"Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"

January 06, 2010
Polly Tommey of Autism File Magazine on "Discredited Defamation of Dr.
Andrew Wakefield"
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/p...ield.html#more



US Editor's Note: In light of the upcoming GMC decision - and always - The
Autism File supports Dr. Andrew Wakefield 100 percent. We are there with
you, Dr. Wakefield, in truth and spirit. Thank you for your courage,
integrity, and love for the children.

If readers would like to send feedback to The Autism File, please e-mail:

From the US and Canada:


From the UK and elsewhe


by Polly Tommey
I am getting seriously worried about the "politics" of autism here in the
UK.

The Autism File exists to provide help and support to parents,
professionals, and caregivers in understanding autism better by bringing
informed articles and opinions on the condition from all over the world and
enabling them to then make up their minds about whether this advice will
help their families and their children. We have done this for over 10 years
and our readers' feedback supports our continuing to do this.

However, over the past few months, and for reasons I cannot yet understand,
a number of people and organizations have evidently decided that they should
be determining the editorial policy of our magazine . . . .

Specifically, I have been "warned" not to print any more articles written by
Dr. Andrew Wakefield (he wrote for the first time in the last issue); I was
also warned not to invite him to speak at our conference. Separately, some
organizations have warned me that they will not have anything to do with me
if I continue to support and publish papers by him. Some advertisers tell me
they have to stop working with us as they are "under pressure" to pull out,
and a number of celebrities, high earning individuals, journalists,
scientists, practitioners, and people who want to contribute to the magazine
or to our campaigns say that it's more than their job's worth to be
associated with the work of this man more than their job's worth to even
listen to what he has to say. All of them say that they can't support The
Autism File if The Autism File appears to support Dr. Wakefield.

This is completely unacceptable; so, let me set out why I will not be
bullied into letting others decide who writes and who doesn't write for the
magazine, and let me be crystal clear about what The Autism File magazine
will and will not support. The circumstances surrounding my "warnings" are
remarkable in a country like Britain.
In the first case, very recently, I met with a senior representative of a
leading autism organization. We met, at his request, not at his office, but
at a café in London. He told me that he was aware that at our recent UK
conference, I had introduced Dr. Wakefield and had openly declared my
support for his research to continue. This, it seems, had presented his
organization with a serious problem. The message I was very clearly given at
this meeting was that if The Autism File magazine continued to publish Dr.
Wakefield's work, if I continued to support him publicly, and if I allowed
him to speak at our conferences, then they could not work with either me or
The Autism File. He also reminded me, very pointedly, that they worked
closely with the Department of Health and were the decision makers regarding
many important issues relating to autism . . . .

In the second case, some time ago I interviewed a notable academic from the
UK autism community, and I invited him to join our scientific advisory
board. He was keen but stated he could only do so if certain existing
members - specifically including Andrew Wakefield - were removed from it. He
then bluntly warned me that if The Autism File continued to support Dr.
Wakefield it would be "shut down." Despite his standing and expertise, his
concern was such that ultimately he chose not to even write for our magazine
because, he said, "it is too controversial," and, given that he is funded by
the government, he felt that if he did, then his funding would be at risk.

So, why do these people feel so strongly about this? Why is there such fear?
Their reason, apparently, is that Dr. Wakefield is "discredited."

"Discredited by whom?" I asked the man from the autism organization at the
café. "He just is . . . everyone knows that," came the reply. OK, so he
doesn't know. And this type of presumptive and unchallenged answer comes
from all quarters.

Let's just look at the facts he

There are two main sources behind the idea that Dr. Wakefield is
"discredited." One is a freelance journalist, Brian Deer; the second is the
editor of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton. Between them, these two men sowed
the seed of the "discredited" myth over a few days many years ago in
February 2004. The full story will be made public in the near future, having
already been presented in evidence to the UK's General Medical Council.
However, as far as anyone being "discredited" is concerned, it goes as
follows.

In the days leading up to Deer's initial "revelations" about Andrew
Wakefield and others in The Sunday Times in February 2004, a meeting took
place between Deer and Horton in which Deer made a number of claims. These
all centered on a paper written by Dr. Wakefield and colleagues, which was
published in The Lancet in 1998. In the now notorious paper, Wakefield et
al. had reported on a possibly novel form of bowel disease, with
autistic-like developmental regression, in 12 children referred to the
gastrointestinal department of London's Royal Free Hospital. Eight of the
children, according to their parents or general practitioner, had the onset
of developmental regression soon after their MMR vaccine.

Despite what is usually inaccurately reported in summary, the paper actually
concluded that: "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and
rubella vaccine and the syndrome described . further investigations are
needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to the vaccine."

In the February 2004 meeting, the major issues of relevance to Dr. Horton
were three specific claims made by Deer. First, he claimed that The Lancet
study was funded by Legal Aid money. Second, he claimed that the children
reported in The Lancet were sourced by lawyers. Third, and perhaps most
crucially, Deer claimed that Dr. Wakefield had hidden his involvement with
Dawbarns, the firm of lawyers involved in the MMR litigation, from The
Lancet and Dr. Horton.

On hearing these claims from Deer, Horton was apparently horrified, and
within hours of the meeting he stated publically that the 1998 paper was
"fatally flawed." He further claimed that had The Lancet been aware of
Wakefield's involvement with Dawbarns at that time the paper would never
have been published. This statement about the "fatally flawed" paper was,
therefore, the seed of the "discredited" myth that prevails and is clearly
influencing many more people today.

Let's fast forward to the GMC hearing, which has been investigating these
claims for nearly three years. What do we find?

First, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that The Lancet study was not
funded by Legal Aid. Not one penny of Legal Aid money was used for the
study. Second, it has been shown that the children in the study were not
sourced by lawyers. None of the children reported in The Lancet study were
involved in any legal action at the time of their referral to the Royal Free
Hospital. Third, we now know that The Lancet had been told, in
communications between Dawbarns and Horton, about Dr. Wakefield's
involvement with them in April 1997. So, they knew. A whole year before the
paper was published, they knew.






Where is Horton's "fatal flaw" then?

There are many other aspects to this convoluted and exhausting story, but
the idea of Dr. Wakefield's being discredited comes straight from this
inaccurate exchange in 2004 between two journalists, one an academic, the
other one not.

So, back to my friend from the well-known national autism organization.

He evidently believes Dr. Wakefield will be struck off by the GMC and has
drawn his own conclusions rather too soon. Now, either he has some
privileged access to a decision that hasn't yet been made (which is a
worrying thought) or he is making his own assumptions without access to the
evidence.

The fact that he was badly informed and willing to prejudge a situation
about which he clearly knew very little comes as no great surprise. But for
me, finding out that this is the position taken by a major and influential
autism organization is more concerning. Of most fundamental importance,
however, is that the future of our magazine was being threatened as a
result. And that is, frankly, stunning.

As a journalist trying to understand the politics of autism, bigger
questions have to be answered:

.. Why is it so important that Dr. Wakefield is seen to be discredited?
.. Whom is it important to?
.. Who stands to gain from this?
.. Who will lose out if the truth is revealed?
.. What is it that people are so frightened of?
.. What is it they don't want us to know?

At around the time of World Autism Awareness Day this year, I appeared with
a colleague on the Wright Stuff television chat show on Channel 5. Before
going on air, the host Matthew Wright joined us in the "green room" and said
that he had been told by the show's lawyers that if Dr. Wakefield's name was
mentioned, he had to say that Wakefield was "discredited." We questioned
why, but Matthew said that he had no choice these were his lawyers'
instructions . . . .

When I was on GMTV they said pretty much the same thing, and we have all
read the same in many newspapers.

Again I have to ask: Discredited by whom? And why?

This is my take on the whole thing: Billy, my son, had a bad reaction to the
MMR vaccine, a reaction that I know caused irreversible damage. I owe it to
him and the many other parents who have children like my son to support
research into vaccine safety and into the possible association between some
vaccines for some children and some forms of autism. Surely, research into
vaccines and their possible side effects is something that should be ongoing
anyway?

