As Kev recently wrote here on LeftBrainRightBrain, the main defense of Andrew Wakefield is not a defense at all, but an attack on Brian Deer. Rather than look at the facts laid out in the BMJ article, people are claiming that Andrew Wakefield couldn’t possibly have “fixed” the data (lead authors can and have do this, see our recent post). Also, that Andrew Wakefield didn’t have access to the full records of the children, so that he couldn’t have known that there were contradictory data in those records.
It is an odd argument in that it concedes that yes, indeed, the “facts” in the Lancet article do not match the children’s medical records.
It is also an odd argument because it ignores the citations that Brian Deer makes in his article. Mr. Deer cites where he gets the information that contradicts Andrew Wakefield’s reports. Many of which are not hidden in the child’s records but were available to Mr. Wakefield at the time he wrote his article for the Lancet.
Mr. Wakefield has reported in his Lancet article (now retracted) that “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers. ”
Emphasis added.
As Brian Deer has noted in his article in the BMJ, this is not the case. Many of the children reported upon were not “previously normal”. We here at LeftBrainRightBrain have the luxury of more space than did Mr. Deer, so let’s check a few of Mr. Deer’s statements, shall we? Let’s look at the children that Mr. Deer commented upon in his article.
Early on in his article, Mr. Deer refers to Child 8. Child 8 was noted as having facial dysmorphisms. Further, the doctors treating Child 8 “…had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination”.
Here is a letter sent to Andrew Wakefield on 3 October, 1996. The Lancet article wasn’t published until 1998:
“ Dear Dr Wakefield
[Child 8’s] mother has been into see me and said that you need a referral letter from me in order to accept Child 8 into your investigation programme. I gather this is a specific area of expertise relating to the possible effects of vaccine damage and her ongoing GI Tract symptoms. As far as I am concerned, if [Mrs 8] is happy to proceed with this and it gives her any further information and peace of mind, I am sure it would be beneficial for both her and for [Child 8]. I enclose photocopies of some recent correspondence which gives a fair idea of [Child 8’s] current state. I would simply reiterate Dr Houlsby’s recent comment that both the hospital and members of the Primary Care Team involved with [Child 8] had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination. I take Mum’s point that she has video evidence of [Child 8] saying a few words prior to this vaccination being given and her vocal abilities are now nil but I do not think we can be entirely convinced as yet that the vaccine is the central cause of her current difficulties. However, I am quite prepared to support [Mrs 8] in her quest for further information and I hope some useful results come from these tests.
Best wishes.”
emphasis added.
This was presented to the GMC on Day 29 of the hearing. Mr. Wakefield knew Child 8’s physicians questioned whether child 8 was “previously normal” when he wrote the article in the Lancet. It is unclear if Mr. Wakefield sought out those physicians, or if the “recent correspondence” also noted those early signs. But we do know that Andrew Wakefield had more than just the parent’s report on the child’s history and that the physicians disagreed with the parent’s impression. Given the contradiction between the two sources, at the very least, Mr. Wakefield should have sought out the child’s records.
As an aside here, Child 8 was already funded by legal aid at the time of referral. Mr. Wakefield has claimed that children were not already a part of litigation when they were seen by him at the Royal Free. This is also noted in an doctor’s note in the transcripts:
“Mum taking her to Dr Wakefield, Royal Free hospital for CT scan and gut biopsies.
? Crohn’s – will need a letter.
Dr Wakefield to phone me.
Funded through legal aid.”
Again, the child was “funded through legal aide” before referral to Mr. Wakefield.
Here is how Child 4 is reported in The Lancet paper:
One child (child four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, after which his development slowed (confirmed by professional assessors). No association was made with the vaccine at this time. He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation.
“Confirmed by professional assessors”. I find this interesting. One of the defenses of Mr. Wakefield is that “he was just reporting what parents told him”. But, there it is, “confirmed by professional assessors”. Andrew Wakfield had “professional assessors” check the validity of the claims. Have Andrew Wakefield’s supporters actually read the paper?
Was there anything in this child’s records that a “professional assessor” might flag as possibly showing signs of delay before vaccination? Here is the letter from Child 4’s doctor to Mr. Wakefield dated 1 July 1996.
“Following our recent telephone conversation I would be grateful if you could arrange an appropriate ECR appointment for [4] to undergo assessment regarding his possible autism and his bowel problems.
[Child 4] has had long standing difficulties and shows severe learning difficulties and also bowel disturbance and his mother has always found it difficult to accept that there was no known cause for [Child 4]’s disorder. A few years ago she was chasing the idea that he might have a metabolic disorder and I enclose a copy of a letter I wrote to Dr Wraith in Manchester at that time although his reply was he did not see any value in further tests along these lines. I’m aware that you are looking at the possible links between measles vaccine and various difficulties and [Child 4] certainly had MMR in 1988. In general [Child 4]’s mother thinks that he developed normally initially and then subsequently his problems worsened and he lost some of the milestones he had achieved but that he has subsequently improved on something of a restrictive exclusion diet. The professionals who have known [Child 4] since birth do not entirely agree with this however and there is a suggestion that some of [Child 4]’s problems may have started before vaccination.
Since 1994 4 has continued to have intermittent problems with his bowels and diarrhoea that [Mrs 4] relates to food intake; he has had a negative test for celiac disease and has on at least 2 occasions had giardia but he has had no further investigations regarding the cause of these symptoms.
As I say, [Mrs 4] is convinced that both [Child 4]’s behaviour and his diarrhoea are triggered by his diet and she has him on something of a restrictive exclusion diet. He has not gained weight and we have been very concerned about this and [Mrs 4] feels that this is despite him being on a more normal diet. We have therefore not made any assessment as to whether his failure to gain weight might be due to an inadequate diet or to possible malabsorption.
I would be grateful if you could arrange an appropriate appointment and would be very interested if you feel [Child 4] fits into the sort of category of patient that you are interested in looking at further”.
From Day 6 of the GMC hearing. Note that the “…had MMR in 1988” is likely incorrect and that it was the monovalent measles vaccine in 1988.
Again, Mr. Wakefield was alerted to a child having possible problems before MMR administration, but reported the child as “previously normal”. We are left with a question, did Mr. Wakefield just fail to follow up on this possibility or did he know the details and misreport them?
Here is a statement in the child’s records. Whether this was available to Mr. Wakefield at the time of writing the article in The Lancet is unclear:
A delayed development was acknowledged by the health visitor at 1 year of age but at this stage [Mrs 4] did not accept that [Child 4] was slow.
Here is a letter written to Child 4’s physician after his time with the Royal Free team:
“I will write to Dr Wakefield to see if I have any better luck at getting a summary of their investigations and conclusions. [Child 4] had a course of (I think) sulphasalazine after his investigation at the Royal Free Hospital. He became acutely distressed, apparently with abdominal pain and his autism and behaviour did not improve. It was therefore discontinued after a fortnight”.
Apparently, the therapies Mr. Wakefield’s team supplied were not always beneficial.
Let’s move on to Child 1. Mr. Deer reports in the BMJ:
The remaining five children served Wakefield’s claims no better. There was still no convincing MMR syndrome. Child 1, aged 3 years when he was referred to London, lived 100 miles from the Royal Free, and had an older brother who was diagnosed as autistic.76 Child 1’s recorded story began when he was aged 9 months, with a “new patient” note by general practitioner Andrea Barrow. One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious. Indeed, a Royal Free history, by neurologist and coauthor Peter Harvey, noted “normal milestones” until “18 months or so.”
Child 1 was vaccinated at 12 months of age, however. Thus neither 9 nor 18 months helped Wakefield’s case. But in the Lancet, the “first behavioural symptom” was reported “1 week” after the injection, holding the evidence for the lawsuit on track.
Here’s the “new patient” note:
“New patient – recently posted from XXXX. Mum worried re hearing/wax in ears/? Discharge left ear … Reassured.” Then “(NB – older brother … ? behaviour probs and ? family dynamics ?)”.
Here’s the statement by Dr. Harvey (of the Royal Free): “after normal milestones a deterioration from 18 months or so”. The referral letter for this child, sent to the Royal Free, states that the child was normal until age 15 months.
