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

Statement from Dr. Andrew Wakefield Regarding GMC Hearing Sanctions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 5th 10, 02:58 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.medicine
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default Statement from Dr. Andrew Wakefield Regarding GMC Hearing Sanctions

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/04/s...sanctions.html

April 05, 2010
On Wednesday April 7th, General Medical Council (GMC) lawyers will demand
that I and likely two other doctors involved in the MMR-autism case should
be erased from the UK’s medical register, removing our license to practice
medicine. Doctors’ regulators have found the three of us - Professor John
Walker-Smith, Professor Simon Murch and me - guilty of undertaking research
on children with autism without approval from an ethics committee.
We can prove, with extensive documentary evidence, that this conclusion is
false.

Let me make it absolutely clear that, at its heart, the GMC hearing has been
about the protection of MMR vaccination policy. The case has been driven by
an agenda to crush dissent that in my opinion serves the government and the
pharmaceutical industry — not the welfare of children. It’s important to
note that there has never been a complaint against any of the doctors by any
parent involved in this case — only universal parental support and
gratitude.

My colleagues, Professors Walker-Smith and Murch, are outstanding
pediatricians and pediatric gastroenterologists. They have led the field of
pediatric gastroenterology for decades, devoting their lives to caring for
sick children. Our only “crime” in this matter has been to listen to the
concerns of parents, act according to the demands of our professional
training, and provide appropriate care to this neglected population of
children. It is unthinkable that at the end of an unimpeachable career,
Professor Walker-Smith would even consider unethical experimentation on
children under his care.

In the course of our work, we discovered and treated a new intestinal
disease syndrome in children with autism, alleviating suffering in affected
children around the world. This should be cause for celebration. Instead, we
have been vilified in the press, and demonized by a wasteful PR campaign by
the Department of Health. The aim of this negative publicity was to
discredit my criticism of vaccine safety research.

Sadly, my colleagues have suffered severe collateral damage in this effort
to prevent valid scientific enquiry. They should be exonerated, and left
alone with their reputations intact, in the certain knowledge that they have
done only what is right.

The loss of my own medical license is, unfortunately, the cost of doing
business. Although I do not take this loss lightly, the suffering - so much
of it unnecessary - that I have seen among those affected by this
devastating disease makes the professional consequences for me a small price
to pay by comparison.

As long as a question mark remains over vaccine safety; as long as a
safety-first vaccine policy is subordinate to profit and self-interest; as
long as the benefits of vaccines are threatened by those who have
compromised public confidence by denial of vaccine damage, and as long as
these children need help; I will continue my work.


  #2  
Old April 5th 10, 03:28 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.medicine
dr_jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 293
Default Statement from Dr. Andrew Wakefield Regarding GMC Hearing Sanctions

john wrote:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/04/s...sanctions.html

April 05, 2010


copyrighted material deleted

The article did not provide evidence that they should be exonerated.
Further, he didn't address why no one else has been able to replicate
his studies or why he used kids he found a party.

IMHO, Wakefield is a self-serving scum bucket. He weak statement only
verified my opinion of him.

Jeff
  #3  
Old April 5th 10, 05:47 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.medicine
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default Statement from Dr. Andrew Wakefield Regarding GMC Hearing Sanctions

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:58:50 +0100, "john" wrote:

Doctors’ regulators have found the three of us - Professor John
Walker-Smith, Professor Simon Murch and me - guilty of undertaking research
on children with autism without approval from an ethics committee.
We can prove, with extensive documentary evidence, that this conclusion is
false.


Well they had ample opportunity to prove the conclusion was false and
failed.