But why the warnings? And why can others write but not Dr. Wakefield?

Our "blogger friends" seem to be prime movers as they consistently join in
enthusiastically in perpetuating the "discredited" theory. There are about 5
or 6 of them (pretending to number about 20 or 30), and they obviously don't
like me (to put it mildly). I have never met them (at least never under the
names they use in the blogosphere), and they certainly don't know me. But
they love to blog about the fact that I am "anti-vaccination" and a
"Wakefield supporter."

Sadly, if I really was anti-vaccination, Billy might be outside playing
football with his friends as I'm writing this. But he's not. He lives away
from home now in an environment where his needs can be met, needs he would
never have had if his mother had been "anti-vaccination."

There is no doubt in my mind that certain children are simply not OK to
receive several vaccinations at the same time. Some children, some babies,
some toddlers are simply unable to cope. Some may need a different
vaccination schedule. For some, it might always be unsafe. A safer
vaccination schedule would increase uptake in the healthy population,
protecting those for whom vaccination is more dangerous. So, why are we not
allowed to support research into this? How do we know which children are OK
and which are not?

Toby (my youngest) has received no vaccinations. I won't risk it. He also
happens to be the only one of my children who has never had antibiotics and
has never seen a doctor, apart from the time he got a large cut falling off
a bike.

So, is Dr. Wakefield a threat because he is presenting research evidence
that vaccination does cause damage to some individuals? If he isn't
producing further evidence, then why is everyone so desperate to stop him or
anyone reporting this? It just doesn't make sense.

I don't think that vaccination causes all autism. Far from it. There are
different types of autism and different causes. Here at The Autism File we
discuss and print reports on all perspectives. That's part of what the
magazine is about, asking the questions and discussing the answers.

Some time ago my only certainty was that something happened to Billy after
his MMR jab. Then over the years I heard enough from other families to know
that Billy wasn't the only one this happened to. I am now more certain than
ever that there is more to this than I had ever imagined.

So, why the block on vaccination research? Why are threats being given to so
many to not bring this subject up? Just give me one good reason why I should
not print Dr. Wakefield's articles . . . .

Discredited? I ask you again: how and by whom?

Polly Tommey is Editor in Chief of The Autism File magazine.

note the 3 lies that we hear here all the time from the likes of Bowditch
and co


"john" wrote in message
...
January 06, 2010
Polly Tommey of Autism File Magazine on "Discredited Defamation of Dr.
Andrew Wakefield"
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/p...ield.html#more



US Editor's Note: In light of the upcoming GMC decision - and always -
The
Autism File supports Dr. Andrew Wakefield 100 percent. We are there with
you, Dr. Wakefield, in truth and spirit. Thank you for your courage,
integrity, and love for the children.

If readers would like to send feedback to The Autism File, please e-mail:

From the US and Canada:


From the UK and elsewhe


by Polly Tommey
I am getting seriously worried about the "politics" of autism here in the
UK.

The Autism File exists to provide help and support to parents,
professionals, and caregivers in understanding autism better by bringing
informed articles and opinions on the condition from all over the world
and
enabling them to then make up their minds about whether this advice will
help their families and their children. We have done this for over 10
years
and our readers' feedback supports our continuing to do this.

However, over the past few months, and for reasons I cannot yet
understand,
a number of people and organizations have evidently decided that they
should
be determining the editorial policy of our magazine . . . .

Specifically, I have been "warned" not to print any more articles written
by
Dr. Andrew Wakefield (he wrote for the first time in the last issue); I
was
also warned not to invite him to speak at our conference. Separately, some
organizations have warned me that they will not have anything to do with
me
if I continue to support and publish papers by him. Some advertisers tell
me
they have to stop working with us as they are "under pressure" to pull
out,
and a number of celebrities, high earning individuals, journalists,
scientists, practitioners, and people who want to contribute to the
magazine
or to our campaigns say that it's more than their job's worth to be
associated with the work of this man more than their job's worth to even
listen to what he has to say. All of them say that they can't support The
Autism File if The Autism File appears to support Dr. Wakefield.

This is completely unacceptable; so, let me set out why I will not be
bullied into letting others decide who writes and who doesn't write for
the
magazine, and let me be crystal clear about what The Autism File magazine
will and will not support. The circumstances surrounding my "warnings" are
remarkable in a country like Britain.
In the first case, very recently, I met with a senior representative of a
leading autism organization. We met, at his request, not at his office,
but
at a café in London. He told me that he was aware that at our recent UK
conference, I had introduced Dr. Wakefield and had openly declared my
support for his research to continue. This, it seems, had presented his
organization with a serious problem. The message I was very clearly given
at
this meeting was that if The Autism File magazine continued to publish Dr.
Wakefield's work, if I continued to support him publicly, and if I allowed
him to speak at our conferences, then they could not work with either me
or
The Autism File. He also reminded me, very pointedly, that they worked
closely with the Department of Health and were the decision makers
regarding
many important issues relating to autism . . . .

In the second case, some time ago I interviewed a notable academic from
the
UK autism community, and I invited him to join our scientific advisory
board. He was keen but stated he could only do so if certain existing
members - specifically including Andrew Wakefield - were removed from it.
He
then bluntly warned me that if The Autism File continued to support Dr.
Wakefield it would be "shut down." Despite his standing and expertise, his
concern was such that ultimately he chose not to even write for our
magazine
because, he said, "it is too controversial," and, given that he is funded
by
the government, he felt that if he did, then his funding would be at risk.

So, why do these people feel so strongly about this? Why is there such
fear?
Their reason, apparently, is that Dr. Wakefield is "discredited."

"Discredited by whom?" I asked the man from the autism organization at the
café. "He just is . . . everyone knows that," came the reply. OK, so he
doesn't know. And this type of presumptive and unchallenged answer comes
from all quarters.

Let's just look at the facts he

There are two main sources behind the idea that Dr. Wakefield is
"discredited." One is a freelance journalist, Brian Deer; the second is
the
editor of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton. Between them, these two men
sowed
the seed of the "discredited" myth over a few days many years ago in
February 2004. The full story will be made public in the near future,
having
already been presented in evidence to the UK's General Medical Council.
However, as far as anyone being "discredited" is concerned, it goes as
follows.

In the days leading up to Deer's initial "revelations" about Andrew
Wakefield and others in The Sunday Times in February 2004, a meeting took
place between Deer and Horton in which Deer made a number of claims. These
all centered on a paper written by Dr. Wakefield and colleagues, which was
published in The Lancet in 1998. In the now notorious paper, Wakefield et
al. had reported on a possibly novel form of bowel disease, with
autistic-like developmental regression, in 12 children referred to the
gastrointestinal department of London's Royal Free Hospital. Eight of the
children, according to their parents or general practitioner, had the
onset
of developmental regression soon after their MMR vaccine.

Despite what is usually inaccurately reported in summary, the paper
actually
concluded that: "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps
and
rubella vaccine and the syndrome described . further investigations are
needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to the vaccine."

In the February 2004 meeting, the major issues of relevance to Dr. Horton
were three specific claims made by Deer. First, he claimed that The Lancet
study was funded by Legal Aid money. Second, he claimed that the children
reported in The Lancet were sourced by lawyers. Third, and perhaps most
crucially, Deer claimed that Dr. Wakefield had hidden his involvement with
Dawbarns, the firm of lawyers involved in the MMR litigation, from The
Lancet and Dr. Horton.

On hearing these claims from Deer, Horton was apparently horrified, and
within hours of the meeting he stated publically that the 1998 paper was
"fatally flawed." He further claimed that had The Lancet been aware of
Wakefield's involvement with Dawbarns at that time the paper would never
have been published. This statement about the "fatally flawed" paper was,
therefore, the seed of the "discredited" myth that prevails and is clearly
influencing many more people today.

Let's fast forward to the GMC hearing, which has been investigating these
claims for nearly three years. What do we find?

First, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that The Lancet study was not
funded by Legal Aid. Not one penny of Legal Aid money was used for the
study. Second, it has been shown that the children in the study were not
sourced by lawyers. None of the children reported in The Lancet study were
involved in any legal action at the time of their referral to the Royal
Free
Hospital. Third, we now know that The Lancet had been told, in
communications between Dawbarns and Horton, about Dr. Wakefield's
involvement with them in April 1997. So, they knew. A whole year before
the
paper was published, they knew.






Where is Horton's "fatal flaw" then?

There are many other aspects to this convoluted and exhausting story, but
the idea of Dr. Wakefield's being discredited comes straight from this
inaccurate exchange in 2004 between two journalists, one an academic, the
other one not.

So, back to my friend from the well-known national autism organization.

He evidently believes Dr. Wakefield will be struck off by the GMC and has
drawn his own conclusions rather too soon. Now, either he has some
privileged access to a decision that hasn't yet been made (which is a
worrying thought) or he is making his own assumptions without access to
the
evidence.

The fact that he was badly informed and willing to prejudge a situation
about which he clearly knew very little comes as no great surprise. But
for
me, finding out that this is the position taken by a major and influential
autism organization is more concerning. Of most fundamental importance,
however, is that the future of our magazine was being threatened as a
result. And that is, frankly, stunning.

As a journalist trying to understand the politics of autism, bigger
questions have to be answered:

. Why is it so important that Dr. Wakefield is seen to be discredited?
. Whom is it important to?
. Who stands to gain from this?
. Who will lose out if the truth is revealed?
. What is it that people are so frightened of?
. What is it they don't want us to know?

At around the time of World Autism Awareness Day this year, I appeared
with
a colleague on the Wright Stuff television chat show on Channel 5. Before
going on air, the host Matthew Wright joined us in the "green room" and
said
that he had been told by the show's lawyers that if Dr. Wakefield's name
was
mentioned, he had to say that Wakefield was "discredited." We questioned
why, but Matthew said that he had no choice these were his lawyers'
instructions . . . .

When I was on GMTV they said pretty much the same thing, and we have all
read the same in many newspapers.

Again I have to ask: Discredited by whom? And why?

This is my take on the whole thing: Billy, my son, had a bad reaction to
the
MMR vaccine, a reaction that I know caused irreversible damage. I owe it
to
him and the many other parents who have children like my son to support
research into vaccine safety and into the possible association between
some
vaccines for some children and some forms of autism. Surely, research into
vaccines and their possible side effects is something that should be
ongoing
anyway?

But why the warnings? And why can others write but not Dr. Wakefield?

Our "blogger friends" seem to be prime movers as they consistently join in
enthusiastically in perpetuating the "discredited" theory. There are about
5
or 6 of them (pretending to number about 20 or 30), and they obviously
don't
like me (to put it mildly). I have never met them (at least never under
the
names they use in the blogosphere), and they certainly don't know me. But
they love to blog about the fact that I am "anti-vaccination" and a
"Wakefield supporter."

Sadly, if I really was anti-vaccination, Billy might be outside playing
football with his friends as I'm writing this. But he's not. He lives away
from home now in an environment where his needs can be met, needs he would
never have had if his mother had been "anti-vaccination."

There is no doubt in my mind that certain children are simply not OK to
receive several vaccinations at the same time. Some children, some babies,
some toddlers are simply unable to cope. Some may need a different
vaccination schedule. For some, it might always be unsafe. A safer
vaccination schedule would increase uptake in the healthy population,
protecting those for whom vaccination is more dangerous. So, why are we
not
allowed to support research into this? How do we know which children are
OK
and which are not?

Toby (my youngest) has received no vaccinations. I won't risk it. He also
happens to be the only one of my children who has never had antibiotics
and
has never seen a doctor, apart from the time he got a large cut falling
off
a bike.

So, is Dr. Wakefield a threat because he is presenting research evidence
that vaccination does cause damage to some individuals? If he isn't
producing further evidence, then why is everyone so desperate to stop him
or
anyone reporting this? It just doesn't make sense.