Here is a statement from the records at the Royal Free (day 24 of the transcripts):
“Child 1 was admitted for further investigation of his autism and specifically to look into a possible association between his neurological condition and any gastrointestinal disorders. The main problems are a “classical” autism diagnosed a year ago and of diarrhoea.”
On page 50:
“His diarrhoea started approximately 18 months ago. He passes five watery stools a day which contain no blood or mucous. They do contain some undigested food. He appears to have no control over his bowel movements and frequency is increasing. His appetite has always been poor and there has been no obvious change in this. He has only very occasional episodes of vomiting.
He is up-to-date with his immunisations, including his MMR at 12 months of age. There is obvious parental concern that this has some bearing on his subsequent condition.”
Perhaps not consistent, but Andrew Wakefield knew that the child’s records did not place concern until much time had passed since the MMR vaccination.
The “onset of behavioral symptoms” reported in The Lancet does derive from parental report. But not a very strong report. A letter to Andrew Wakefield about child 1 put it like this:
“I saw this interesting child with autism which began some weeks following MMR although there was 7-10 days after the MMR at the age of 1 a brief illness during which he was pale, possibly had fever and his mother said he may have been delirious. [Mrs 1] was keen that you would have a look at a document that she got concerning homeopathic remedies and I am passing this on to you.”
So, Mr. Wakefield reported Child 1 as having first symptom 1 week after MMR. If you include “fever/delirium”. Not exactly an autism symptom. But developmentally the child was noted as being normal until 15 or 18 months? Is that “fixing” data or just something less than accurate?
The Wakefield 1998 Lancet article did not give an accurate picture of these children, based on the records available to Mr. Wakefield at the time. And that is the important fact: Mr. Wakefield had access to information that put his reported findings into question.
Left Brain Right Brain 
In their opinion – an opinion which was flawed by fraudalent evidence
Contrary to popular belief with the few of you, if you were to consult a human rights specialist, you would be informed that a mother, together with her chosen physician have the joint right to decide what treatment is best for the child.
The State which includes the GMC, does not have authority to ride rough shod over parental rights.
A mother, not the State is the best person to judge whether or not her child is in pain. The State has an abysmal track record of loving care towards children and they are renowned for selective blindness to basic observations. Even if the State did not have an abysmal track record, the right of the parent overrides that of the State.
Why is it that someone like me would make myself a sitting target for less than compassionate people like you?
Rehearsal!
“Contrary to popular belief with the few of you, if you were to consult a human rights specialist, you would be informed that a mother, together with her chosen physician have the joint right to decide what treatment is best for the child.”
The government gives great leeway to parents and doctors, as they should. However, a parent and a doctor can not make decisions which impinge on the child’s basic rights. For example, if a parent and physician decide to deny a child live-saving therapy, the government can and has intervened.
Whose opinion? And what fraudulent evidence?
Of course, this whole discourse is silly. It was just a series of case studies, where the outcome for Crohn’s disease was negative, and at no point was the MMR implicated for autism. The now retracted Lancet paper should never have seen the light of day.
It was a poor excuse to put those children through risky medical procedures that literally found nothing (as noted by Dr. Chadwick’s testimony in the US Autism Omnibus proceedings). It is even worse that in the end the data on the children was altered.
The subsequent studies showed that the paper was wrong, and the vaccine that has been used in the USA since 1971 has no association with either Crohn’s or autism. The time many of you folks should have moved on was over five years ago. Get over it already!
It was just Wakefield before the disciplinary panel. A great doctor’s life and reputation were ruined by his involvement with Wakefield’s weirdness.
Walker-Smith was THE pediatric gastroenterologist in the UK. The standard of proof for the GMC was beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, the GMC panel found === the most damning is at the end…
e. You caused Child 2 to undergo a,
i. colonoscopy,
Found proved
ii. barium meal and follow-through,
Found proved
which was not clinically indicated,
Found proved
The Panel accepted your own evidence that the child’s condition
was improving at this stage and therefore these investigations
were not clinically indicated. ”
“e. You caused Child 1 to undergo an attempt at colonoscopy when
such an investigation was not clinically indicated,
Found proved
The Panel was satisfied that you considered that the child had the
features of toddler’s diarrhoea and therefore a colonoscopy would
not be clinically indicated.”
“e. You caused Child 3 to undergo a,
i. colonoscopy,
Found proved. The Panel notes the handwritten note on the
letter of 18 July 1996 where Dr Casson records he has
discussed the undertaking of a colonoscopy with you and
Dr Murch.
ii. barium meal and follow-through,
Found proved.
The letter dated 18 July 1996 from you to Dr Wakefield
where you state Child 3 will undergo colonoscopy “followed
by your intensive investigations”, together with the clinical
notes of this Child persuaded the Panel that he had
undergone the barium meal and follow-through and
because he was under your clinical care, you had caused it.
which was not clinically indicated,
Found proved
EXPERTS ON BOTH SIDES, Professor Booth and Dr Miller,
agreed that a colonoscopy (and therefore the barium meal
and follow through) would not be clinically indicated at this
stage.
“
AWOL and Rosemary, why so bitter and angry at a simple question? Am I supposed to know something about NHS other than what he says in this forum? Because I have no idea who he is. I only go by what I read here, and this circular argument does indeed come across as nothing more than intellectual exercise.
I was not intending to divert, I was genuinely interested to hear what NHS had to say. He cries on here about Brian Deer not answering his questions, but you both seem to feel the need to step in to act as his running dogs while he remains silent in response to me. This only compounds my suspicion that he is here only to engage with those who want to debate a point that has been made ad nauseum.
Also Rosemary, your comment to me seems to imply that those who may be challenged in the area of communication are not welcome to enter into a debate on this thread. I feel that’s particularly insensitive considering this is site dedicated to Autism.
Searching around, I found this interesting article on the UK Human Rights blog:
Medical records not as private as they may first appear under human rights law
The conclusion of that article is:
I take privacy issues very seriously. Especially the privacy of children. But I believe the law is clear that the public interest can overcome personal privacy. The GMC did take great effort to insure that the names of the children were not disclosed in the transcripts. They attempted to keep the live discussions from divulging names as well, using “child 1”, “Mrs. 12” and the like.
Improvements in surgery and artificial blood have made them less common but there used to be a fair number of cases of Jehovah’s witnesses and blood transfusions that came before the courts.
There is a recent Australian case. This year the Victorian court made orders to ensure a 5 year old girl be vaccinated at the request of her father, and against the wishes of the mother.
I was’t going to reply to Rosemary’s ridiculous implication that I do not care about the fair medical treatment of the autistc. And since others here have done so, I’d just recover the ground.
But, Rosemary, I want you to know the pitfalls of jumping to such conclusions: I grew up with my autistic great uncle living with us. He had been institutionalized and rceived shock therapy for years. He was prodomenantly non-verbal for most of his life. Most people think of children when autism comes up but I have a much different perspective. What that man endured because he was disabled he will never be able to articulate. But his guardians put him there because doctors told them it was right. Parents don’t always know best. And clearly neithers do doctors. Your assumption was stupid at best and based solely on my differing opinion. That is the epitome of closed-mindedness. If you’re not here open to ideas and dialogue, why are you here?
PS my uncle is now 82 and he is fabulous.
1. @Sullivan
“the records of the patients were disclosed and probably would have been even if they did not consent to that disclosure.”
Rimmer you example;,so far as the debate here is concerned Brian Deer had the medical files of the children which he stole from the Royal Free before he was given Authorization for use in his defence of libel by Judge Eady,I know of 3 Lancet parents who can confirm that Deer had someor all of the medical notes before Eady(B.E.).Why isn’t Deer up for Breach Of Human Rights??Why indeed why??plus all the rest of his crimes??
“How much mercury in in a the pediatric vaccines given to children today? Answer: basically none.”
Not so quick Sulliavan even the mercury free vaccines have mercury in them called,Excipients ;excipients are substances used in the production of vaccines which are not actualy added ingredients in the vaccine.
These excipients, including mercury, remain in trace amounts in the vaccine.
There is NO safe level of mercury or it’s derivative, thimerosal.
Currently, according to the CDC, (I refer to the FDAand not the EFA because info is easier found in America than in Europe)the following vaccines which are marketed as mercury free, actually do have mercury in them (less than 3mcgs per vaccine, but still dangerous to human health).
DTaP (Tripedia),DTaP/HIB (TriHIBit) ,DT (Sanofi) ,Hep B (Engerix-B),
Hep A/Hep B (Twinrix) ,Influenza (Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluvirin and Fluzone brands),Japanese Encephalitis (JE-Vax) ,Meningococcal (Menomune),DT (Decavac) ,DT (Massachusetts).
There will be additional vaccines which are also available in the UK which also contain trace amounts of thimerosal and are marketed as ‘thimerosal free’.
For Further CDC, Excipients
Click to access excipient-table-2.pdf
“ Third, the recommendations were based on methyl mercury, known to be more toxic than ethyl mercury in vaccines, so the recommendation would be even lower”
Methylmercury and its past use as a fungicide is well documented. You try to lie, that this form of mercury is much different than ethylmercury, the type found in vaccines as you rightly say above . This is in spite of the fact that ethylmercury was used for the same purpose. In fact Sullivan , Ethylmercurric Chloride, the material used as a fungicide (which was banned long ago) is what is used to make thimerosal. This can be easily confirmed by looking in a Merck Index. We now know that this type of mercury deposits twice as much inorganic mercury in the brains of primates as compared to equal doses of methylmercury Inorganic mercury, following the de-methylation of organic mercury, has been identified as the primary neurotoxic agent in primate studies ..I could go on and the least mercury in vaccines the better ,even better no vaccines at all is the ideal for me.
“How would they change the dose by weight?”
Well they cant can they? so whats the point of debating that one ,very logical just ban vaccines …AND
“How many virus particles do you think the other children—including those who got sick—were exposed to?”
Well now how didn’t I fall for that one…yawn!!
God its no good still bored??
yawn!!
Deer isn’t up for breach of human rights because he did t breach human rights. Pretty simple there. He didn’t need a court’s permission to investigate medical matters which are in the public’s interest.
As to mercury, the levels in current vaccines are way below the levels that supposedly caused an ” epidemic”. For Wakefield’s monkey studies they tested vaccines at parts per billion, over 1000 times lower than before. That’s at the level found in food.
If mercury had been the cause of an autism epidemic, we would now be at safe levels. Since autism rates show no signs of dropping with this now lower level of mercury, we know that mercury isn’t the cause of the rise. Add to that the recent study that shows no increased risk of autism with mercury exposure, and it’s time to put that hypothesis to rest.
Let us pretend that in 2003 Deer nefariously broke into the records office of the Royal Free hospital and using a metal chain (to ensure the right distance for good pictures) took photographs of the kids records using his cigarette lighter hiding minox camera.
So he broke the criminal law. And let us pretend that he broke it again when he used that information for his stories for Channel 4 and Sunday Times. And that the parents of the kids can sue him civilly for breaching the privacy of the kids.
Bad Brian, Bad Brian Deer.
The GMC obtains the records using his statutory powers so they have them legally. I haven’t heard of any claim that the records aren’t what they purport to be. So bad Brian Deer’s actions aren’t relevant.
And then bad Brian Deer writes articles based on the records made public by the GMC. And even Brian Deer was bad in getting the records in the first place, it doesn’t effect his use of them in the articles.
It comes down to this. If the parents have a problem — then they can sue or try to interest the police. Wakefield doesn’t have an interest.
But I can understand why Wakefield apologists try this idiocy. It is just another attempt to deflect attention from the blatantly obvious fraud.
I haven’t looked into the UK story. I think the UK went thimerosal free (except for influenza vaccine) earlier than the US. I think that’s true for Canada too.
Some DT vaccines given as booster if you step on a nail are still in 10 dose vials with thimerosal.
But there just isn’t any thimerosal used as a preservative in the routinely given vaccines for kids in Canada and the US. The latest expiry date was 2001. One DTaP vaccine, Tripedia, uses thimerosal in making the vaccine, it is removed, leaving only a trace. I don’t know how popular Tripedia is in the US. I don’t think it is used much. In Canada, a DTaP-IPV vaccine is used.
Sheldon101,
The thimerosal exposures in the UK were never as high as in the US. And, yet, the reported autism rate in the UK was much higher back then (about 1% in the UK compared to about .67 or less in the US).
One of the big facts against the mercury hypothesis.
Sullivan, there you have it. How can Brian Deer possibly recognize human rights violations by Wakefield if Brian Deer has not commited human rights violations himself?
That is all that Wakefield’s minions are saying, that it takes one to know one.
So Wakefield doesn’t have a legal interest in what Bad Brian Deer to get the information in 2004. So he doesn’t have any interest today.
There’s also another problem. If Brian Deer did something bad, that was before the ruling in the libel lawsuit. So where are the parents complaints from back then? And did they complain and have them rejected? I’m betting that someone looked into the issue years ago and got nowhere.
I didn’t know there was a difference in autism rates. I knew that Canada and European countries had quietly switched to single dose vaccines earlier than the loud US decision.
daedelus, assuming that Brian Deer did anything that violated laws or rules or merely was given material by others then any of Deer’s sins were against the parents and not Wakefield.
Once more, the issue is between legal and ethical authorities in the UK, the parents and Brian Deer. Despite what Wakefield or the parents want others to think, Wakefield has no legal or ethical standing to complain.
Perhaps the parents made official complaints or went to the police, but all I know is that one of them appeared and made brief submissions opposing Deer’s motion to inspect the medical records in the hands of Wakefield in the libel lawsuit.
As to your logic, it doesn’t seem to work. A cop can’t recognize murder unless he’s murdered himself? I guess there would be more live fire exercises in police training.
Sullivan January 23rd, 2011 02:08:05
How surprising this thread is continuing!
Just so people can see how misleading Sullivan and friends Sheldon101, Gina, and Sharon can be, here is an example from Sullivan:=
There is no safe level of mercury. The US Environmental Protection Agency has a “Reference Dose” – not a safe level. The UK Committee on toxicity has a limit for a “tolerable limit”.
These limite do not mean there is no damage caused by the mercury in these organo-mercuric compounds. These limits are set as the levels at which we cannot measure the immediate effects – and not that there are no effects.
Mercury containing Thiomersal has never been clinically trialled for safety for use in any pharmaceuticals.
It was recommended to be taken out of contact lens solution and cosmetics like lipsticks following the European Medicines Agency warning that it causes people who did not previously have any allergies to develop allergies.
So here we are not even talking about brain damage caused by the neurotoxicity of mercury.
Got any double blind placebo controlled randomised clinical trials proving thiomersal has no acute affects and got any long term follow up proving there are no delayed or chronic effects?
Remember vaccines are given to healthy people who in first world economies are unlikely to suffer serious harm from the infectious disease concerned, so you have to be practically certain the vaccine causes no harm.
And of course for that matter there have been no double blind placebo controlled randomised clinical trials carried out on any pediatric vaccine and health officials fail to monitor adverse effects safely and fail to carry out studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated for total health outcomes.
So if the vaccines are safe as health official claim [except they do cause autistic conditions as various US officials and agencies have confirmed] then where is the proper evidence – there have been no proper safety studies carried out.
Conclusion – Governments lie about vaccine safety and they do not know what they are talking about because they simply do not have the evidence upon which to make their claims.
OK Sullivan and friends – over to you. Let’s see you all deny that lot and give us all the benefit of your spin.
Sullivan
You say the mercury hypothesis needs dropping but in fact, it is not hypothesis but fact that mercury compounds are both cumulative and do destroy brain cells.
Arguments of: In test tubes and faulty research recently that tries to tell us that mercury is quickly eliminated are just further examples of ignoring evidence and bad science.
Further the removal of one brain destroyer has been more than compensated for by the addition of other spurious and possible lesser brain destroyers but at higher levels. (aluminium)
As to the fact that UK has less mercury given to infants with their vaccines but more autism this is simply not true.
If you calculate the amounts of mercury given when very young the UK figure matches very well the relative number of autism cases historically.
UK give multiple vaccines in quick succession at 2, 3 and 4 months and many of these had more mercury than the USA equivalents.