Also Wakefield is being far too modest,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/F...lete-Corrected

He wasn't just found to have operated without approval from an ethics
committee but also (amongst more concerning his treatment of the
children) that he :-

Failed to cause the Legal Aid Board to be informed that
investigations represented by the clinicians as being clinically
indicated would be covered by NHS funding,

Caused or permitted the money supplied by the Legal Aid
Board to be used for purposes other than those for which he
said it was needed and for which it had been granted,

That by doing so his conduct was dishonest [and] misleading,

That his involvement in the MMR litigation and receipt of funding for
part of Project 172-96 from the Legal Aid Board; constituted a
disclosable interest which included matters which could legitimately
give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to his
involvement in Project 172-96 which he did not disclose to the Ethics
Committee,

That he failed to state in the Lancet paper that the children whose
referral and histories he described were part of a project, the
purpose of which was to investigate a postulated new syndrome
comprising gastrointestinal symptoms and disintegrative
disorder following vaccination. That in doing so his behaviour was
dishonest, irresponsible, and resulted in a misleading description
of the patient population in the Lancet paper. The description of
the referral process in the Lancet paper was irresponsible misleading,
contrary to his duty to ensure that the information in the paper was
accurate.

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, he 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. In the circumstances set out
this statement was dishonest, irresponsible and contrary to your duty
to ensure that the information provided by you was accurate.

"The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be
considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be
dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted
necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played
in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in
four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the
fact that the investigations had been carried out under Project 172-96
for research purposes.

Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in this
regard was dishonest and irresponsible. "

"On 23 March 1998 at a scientific meeting at the Medical
Research Council convened to examine the evidence relating to
measles or measles vaccine and chronic intestinal inflammation, you
were asked about the issue of bias in generating the series of cases
including the twelve children in the Lancet paper and you stated that
all patients reviewed so far had come through General Practitioners or
paediatricians by “the standard route”, ...In the circumstances ...
this statement was, dishonest...irresponsible, [and]... contrary to
your duty to ensure that the information provided by you was
accurate."

" the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in failing to disclose your
involvement in the MMR litigation, your receipt of funding for part
of Project 172-96 from the Legal Aid Board and your involvement
in the Patent, constituted disclosable interests. Your failure to
disclose these to the Editor of The Lancet was contrary to your
duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper. "

"At or around the same time as the events set out ...you were involved
in a proposal to set up a company called Immunospecifics
Biotechnologies Ltd to specialise in the production, formulation and
sale of Transfer Factor, "

The Panel concluded that these findings, which include
those of dishonesty and misleading conduct, would be sufficient to
support a finding of serious professional misconduct.

Let me make it absolutely clear that, at its heart, the GMC hearing has been
about the protection of MMR vaccination policy.


Only in his overheated imagination. As has subsequently become clear
he did not detect measles virus in any of these children so his
hypothesis failed.

The case has been driven by an agenda to crush dissent


To crush dishonesty and opportunism would be more accurate.

My colleagues, Professors Walker-Smith and Murch, are outstanding
pediatricians and pediatric gastroenterologists.


They were. There is also no doubt at all that they are in a different
league to Wakefield.

They have led the field of pediatric gastroenterology for decades, devoting their lives to caring for
sick children. Our only “crime”


Now that is rather crude. It wasn't "our crime" but separate crimes
for three different people. Wakefield was found to have been
dishonest irresponsible and misleading.

His two co-accused were found to have been irresponsible and of not
acting in the children's best clinical interests but they were not
found guilty of dishonesty or of being misleading.

It is unthinkable that at the end of an unimpeachable career,
Professor Walker-Smith would even consider unethical experimentation on children under his care.


In a sense this is so, there is little doubt that Walker-Smith was
unduly influenced by Wakefield and accepted much of what he said
without checking it.

In the course of our work, we discovered and treated a new intestinal
disease syndrome in children with autism,


No new syndrome was discovered as was pointed out by many at the time.

The loss of my own medical license is, unfortunately, the cost of doing
business.


At last the truth. It was all about business. Of the three two
largely competent doctors have suffered and the only one to come out
of the affair with vastly increased wealth and a new career is the one
who was dishonest - Wakefield.
 




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
A Statement from Jenny McCarthy & Jim Carrey: Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys john[_5_] Kids Health 2 February 6th 10 11:06 PM
Andrew Wakefield & MMR Controversy Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath Kids Health 37 October 22nd 06 03:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.