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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Wakefield Responds to Sunday Times' False Allegations]
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sunday Times - Sinks To New Low With Yet More MMR Junk Journalism | JOHN | Kids Health | 0 | February 8th 09 01:38 PM |
FALSE ALLEGATIONS LISTSERV | krp | Spanking | 117 | June 2nd 07 12:11 AM |
FALSE ALLEGATIONS LISTSERV | krp | Foster Parents | 117 | June 2nd 07 12:11 AM |
Dr. Wakefield Responds To British Study Clearing MMR Vaccines | john | Kids Health | 0 | September 20th 04 04:16 PM |
False allegations by CPS. Yr right to an attorney | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | August 11th 04 02:22 PM |