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

Video transcripts: Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 11th 10, 10:39 AM posted to alt.support.autism,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default Video transcripts: Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words

http://whale.to/vaccine/wakefield23.html

Video transcripts: Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words

2010 April

Question 1:
Part 1 Why have you been called to the GMC ?
Part 2 Access to Justice
Part 3 Professor Zuckerman Forgets
Part 4 Dr Armstrong and the BMA
Part 5: The Whistle-blower
Part 6 Government liability
Question 2: Conflicts of Interest and Dishonesty?
Question 3: Dr David Salisbury calls the the GMC !

Question 1:
Part 1 Why have you been called to the GMC ?
Why is this hearing being held at all in front of the regulatory body of the
UK, and who bought the case and what is the case? The case, it seems, on
the face of it, was brought by a single complaint by a freelance journalist
who had been working for the Sunday Times, and others, and had been trying
to uncover some misdemeanour on our behalf at the Royal free in the
investigation of children with regressive autism, with bowel problems, many
of the parents of whom said their children regressed after the Measles,
Mumps, Rubella vaccine.

And I will just take you back, because when I began this work in 1995
parents approached me and said-- my child developed perfectly normally, they
had their MMR vaccine, I wasn't anti-vaccine, I took them along, they had
their vaccine according to the routine schedule and then the lights went
out, eyes glazed over, they lost speech, they lost interaction, they stopped
playing with their siblings, they never smiled, they were grizzly, and
eventually having lost skills and become mute and self injurious, they were
diagnosed with autism or atypical autism. And I said, I am terribly sorry,
I know nothing about autism, how can I possibly help, and they said, well,
my child has terrible bowel problems, diarrhoea, pain, I know they are in
pain, they can't tell me they are in pain because they have lost the ability
to speak, but I know they are in pain, my instinct as a mother tells me my
child is in pain, they are screaming, they are drawing their knees up to
their chest, particularly bad when they have their bowel opened. Losing
weight, failing to thrive, and the doctor says your child is autistic, that
is just the way it is.

Well, that is not just the way it is, that is not what autism is, these are
children who are sick, who are clearly unwell. So we put the autism to one
side and we said how do we manage these children if they had these symptoms
and they were developmentally normal and we would investigate? And so we
decided we would, over the course of many months, we put together a
protocol, a clinical protocol, for the investigation of these children.
What investigations do these children need in order for us to unearth the
origins of their problem, for example, do we do a colonoscopy to investigate
their bowel problems, are the bowel problems linked to the behaviour?
Because the parents were reporting us--when my child's bowel is bad, when
they are in pain, their behaviour is terrible, they can't concentrate, they
are at their worst autistically, and their autistic mannerisms get worse
when their intestine is bad and gets better when their intestine improves,
and this was intriguing to us as gastroenterologists because we had seen
this before in other gastrointestinal diseases.

Gastrointestinal inflammable diseases like Celiac disease, or bacterial
overgrowth when you lose a lot of your small intestinal, and you are just
left with a little bit behind where bowel bacteria overgrowth leads to
deterioration in behaviour, what is called encephalopathy, and often even
progressing to coma, and the way you treat that is to treat the bowel, get
rid of the bugs in the bowel and the behaviour improves. So we had seen it
before, this gut-brain link, something in the bowel affecting the brain, and
treating the bowel helping the brain, so why was this different? Was this
a similar process? Was, for example, some form of intoxication, some
bacterial by-product coming from the intestine and injuring the brain,
rather like drinking alcohol, you drink alcohol, it gets to the brain,
injures the brain, affects the brain, affects behaviour, and so this was no
different, it is not difficult, it is not rocket science, very very
straightforward. Something going on in the gut primarily, and injures the
brain, so this was an entirely reasonable idea to look at.

