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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |