On April 7th, the GMC reconvene to decide what is to be done with Andrew Wakefield.
You can play a part in helping to make sure that the GMC know the feelings – the anger – of the true autism and autistic community and by urging them to strike Wakefield off.
We all know how Wakefield has lied, grabbed money, attempted to conceal his role in murky dealings and covered up results that he knew would counteract his ‘science’. He still holds sway over a few hardcore antivax/autism believers and for his continued lying to them and relying on their belief alone he deserves to be struck off. His abuse of their inability to understand science is shameful.
Please email Kate Emmerson, the GMC solicitor concerned on KateDOTEmmersonATffwDOTcom stating how you feel about Andrew Wakefield and urging the GMC to strike him off.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Somehow I doubt they will need much urging. Given the gravity of all the things the GMC found “proved” against Wakers, together with his utter unrepentance, erasure is pretty much a certainty.
Not sure I’m quite comfortable with this. I prefer the GMC to make decisions on the basis of the evidence they have, not on popular votes either in favour of or opposed to striking off. I’m sure that this is what will indeed happen: that the decision will be taken on the basis of the professional code of the GMC, and the circumstances of this case. Since it will make no difference, does it not seem a little vindictive to bombard the GMC with comments and e-mails? (I also think it right that Wakefiled should be struck off, btw).
The name and email address given are not for a ‘GMC’ solicitor exactly but a solicitor with Field Fisher Waterhouse which is one of the firms handling cases on behalf of the GMC. FFW do not take part in the adjudication process but put evidence before the Fitness to Practice Panel via counsel/barristers.
It’s a quasi law court working in this case to the criminal standard of proof. There is no way that the panel will be influenced by emails to the GMC directly or to the law firm acting on behalf of the investigative team putting the case to the panel.
There is a stronger chance the panel might be influenced if the defendant doctors put in testimonials from supporters – that would be a very interesting scenario but we will just have to wait and see.
In a number of hearings where Professor David Southall was due to be sanctioned his supporters put dozens of testimonials forward via the defending lawyers, and were successful in one hearing but not in the more recent one, which is currently awaiting an Appeal Court ruling.
The GMC is currently prosecutor and judge – but this is going to change.
Wakefield’s problem in putting forward testimonials is related to his problem in calling any witnesses (the prosecution called one of the parents, but he didn’t call anybody at all).
If he produces people saying things like “oh, he is the first doctor to listen to us”, the panel will know this isn’t true, and this can only inflame them. If they say, “he helped my child”, they will know this was unlawful, since he was a former trainee gut surgeon working in a laboratory.
In fact, since the panel knows so much about the children, and the enormous efforts that were made by many doctors around the UK to help them – compared to what the panel rules to have been the abuse inflicted upon some of them at the Royal Free – anything that anybody says to the contrary will likely have the reverse effect to what’s intended.
I’d say he’s done for. Assuming the MPS is willing to cough up another million or so, his next chance will be in the high court, where he would need to convince a judge that the panel’s findings were “clearly wrong”, or that some monstrous iniquity occurred as a result of the length of time the process took.
And the trouble with that line would be that it amounts to an argument that some misconduct is on such a large scale, and so complex in its contrivance, that the perpetrators are entitled to get away with it. I don’t think so.
I see at least one of the Age of Autism writers reads this message board. Good. It’s a way of getting comment to them which would otherwise be deleted by their editors. If I could just mention a recent post by someone calling themselves J’Accuse – who thinks I am a certain UK freelance journalist – why? Because I have “claimed inside knowledge of the David Southall affair” – the testimonials business. Funny that – it’s not inside knowledge – reported widely in mainstream media outlets including the BBC – just do a Google search Madame or Monsieur J’Accuse.
What it does do is give some measure of the investigative ability of Wakefield et al supporters. With incompetent friends like J’Accuse – who needs enemies?
I may well be a UK freelance journalist, or perhaps not – but it’s for me to say who I am and not for anonymous jabsloonies like J’Accuse to make loonatic guesses.
I see the AoA posting by J’Accuse, about ‘rumors’ that I am a certain freelance journalist from the UK, was deleted after being mentioned here. Curious mixture of North American and British spelling by J’Accuse – who can it have been?
Andrew Wakefield statement posted on AoA site – not yet publicised anywhere else. I see the PDF with file name “final-us-statement-ajw” was created by Kim Stagliano.
The statement includes this: “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.”
So why wasn’t the evidence put to the GMC hearing?
I don’t think any member of the general public can influence the GMC’s decision – nor should they, really.
The GMC appear very, very reluctant to strike off anyone, so I doubt if Wakefield will be struck off – richly as he deserves it.