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 » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The GMC Hearings: Return to the House of Lies

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 9th 10, 07:31 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med
external usenet poster
Posts: 822
Default The GMC Hearings: Return to the House of Lies

The GMC Hearings: Return to the House of Lies
By Martin Walker MA


God gave me a mind that is my own,
a mind that has not been mortgaged to the opinion
of any man or set of men, a mind
that I was to use and not surrender.

Thomas Francis Meagher 1846. (1)

Chief Prosecutor Smith, yesterday asked for the most severe sanction to be
levied against Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith, in the resumed
second part of the GMC Fitness to Practice Hearing taking place in London.

The day was a quite outside the building. Where on previous first days there
had been crowds of parents, there were now only two journalists self
censured in a small railed paddock. Inside, the cavernous glass building
there was no doubt that they were expecting trouble. Having seen the
television film of the revolution in Kyrgyzstan and recognising the
similarities in their corrupt judicial procedures, the GMC had employed
security guards who sat guarding the door to the Hearing and public gallery.

As expected Miss Smith called for the 'erasure' of Dr Wakefield from the
Medical Register due to the number and severity of the charges that
accounted singularly and cumulatively as Serious Professional Misconduct.
Despite the fact that Professor Walker-Smith has been retired for some years
after having been one of the most respected European paediatric
gastroenterologists and despite the fact that he had only seen children for
clinical reasons and despite the fact that he carried no 'invasive
procedures' on any of the children in the Lancet paper, Smith also called
for his erasure from the Medical Register.

In her Machiavellian manner Smith suggested that to give Walker-Smith a
lesser sentence would leave children at risk. She didn't state which
children would be at risk, but as Walker-Smith is now retired from clinical
medicine, we have to assume they would be ones that he came across in the
park or the local high street. Smith stressed that Walker-Smith's erasure
was important to assure the public that the medical profession take these
charges seriously. What of course she didn't say but which was completely
true, was that had the Panel only admonished Walker-Smith, the public and
the lawyers would have been able to ask how Wakefield had been able to
commit all the iniquities he was charged with single-handed. In order to win
the day, Smith has always had to brand Wakefield and Walker-Smith with the
same iron. This is ironic considering that both defendants had many evident
disagreements and some disliking for each other.

Smith suggested that Prof. Murch whilst subordinate to Prof. Walker-Smith
might have used his consultant status to make his own decisions regarding
the treatment of the children. However, Smith suggested that perhaps the
panel might be more lenient with Professor Murch and simply suspend him for
a period if he shows sufficient contrition. Again this is a bizarre and dark
suggestion in light of the fact that it was Professor Murch who actually
carried out the 'invasive' procedures which were at the heart of the case.
In saying this, I am not being critical of Professor Murch, who all the
parents know acted clinically, at all times, with ethical correctness.

In preparing her ground Smith repeatedly referred, with the coinage of
hypocrisy that is her staple expression, to the damage done to Public Health
by the defendants. She also kept afloat the lie - one of the main pillars of
the prosecution case - that the children cited in the Lancet paper were not
ill and did not arrive at the Royal Free Hospital with clinical symptoms.
Those who know even a little about this faux trial will know that this
prosecution assertion has been the seminal reason why their parents were
never called to give evidence. In effect, Smith has spent two and a half
years accusing the parents of vaccine damaged children, of ignorance about
their children, of lying, of demanding useless invasive procedures, of
having neurotic disorders, and of being gulled at the expense of their
children by the charismatic Dr Wakefield.

The question of why no parents were called, however, hangs like a spectre
equally over the defence council. Nothing that has happened, so far, has
riled any of the defence council sufficiently to fight back on behalf of
their clients. Nothing, it seems, dampens their essentially cheery
disposition while the lives and professional reputations of their three
clients hang in the balance.

Bran Deer, the Sunday Times columnist, often referred to by parents as the
'little man', arrived soon after the start of proceedings, having presumably
wanted to miss expected demonstrations. Deer, the main architect of the
character assassination of Dr Wakefield, imagines that there will be
pandemonium when the doctors are struck off. In this opinion he shows the
usual low level of understanding of the parents and defendants, who have
always behaved with courtesy and intelligence, despite being deprived of
research hopes for the treatment of their desperately damaged children.

When Smith wound up the morning session at 11.45, Kieran Coonan proposed
that the hearing should resume at 2.15, which would give him sufficient time
to get through his brief submissions, about which he was going to seek
advice from Dr Wakefield. After a two and half hour lunch break, Coonan
confirmed that he had been instructed by Wakefield to make no submissions to
the Hearing and that he had nothing to add to the stinking landfill Smith
had put forward that morning.

The next sitting day will be next Tuesday when Mr Miller, counsel for
Professor Walker-Smith, will have character witnesses arriving from America.
Their evidence will take one to one and a half days (in Standard GMC Time
[SGMCT] this converts into around two months including short post-Easter
breaks and time off for participants to consult with other share-holders and
stock-brokers). Prof. Murch's character witnesses will attend on the
following Friday.

(1) Speeches from the dock. M. H. Gill and Son.1910.

Old April 9th 10, 05:07 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med
Peter B.[_2_]
external usenet poster
Posts: 28
Default The GMC Hearings: Return to the House of Lies

"john" wrote in message
The GMC Hearings: Return to the House of Lies
By Martin Walker MA

Cry me a river, eh?

Too Drewing bad, so everyone lost interest, he is now a non-entity,
another ostracized RPAutrey Jr. as it were.


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
Mercury Amalgam Fillings: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics The One True Zhen Jue General 3 August 1st 07 06:16 AM
Mark Probert's Superior STUPIDITY Prevails Again ... He LIES about his lies yet again Ilena Rose Kids Health 4 October 23rd 04 08:38 PM
Mark Probert's Stupidity Prevails Again ... He lies about his lies yet again Ilena Rose Kids Health 2 October 18th 04 04:47 PM
Doan lies yet again..was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phony offer to "debate" Kane Spanking 6 May 14th 04 02:10 AM
House Ways Committee convened hearings CPS failure to protect Fern5827 Spanking 0 November 8th 03 09:55 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.