A Call to Action: Saving Our Children: "Primetime" wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 May 26th 06 11:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.