Wakefield Responds to Sunday Times' False Allegations]

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.c...nk-journalism/


[Stop Press 9/Feb/09 -Wakefield Responds to Sunday Times' False Allegations]

Child Health Safety's original exclusive published he-

Sunday Times - Sinks To New Low With Yet More MMR Junk Journalism
Posted on February 8, 2009

"The reputation of The Sunday Times of London takes another nose dive
today in yet more junk journalism by an unethical unprofessional freelance
journalist to revive a seemingly flagging career [more of which below].
The new accusations appear in The Sunday Times today headlined:-

"MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism" - The Sunday Times,
London - February 8, 2009

Not only are these more inaccurate stories with laughable claims, but
seemingly illegally quoting out-of-context confidential information from
Court disclosed medical records of injured children. In England such action
is a potential contempt of Court, punishable by fines and imprisonment.


.........................................


What The Sunday Times' commissioned freelancer does not appear to have are
the histories taken carefully during the investigations at The Royal Free
Hospital in around 1996/7 and which are the more reliable account of the
children's conditions.

It is the absence of the information from those documents which
collapses these latest Sunday Times' stories published today.

A parent of an autistic child comments:-

"When this Sunday Times freelance journalist accused Dr Andrew Wakefield
of altering the histopathology results the freelancer presumably simply did
not understand the data. The he goes and makes a public accusation which
the Sunday Times publishes uncritically. It is amazing they did not get
anyone competent to check the facts."


Sources say The Sunday Times' freelancer approached Dr Wakefield only on
the Friday just before the stories were being submitted for publication
today with the false claims such as that:-
"In the cases of some 8 children - two thirds of the total - you changed
normal histopathology results to abnormal results, in a so-called "research
review", despite claiming that the series was merely a clinical report."

But it was other doctors employed in the Department of Histopathology who
were experienced in bowel disease dealt with such matter and not Dr
Wakefield. This is a matter of record at the GMC and sources say Dr
Wakefield is mystified as to how The Sunday Times' freelance journalist
could not have known that when he wrote his stories and submitted them to
The Sunday Times for publication."
A professional journalist's impartiality is paramount. The job is reporting
news made by others, and not creating it. This Sunday Times' freelancer in
contrast made the complaints to the UK General Medical Council against
these doctors which have lead to unprecedented marathon hearings starting
with investigations the freelance was responsible for lodging over 4 years
ago in 2004.
The freelancer's complaints included numerous allegations which The Sunday
Times refused to publish in their original stories 2004 and since. One
result of the complaints is that such allegations when made in formal GMC
proceedings become reportable when they would otherwise be actionable
defamation. The freelancer has fastidiously attended the hearings. Whilst
Andrew Wakefield was forced by the pressure of dealing with the
unprecedented lengthy marathon UK GMC proceedings to withdraw libel actions
against The Sunday Times, it is notable the other allegations have not been
published then or since.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:39:33 -0000, "JOHN" wrote:


Not only are these more inaccurate stories with laughable claims, but
seemingly illegally quoting out-of-context confidential information from
Court disclosed medical records of injured children. In England such action
is a potential contempt of Court, punishable by fines and imprisonment.

Wakefield has fought for years to suppress information used in the
failed MMR Autism case in the UK such as the fact that measles virus
almost certainly wasn't found in the children investigated but was
purely a result of poor laboratory procedure by Unigenetics.

Much of the information he was trying to hide only came into the
public arena when Dr Bustin gave evidence in the US omnibus hearings

Sources

Ah, the famous Wakefield "sources", usually goes by the name of his
employee Stott doesn't it?

A professional journalist's impartiality is paramount. The job is reporting
news made by others, and not creating it. This Sunday Times' freelancer in
contrast made the complaints to the UK General Medical Council against
these doctors which have lead to unprecedented marathon hearings starting
with investigations the freelance was responsible for lodging over 4 years
ago in 2004.

So if a journalist sees a murder he mustn't, in the interests of
impartiality, report what he saw to the police?

Whilst
Andrew Wakefield was forced by the pressure of dealing with the
unprecedented lengthy marathon UK GMC proceedings to withdraw libel actions
against The Sunday Times, it is notable the other allegations have not been
published then or since.

Forced?

This was the case in which the Judge, Mr Justice Eady, refusing
Wakefield yet another of the many delays he introduced to muzzle
critics without ever having to face a court said:-

"The claim form was issued on 31st March but only served on 22nd June
2005. Thereafter, it seems, the particulars of claim were served with
some reluctance, following prompting by the Defendants and an order of
Master Rose on 27th July of this year. They eventually appeared on
10th August. There has thus apparently been a rather relaxed and
dilatory approach towards litigation of a kind which is supposed to
achieve vindication of reputation."

" there was a consistent pattern of using the existence of libel
proceedings, albeit stayed, as a tool for stifling further criticism
or debate."

"Again, one sees the same pattern. The Claimant wishes to use the
proceedings for tactical or public relations advantage without
revealing that they have been put on the back burner."

"There was even an attempt on the Claimant’s behalf to restrict the
Department of Health from supplying the public with such information
as it thought appropriate"

"[Wakefield] wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the
existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to
give the defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims."

" It is, after all, their client who chose to issue these proceedings
and to use them, as I have described above, as a weapon in his
attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public
issue."

Hardly the behaviour of a seeker after the truth was it?