The other thing is these children had regressed in the face of a viral
insult, they had been given a live viral vaccine, they had been given
viruses which were known to be able to infect the brain and cause
inflammation in the brain, for example autism. So it was entirely
appropriate that they would undergo a series of investigations, in other
words could we find in a laboratory setting evidence of measles virus in the
inflamed intestine. Research. So combining as we should do in an academic
institute like the Royal Free, clinical investigation with research. And we
progressed through the process thereby refining the clinical investigation.
This is necessary, that isn't, this is telling us something, this isn't, out
that goes, and then refining the process, so we were getting the maximum
amount of information from investigating these children for the minimum
inconvenience and risk to the child, and that is just good medicine.

So during this process I was approached by some lawyers who were acting on
behalf of these children, investigating the parental claim that their child
had regressed, disappeared, become autistic after a vaccine. And they said
to me, would you help us? You have an interest in Crohn's disease and
measles virus, measles vaccine. We are now seeing these new children, what
do you think, can you help us in this process? And I thought about it long
and hard, and I decided that I would, and I later wrote to my colleagues
explaining my reason for doing so, and my feeling was this, it was very
straightforward. Vaccination is designed for the greater good, to protect
the majority and it does so at the expense of a minority, and that minority
of children are those that are damaged by the vaccine, and we don't know the
size of the number because it has never been investigated properly, but
nonetheless, even if you accept that is a permissible ethical approach, that
we can protect the majority at the expense of the minority, then that
minority are a group of children who have paid the price for protecting the
rest of society, and therefore society has an absolute moral and ethical
obligation to care for those children for the rest of their lives, period.
That is it, there is no escaping that moral imperative, and yet to
acknowledge those children in a public health setting is to raise doubts
about the safety of vaccines and therefore it is much better to put them in
a corner and forget about them, to pretend they simply don't exist.

That is what had happened to these children. The studies that had been
designed to look at safety had been designed in such a way as they would
never capture these children, nor did anyone want to capture them, nor was
anyone interested in the parents story when they said my child has regressed
after a vaccine. They were just put in a corner, told it couldn't happen
and never investigated, and that was absolutely unacceptable.

Part 2 Access to Justice
So, the other thing that happened, around the same time, is a parent called
me, she is the mother of two autistic children from the Midlands, and she
was an older parent, and she had a husband who was older than she was. He
was infirm and she herself had arthritis. And she called me one day and she
said, doctor Wakefield please don't be judgemental, don't judge me harshly
she said, but when I die, I am taking my children with me, and I thought
long and hard about that, and I wasn't in any way judgemental, in fact quite
the opposite, I was struck.

She said to me, Dr Wakefield, no one else cares about my children, I am the
only person who loves them and when I die or become infirm to the extent
that I can no longer care for them, they are going to be lost, they are
going to be on the street and they are going to die on the street because
the world doesn't care. And she was right, she was absolutely right, there
was nothing for these children, and you will know that in the Thatcher era
all the long stay institutions, the old asylums were closed down and turned
into luxury apartments and there is nothing left. It is care in the
community, what does that mean? It just means shoving people with long term
mental disabilities out into the community where they can injure themselves
or injure other people, or whatever. Who knows, who follows them, who
cares? And that was the future for these children, so, I decided at that
point that I would help the lawyers, because if nothing else I was in a
position to look at this scientifically, objectively and provide an answer
that would, or would not take this story forward, but would nonetheless give
these children access to the due process of justice, and that is what they
had been denied.

So it was about access to justice and surely that cannot be denied anyone,
you would think, in a civilised society. So the lawyers asked me what we
should do, how would you go about in a scientific context, taking this to
the next step, determining whether this temporal association that the mother
has made between a child's exposure to this vaccine and regression, how
would you then further link that if possible to the virus, and I said the
bowel disease that we have seen in these children and the Crohn's disease
looks like an infectious disease and you would look for evidence of the
virus in sites of infection or obvious swelling of the lymph glands, there
is one site in the intestine, it is like swelling of the tonsils when you
get a sore throat, you would look in the tonsil for the organism that was
causing it. So if you have got swelling of the lymph glands in the
intestine, look in there for the evidence of the virus, and measles virus,
and measles was a virus that was known to cause this kind of swelling of
the intestinal lymph glands. So it made logical sense to look in those
areas and so we set up a study.

I was asked to design a study that would take this to that level, that we
would get funding from the Legal Aid Board (LAB), hypothetically, and then
we would look for evidence of the virus in the intestine, and after a series
of exchanges, and a protocol was prepared, we received acknowledgement of
funding form the LAB to conduct that study. It is was negative it was
negative, if it was positive it was positive, either way it got published.
It was not designed to produce a particular answer, it was just designed to
produce an answer, is the virus there, or not? It didn't make it causation
but it was a piece, a crucial piece of the jigsaw that took it to the next
level.

Part 3 Professor Zuckerman Forgets [Zuckerman]
Interestingly, the Dean of the medical school, Prof Ari Zuckerman, world
renowned virologist, expert in Hepatitis B, worked very closely with the
WHO, was deeply involved with hepatitis B vaccination, a great advocate of
hepatitis B vaccination, different story, but nonetheless, there he was in
the general apparatchik of the vaccine advocates. And he said to me that he
had been contacted by the Department of Health and a certain members of the
Royal College of Child Health who had made him aware of this funding, and I
said yes, this is a grant we got from them and perfectly respectable, and we
are conducting the science, and he said there was a conflict of interest, a
clear conflict of interest, and I couldn't understand it, why?

Why was there a conflict of interest? I had no conflict of interest, I was
asked to take this grant to conduct a piece of science and give an answer.
That wasn't a conflict of interest. The funding would be disclosed in the
paper that wrote up the science, the funding came from the Legal Aid Board,
but beyond that where was the conflict? Anyway, I wrote back to him and
said your suggestion that there is a conflict of interest has exercised my
mind greatly over the last several months and I cannot see where it lies,
and i laid out for him the context of my discussions with the lawyers and
the work that was to be done, and he wrote back to me and couldn't precisely
define what the conflict was, but talked about if a legal action was
anticipated, and preliminary discussions had already taken place then there
was a conflict, and it didn't really make a lot of sense to me.

I wrote back to him again and reiterated thatw e ahd been asked to do a
piece of science that wasn't seeking a particular answer. I wouldn't have
got involved in the first place if there was any effort of coercion or
demanding that......we own the data, the lawyers didn't own it. We would do
what we felt was scientifically appropriate, and I had every faith in the
lawyers, they seemed very concerned, genuinely concerned about these
children, they weren't in any way ambulance chasers but nonetheless there
was some clear problem for the Dean in this, and he ultimately refused to
take the money, and I said send it back, we don't want it, if you are not
going to let us do this, we won't do it.

Anyway, one of my colleagues said we will put it into an account at the
hospital, a charitable account...and see if that is OK. So we did, now,
interestingly the Dean has just appeared as a witness on behalf of the
prosecution at the GMC. Professor Ari Zuckerman, now 7 years retired and
clearly deeply frustrated that he should be dragged out of retirement to
have to give his evidence in thsi case, but nonetheless his first foray was
to say, yes, when this money was transferred by the accountant of the Royal
Free Medical School it was too late, I didn't know about it, it had already
happened, I couldn't stop it.

It is interesting that he actually signed the cheque for the transfer.
Surprising that, given the fact that it had already happened by the time he
knew about it, nonetheless an interval of 11 years can cloud ones mind,
memory of things. There we are. But that was the first error he made.

Part 4 Dr Armstrong and the BMA
What he disclosed, interestingly, to me during that period was that he had
written to the ethics committee of the British Medial Association (BMA), to
take their advice, how to deal with this perplexing issue that was causing
him concern about conflicts of interest that has was really unable to
articulate to me. So he wrote to Dr Armstrong at the BMA ethics committee
to ask their opinion, and in it unbeknown to me at the time, he had said he
had been contacted by the Department of Health who said to him that the
government stood to be sued by the parents of children affected by MMR or
apparently affected by MMR vaccine, and that this to him was a conflict of
interest. That government was going to be sued.

Do you understand, I came into this with the lawyers believing the case was
against the vaccine manufacturers, the government didn't even come into it,
but he was clearly under the impression that the government were going to be
sued. He also said that this may be embarrassing for the medical school.
Now, we were never party to the ultimate response of Dr Armstrong of the
BMA. We were never told about it. All we did when he wrote back to me is
to say you will know that I have taken advice on this matter from the BMA
and leave it that, as though the BMA had ruled completely against it.

When in fact we got the documents, as we did do as part of the disclosure
for the GMC, there it was, the letter from Dr Armstrong, not only endorsing
the fact this study could and should be done because it was morally and
ethically proper that it should be done, but that not to do it because it
was embarrassing to an institute or because it meant the government might be
sued was not a sound moral argument. His words.

So in other words the BMA ethics committee said this is fine. It said
actions of this kind or research of this kind is often funded by a group
with a particular interest. Of course they are, the Multiple Sclerosis
Society funds research for MS in the hope that it can make patients better.
So here we have another group of people with a vested interest funding a
piece of research. As long as it is ethical, and as long as it is conducted
in a way that it is published, whether it is positive or negative, then that
is fine.

Nonetheless Prof Zuckerman did not get the answer he wanted. He never
disclosed that to us, he just kept beating us over the head with the certain
knowledge that he had contacted the BMA and they had given him an opinion.

Part 5: The Whistle-blower
....................Dr Alistair Torres who was from the Scottish dept of
health, and Dr Torres had been seconded onto the JCVI, effectively from
Canada, and he had been brought in, at least in part, to advise on the
introduction of MMR vaccine. The experience in Canada was that they
introduced a vaccine which contained a mumps component made up of a strain
of the vaccine called Urabe, which was originally generated in Japan and
they had run into problems with this vaccine. It produced meningitis in
children (1:43). the mumps virus was identified in the brain of the
children and the vaccine was pulled in Canada, it was pulled, it was stopped
in 1997 (1:53), nonetheless this was the vaccine that was intended to be
introduced into the UK a year later in 1988.

They changed the name, but the vaccine was identical, so it had gone from
Trivirix to Pluserix in the UK, an identical vaccine that had already been
withdrawn for safety reasons, in Canada.

Now Torres advised the JCVI not to introduce this vaccine because it was not
safe. He was overruled. He said if you are going to introduce it then you
should have active surveillance. That is doctors or people going out and
asking doctors--have you seen and cases of the following in the past month,
not waiting for doctors to spontaneously report. Spontaneous reporting
picks up 1-2% of those adverse reactions.....It is totally inadequate but
they were totally overruled, not active surveillance (3:02). So they were
going to intro a vaccine that has been withdrawn in other countries, known
to be unsafe and they were going to have no active surveillance (3:08) for
possible adverse events in this country. Now this was done, he said, for
competitive pricing reasons. The strain of the vaccine that contained the
dangerous mumps component was approx. 1/4 the price of the American MMRII
made by Merck. There had been no reports of meningitis using the Merck
vaccine which contained a strain of mumps called Jeryl Lynn....So what we
had was a cheaper vaccine that was known to be dangerous (3:47), so when the
vaccines were licensed or the proposal to licence these vaccines, the JCVI
or members of that committee (4:0) went to SmithKline Beecham (SKB) and said
we want your vaccine. SKB said we are not happy about it because this has
already been withdrawn in Canada, it has got this mumps component in it
which is dodgy

They said if we are going to do it then we want an indemnity, we want
indemnity from prosecution for damage to children on the basis (4:27) of the
receipt of the vaccine, and it appears that indemnity was granted, and
Torres told us about this (4:33), and he said at the meeting, the girl there
from SKB said we are immunising the children and the government is
immunising us.