I don't think that vaccination causes all autism. Far from it. There are
different types of autism and different causes. Here at The Autism File we
discuss and print reports on all perspectives. That's part of what the
magazine is about, asking the questions and discussing the answers.

Some time ago my only certainty was that something happened to Billy after
his MMR jab. Then over the years I heard enough from other families to
know
that Billy wasn't the only one this happened to. I am now more certain
than
ever that there is more to this than I had ever imagined.

So, why the block on vaccination research? Why are threats being given to
so
many to not bring this subject up? Just give me one good reason why I
should
not print Dr. Wakefield's articles . . . .

Discredited? I ask you again: how and by whom?

Polly Tommey is Editor in Chief of The Autism File magazine.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:48:48 -0000, "john" wrote:

Polly Tommey of Autism File Magazine on "Discredited Defamation of Dr.
Andrew Wakefield"

note the 3 lies that we hear here all the time from the likes of Bowditch
and co

Lies? Are you referring to these three? :-

First, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that The Lancet study was not
funded by Legal Aid. Not one penny of Legal Aid money was used for the
study.

Barr, the solicitor involved, has admitted that he arranged legal aid
funding for the Lancet study so how it has been "demonstrated beyond
doubt" that there wasn't any really needs a bit more explanation.

Second, it has been shown that the children in the study were not
sourced by lawyers.

It has? Wakefield started working for Barr (the solicitor involved)
two years before the Lancet paper was published. Of the 12 children
(presented by Wakefield in the paper as a random group of patients)
most were clients of Barr or had contacted him to become clients. One
was flown in from the USA. None lived in London, two were brothers.
Six had legal aid approved before even being recruited to the trial.

As Walker-Smith wrote to Wakefield:-
"It is clear that the legal involvement by nearly all the parents will
have an effect on the study as they have a vested interest... I would
have been less concerned by legal involvement if our work were
complete and we had a firm view. Never before in my career have I been
confronted by litigant parents of research work in progress. I think
this makes our work difficult, especially publication and
presentation." (20 February 1997)

None of the children reported in The Lancet study were
involved in any legal action at the time of their referral to the Royal
Free Hospital.

Well it was certainly true that no court case had started being heard
however, legal action had most certainly started otherwise why would
legal aid certificates have been granted to them?

Third, we now know that The Lancet had been told, in
communications between Dawbarns and Horton, about Dr. Wakefield's
involvement with them in April 1997. So, they knew. A whole year before
the paper was published, they knew.

The idea of disclosure in scientific papers is not that it relies upon
someone remembering a conversation from years ago but that the author
openly declares their interest in the paper itself. Wakefiled didn't

There are many other aspects to this convoluted and exhausting story,

Indeed, I assume Wakefield has been told the GMC verdict is expected
soon and has mobilised his propaganda forces yet again as there
appears to be no other reason for this flurry of interest in him.

the idea of Dr. Wakefield's being discredited comes straight from this
inaccurate exchange in 2004 between two journalists, one an academic, the
other one not.

No, it comes from the evidence that he manipulated data, that he had a
personal financial interest and that he picked only test results
favourable to his preconceptions. He also failed to respond when it
became absolutely clear that the "measles detection" he relied upon
was inaccurate and had not in fact detected measles virus - a fatal
blow to his hypothesis.

But for
me, finding out that this is the position taken by a major and influential
autism organization is more concerning.

Why? The evidence is that Wakefields hypothesis is completely
discredited is overwhelming. Why would anyone want to pursue it
further or give him a platform to promote junk science?

Of most fundamental importance,
however, is that the future of our magazine was being threatened as a
result. And that is, frankly, stunning.

Why should people fund junk?

As a journalist trying to understand the politics of autism, bigger
questions have to be answered:

As a (self appointed) journalist why not try understanding the science
first? Then you would understand that the politics, if any, are
irrelevant. Despite the efforts of various airheads you can't make
science out of preconceptions and conspiracy theories.

. Why is it so important that Dr. Wakefield is seen to be discredited?