So the vaccine was produced, licensed, given, and cases of meningitis
started to appear. they were recorded and documented in the minutes of the
JCVI which are now available on line and have been obtained by us as part of
our investigation. More and more cases began to be reported, the Scottish
dept' withdrew this vax, certain health areas rejected the Urabe containing
vaccine but still the JCVI continued with it. There was no withdrawal of
this vaccine until finally a study was grudgingly done in Nottingham where
they found a much higher risk of meningitis with this vaccine (5:33) than
had previously been predicted by passive surveillance, and the vaccine was
withdrawn overnight, and it was only withdrawn overnight because it was
leaked to the press.

It appeared in a newspaper and suddenly the vaccine was pulled. So a
dangerous vaccine, a knowingly dangerous vaccine was introduced and
ultimately proven to be dangerous and had to be withdrawn (6:00) in 1992.

Part 6 Government liability
The two of the three vaccine brands that were introduced in 1988 had to be
withdrawn for safety reasons and yet Dr Salisbury in his statement to the
GMC sums up by saying this is a vaccine with an exemplary safety record.
Well, if that is his idea of an excellent safety record then we have a very
different perception he and I of vaccine safety. And so we come full circle
now because it turns out the Dean was right. Ari Zuckerman was right.
Based upon the information he got, he says (probably from Dr Salisbury way
back when these parents started coming to us in 1996/7), that it was the
government that was going to be sued.

I thought it was going to be the drug companies, but it wasn't. Why was it
the government? Because the government had given the drug companies an
indemnity against harm and so this is why we are here, this is what this is
all about (1:19), this is what this whole GMC affair and effort to descredit
doctors questioning the safety of the MMR vaccine has come about because of
an indemnity given to the drug companies all those years ago for the
introduction of an unsafe vaccine by perhaps just a few members of the
department of Health or recommended by the Dept of Health to the Government
such that a vaccine (1:53) was introduced and when you ask now, and people
have asked, was there an indemnity? is there an indemnity? the answer is
catagorically, from David Salisbury, time and time again, there was no
indemnity (2:07), no letter of comfort, nothing at all....and yet in the
minutes of the JCVI, as late on in this story as 1997, there is an entry
there that says (it talks about the various brands of vaccine that are
available) SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain without liablity (2:39),
there it is, in black and white in their own document.

I have been every which way around that statement and cannot reconcile it to
anything else other than that there was and remains an indemnity, so I am
afraid (3:00) that this is really the origins of this whole process and the
hope that my colleagues and I be discredited before this information ever
becomes public, and in an effort to protect that original decision, that
original flawed decision and the consequences that have flowed from it, then
we find ourselves in this position, and that is fine but it is not going to
stop the truth coming out, and you would think under those circumstances
having withdrawn this vaccine (3:37) in Australia, Canada and Japan, and the
UK that that would be it, they would get rid of it, because it is not safe,
but no (3:46) they go on making it, and what do they do with it, they ship
it out to the third world, and there was a mass vaccine campaign in Brazil
in the 90's where they gave the great majority of Brazilian children a
revaccination with MMR, during a very short space of time, with the Urabe
containing vaccine, which they knew to be dangerous, which produced an
epidemic of meningitis (4:16), a huge peak in the numbers of cases, and
there was a paper written about it after, and one of the points in the
discussion in the paper was perhaps it was not a good idea, in effect, to do
mass vaccination campaigns because it produced the true incidence of side
effects to a vaccine.

Well, who wrote that, who in God's name wrote that? So this is, if you
like, the morality of the people we are dealing with. Why is that vax even
on the shelf? Why is it being sold at cut rate price to third world
countries? What is the thinking behind this? Because it is certainly not a
moral imperative, it must be a commercial one. So that's why we are here
and that is why we will remain here, and continue to fight this (5:12) kind
of thing, because you can't treat people as expendable. You can't damage
them and put them to one side. Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf once wrote the
greater truth excludes the lesser truth. In the world or mind of people
like Adolph Hitler and that kind of thinking failed in the 1940s and it is
going to fail now. You cannot treat people in a civilised society as
expendable.

Yes, there may be an argument for a vaccine programme that protects the
greater good but that does not mean that you can render those who are
damaged, just consign them to the dustcart because they are an
inconvenience, or their (6:08) mere presence undermines public confidence,
better to keep them hidden out the way and there are too many of these
children now, they won't be hidden away, and parents are getting very very
angry, and they have every right to be angry, and the truth is going to come
out, and it is going to be a very very painful truth when it does come out.

The tragedy is, it is going to damage public confidence in vaccine policy
across the board because people are going to say we don't believe you any
more, we don't trust you, you lied to us and when that happens all
vaccination policy is compromised, the whole pillar of public health comes
tumbling down and a lot of trouble is going to ensue as you are going to
deal with a population who are not protected from these infections and we
are going to run into big problems, and that responsibility for that lays at
the door of the public health figures and their commercial partners who have
allowed this to happen.

Question 2: Conflicts of Interest and Dishonesty?
There have been some slightly difficult moments about differences of
opinion, for example with Richard Horton over conflicts of interests...the
Lancet statement on conflict is: 'anything that would embarrass you if it
were later disclosed', and my involvement with the Legal Aid Board didn't
embarrass me at all, and it wasn't relevant, in my opinion, to disclose it
in the Lancet paper because they didn't fund any of the Lancet paper, they
funded a subsequent viralogical study, as was always intended, but it had
been misrepresented in the media that they had funded the Lancet study, and
it wasn't disclosed, and this was the perception Richard Horton originally
had, and when I was asked about this by him way back in 2004 I said, no,
they didn't fund the study at all, they funded a separate study, and he said
'well in that case it could be perceived as a potential conflict of
interest', and I said where did that come from?
The statement as I read it in the Lancet, the requirement is to 'disclose
things that might embarrass you if they emerge later'. And it was
interesting because within that document, which was self contained, anyone
writing a paper for the Lancet would just need to read that and the actual
statement is the test of conflict of interest in the Lancet is an easy one,
'anything that would embarrass you', and so you don't go beyond that, it is
a self contained document, why would you go any further, but there is a
website flagged up in there where you can go and there is a more broader
description of conflict of interest there which does include potential or
perceived conflicts of interest, which no one ever went to. Why would you
do it? You have got it in front of you. Now there is a very big
difference. Anything that would embarrass you is the active move, OK, it is
what would embarrass me, so I can think what would embarrass me, and I can
make a decision about that.

What others might perceive to be a conflict of interest is myriad, it goes
on forever. You have to put yourself in the third person and think what
might someone else with their various views and biases construe to be a
conflict of interest, and that is massive, where does that end?

So that is a huge conceptual leap in terms as to what you would disclose,
and there was no formal way for doing it at the time. Now you have a
document where you fill in the boxes, saying no shares, no this, no that.
That is very straight foreword, but in those days it wasn't, it was highly
ambiguous, and it was always my intention, and always was disclosed, when
there was a direct funding for a study, a grant giving body, or in this case
the Legal Aid Board, and so in the viral study it was disclosed, 'this study
was supported in part by the Legal Aid Board, and Dr Wakefield is acting as
an expert in the MMR litigation', that is an easy one as it goes, but in the
Lancet study I felt no need to disclose it at all, and neither did any of my
colleagues who knew that I was involved with the Legal aid Board on behalf
of some of these children.

So that was a difficult moment but it was a difference of opinion, he
thought I should have disclosed it. I felt at the time that I didn't, now
in retrospect, having seen this new document about perceived conflict I can
see that it should have been disclosed, but there was no dishonesty, and he
was good enough to say there was no intent to deceive, 'when Dr Wakefield
was asked about it he was entirely open, he said yes there was this grant'.
We got into an argument and debate about what was or wasn't a conflict of
interest, but there was absolutely no intent to deceive and the charge is
dishonesty, so he was extremely helpful in this as much he said, no this was
not dishonest, this was a genuine difference of opinion, and so that then
largely resolved.

Question 3: Dr David Salisbury calls the the GMC !
Where does it leave the GMC if you are not guilty? Very good question on a
very broad front. They have some tough decisions to make. One on the level
of the case itself, and have they misinstructed their experts, are they
going to have to retrench in a different set of charges. They have to take
time to structure those charges and get a response from their experts. Are
they going to be allowed to do that, I don't know, but it must be becoming
obvious to them now that much of the original information they were given,
was, had been, misconstrued, and basing their charges on that information
has been in error.

At another level they are under big pressure from the Department of Health,
and David Salisbury in particular has been calling them on a regular basis
urging them to prosecute this case more vigorously against me, be nastier,
be meaner, throw more in, and I know this because we get sent the unused
material, and so I took the opportunity (he didn't know this, I mean you get
all the telephone conversations, all the conversation between people, all
the draft reports which is an interesting advantage to us), so I was able to
write to David Salisbury and was able to say I am now in a position to have
read the unused material from the GMC, and I note your entreaties to
them....He was furious, he contacted the GMC and said: "I didn't know they
were going to get the unused material...you never told me, this is a
disgrace!" And the wonderful thing about that is that we get the
documentation of that telephone conversation as well (laughs).

So, you can see they are under a great deal of political pressure to
prosecute this case and it is interesting in the public domain David
Salisbury has said we don't want this to be seen as a vendetta on behalf of
the Department of Health. So, mixed messages.

PART TWO. The other dilemma they have is who do they represent in the end?
Because the GMC have historically stood for the patient, the patients
rights, the patients protection from, for example, medical malpractice.
Well, who do they stand for now because we stand for the patients.
Everything we have done is in the best interests of the children. What they
are representing and prosecuting is not on behalf of the children no parent
ahs complained agaisnt us, but on behalf of the Department of Health, on
behalf of the new kid on the block, 'the greater good.'

So here we have a body who has traditionally represented the patient, the
victim, if you like, against the medical profession or againts medical
malpractice. Now they are defending the diktat of public health against the
rights of the individual.

So they are in a real quandary, or if they are not they should be, about
quite who they represent, because I know who I represent--the individual
patient.


  #2  
Old April 11th 10, 01:03 PM posted to alt.support.autism,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
Happy Oyster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default Video transcripts: Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:39:30 +0100, "john" wrote:

http://whale.to/vaccine/wakefield23.html

Video transcripts: Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words



In his own cell would be better.


Wakefield is responsible for the death of children!

..
--
Gott läßt Israeliten 12000 Bewohner von Ai umbringen
(Das Buch Josua, Kap. 8) *** http://www.reimbibel.de ***
"Sein Kriegsgott sprach zu Josua: * Bereite einen Hinterhalt
'Nun geht es weiter, ist doch klar. * und mach die Leut von Ai kalt.'"
  #3  
Old April 12th 10, 09:17 AM posted to alt.support.autism,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8p65...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKgh...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBO_Z...layer_embedded


  #4  
Old March 5th 11, 07:46 AM
cube12ic cube12ic is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by ParentingBanter: Feb 2011
Posts: 7
Default

This is very nice and informative post. I get new and very useful knowledge to this post.
I hope in future you share more useful information.
__________________
recepti.hr
 




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
Dr Andrew Wakefield In His own Words Q2 Conflicts of Interest and Dishonesty? john[_5_] Kids Health 0 April 8th 10 09:55 PM
Statement from Dr. Andrew Wakefield Regarding GMC Hearing Sanctions john[_5_] General 2 April 5th 10 05:47 PM
Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship john[_5_] Kids Health 3 February 8th 10 12:51 AM
Parents and Professionals in support of Dr Andrew Wakefield JOHN General 19 March 9th 08 09:56 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 09:30 AM.


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.