Who cares what he is seen as. He _is_ discredited, that is a fact.

. Who stands to gain from this?

From all this arm waving and shouting?- Wakefield who has a lucrative
business to protect and various hangers on reliant upon him.

. Who will lose out if the truth is revealed?

Wakefield and the various loonies now making a living off his coat
tails.

. What is it that people are so frightened of?

Loosing their jobs if they are found to be frauds?

. What is it they don't want us to know?

That Wakefields work is thoroughly discredited. Admit that and an
awful lot of "activists" could be out on the streets.

At around the time of World Autism Awareness Day this year, I appeared
with a colleague on the Wright Stuff television chat show on Channel 5.

Ah, the not exactly prime time daytime TV chat/entertainment show
fronted by a grinning maniac. Favourite watching of unemployable
single mothers and chavs in council estates. Broadcast from the third
floor of Whiteley's Shopping Centre it airs at the peak time of 9:15AM
just as the target audience are thinking of getting up.

I can see that hosting a serious discussion

This is my take on the whole thing: Billy, my son, had a bad reaction to
the MMR vaccine, a reaction that I know caused irreversible damage.

Oh well, if she "knows" it it must be true. Why bother with all this
science stuff?

So, is Dr. Wakefield a threat because he is presenting research evidence
that vaccination does cause damage to some individuals?

No, he is a disredited irrelevance.

If he isn't
producing further evidence, then why is everyone so desperate to stop him
or anyone reporting this? It just doesn't make sense.

Because silly people like you don't understand and won't accept that
he found nothing, proved nothing and made a lot of money from doing
so. You now make a lot of money from peddling his false hypothesis
and promoting the anti MMR message.

So, why the block on vaccination research?

There isn't one. There is, not unsurprisingly, a shortage of
interest in researching thoroughly discredited theories.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:48:48 -0000, "john" wrote:


******** deleted. I don't have the time for spiel.

You guys kill millions every year with drugs and bad medicine
Eg 400,000 from AZT
Addict millions every year to Benzos and SSRIs
With millions of kids on speed repackaged as 'Ritalin'
Kill millions from cancer every year by suppressing cancer therapies
Cause millions of cases of autism over 70 years
and so on

Yet when a man suggests (with the support of his line manager) using single
vaccines over triple all hell breaks loose. We all know why that is.

whatever the outcome of the hearing is, either way you will shoot yourselves
in both feet, can't wait. If any of those kids parents came out againts
him, that would help your case. And it is telling your lot never called any
as witnesses for the prosecution.

"john" wrote in message
...

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:48:48 -0000, "john" wrote:


******** deleted. I don't have the time for spiel.


BS, you just posted crap about vitamins.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 05:42:35 -0000, "john" wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:48:48 -0000, "john" wrote:

I don't have the time for spiel.

You should, you can learn a lot from it.

Kill millions from cancer every year by suppressing cancer therapies

Like little boxes with 555 timer IC's in them?

Yet when a man suggests (with the support of his line manager) using single
vaccines over triple all hell breaks loose. We all know why that is.

Indeed we do, it was journalism at its worst with appallingly bad
reporting. So bad it is now used on journalism courses as _the_
example of how to get things dreadfully wrong. As far as the science
was concerned it was pretty minor. it didn't take long to show his
theory was flawed. When the evidence showed the test results he
utterly relied upon were wholly incorrect he should have published
that - but didn't.

whatever the outcome of the hearing is, either way you will shoot yourselves
in both feet, can't wait. If any of those kids parents came out againts
him, that would help your case. And it is telling your lot never called any
as witnesses for the prosecution.

It isn't altogether clear what you are trying to say but I assume you
are referring to no parents being called as witnesses to the BMJ
hearing? If so - why should they be? He is accused of serious
professional misconduct.

The exact details are at

http://www.gmc-uk.org/news/4129.asp

(Which also explains the minor flurry of activity from the Wakefield
supporters club and publicity machine - the results are due at the end
of he month).

None of the charges involve the parents so why would any be called and
if they were - for what purpose?