To drop the notion that a brain destroyer is not a brain destroyer is only good for those supporting all the doctors, governments and industry that increased dosage of mercury for all infants from 1990 and later years. (Neil Halsey for example single handedly bringing in the one day mercury vaccine for USA children and a Scottish person responsible for the advance UK programme both of which started at around 1990 or so)
We need transparency in what is in vaccines and transparency in testing supposed non active brain destroying chemicals and not the current usage of brain destroying chemicals as the control and then saying vaccines are safe as they kill 6 people without the vaccine and only 4 with the vaccine component added. Ergo: We can uise the vaccine safely. Such work by vaccine companies is a licence to KILL condoned by government.
Now this is CLEAR fraud and not good for the health of our children.
I still insist that when receiving my vaccines in the 50’s the safety of 1 adverse event in 50 million was right.
Todays one child in 2 000 that dies when healthy and one in 100 with autism is DISTURBING until we find answers that are not more lies.
The Deer vs Wakefield issue is a distraction from todays total medical catastrophe for the newborn for which no authority will dare to admit they know why it happened and because of denial mean the slaughter and injuries continue in 2011.
We have been there before and we will go there again until people are allowed to publish damning research even if 95 per cent faulty or whatever.
One piece of research has an impact of close to zero but has been elevated to the level of total insanity only matched by the deaths and injuries to babies often who dont even get born alive.
Sharon – I have nothing against vaccinations. Both my children have been vaccinated, as have I. The parents of the vaccine damaged children had nothing against vaccinations for they took their children to be vaccinated. And I cannot comment in detail about the Australian case you speak of because I don’t know the details.
But I will say that when I speak of ‘mothers’ having rights – I use the word lightly – and of course fathers have rights also. Rights which override the supposed right of the State – as you have now demonstrated with your example case in Australia.
The case to which you refer, in Australia, illustrates that the parents have the right to choose. Parents are only able to make an informed choice, in the best interests of their child, if all facts are before them to enable them to make the decision.
For example if a couple has two children, one with the genetic predisposition to mitochondrial dysfunction, the other with no such problems – the couple may choose specific vaccines for one and not the other.
That is my understanding of what I have read about mitochondrial dysfunction, anyway. I suppose only a geneticist would be able to say whether I am spot with my interpretation of what I have read or whether I am missing the point.
If the parents disagree with each other – and one parent would like to risk vaccine damage for the child susceptible to mitochondrial dysfunction – then of course the case would need to go to court. The judge will base his decision, then, on the word of the medical expert which in this case is the geneticist.
Which brings me to the point that the GMC should have brought into Dr Andrew Wakefield’s case the medical expertise of a geneticist.
Did the GMC do that? Because I think you will find that if they did not, then they,the GMC, being part of the State, have violated Dr Wakefield’s human rights.
Sharon – I have to say again that I am amazed that someone who claims to have an understanding of semi-intellectual mind games and narcissism has no understanding that bitterness and anger are a derivative (for want of a better word) of loss and grief.
To imply that you yourself are immune to grief and the feelings of loss that encompass that grief, puts me in the mind of a very cold individual. May I politely suggest that you direct your claimed psychological expertise to yourself rather than to others.
Rosemary how have you concluded I am immune to grief and feelings of loss? To the contrary actually, if you read my blog you will see that is not the case at all. I’m really not sure how you have deduced that from anything I said, but apologise if you feel I was insensitive to any loss you feel.
As for the Australian case, it is my understanding that the father was able to demonstrate there was no sound reason for the mother to object on the grounds of health concerns, or otherwise. I did try to leave a link earlier but it failed, and I didnt try again, however a google search will bring it up pronto if you are interested.
“Deer has discredited everything he has written thanks to his non reply to explain glaring inaccuracies in his latest article.”
You delusional twat!
Go on, bugger off.There’s real people debating stuff here. You’re a total irrelevance.
@ Sullivan
“DON’T`MENTION THE WAR”
Without mentioning “The War” (Deers non defence of the GMC questions)This lbrb site is becoming more similar to “Faulty Towers” every day without the humour.
1. “Deer isn’t up for breach of human rights because he did t breach human rights. Pretty simple there. He didn’t need a court’s permission to investigate medical matters which are in the public’s interest.”
That’s not what the Lancet parents know.
You should re- phrase, Pharma interest for public interest. You sound thrilled that the Human Rights of the children were chucked out the window so a two bit journo could finger the papers at his leisure in his flat and wherever else, Deer , probably has a copy in his iphone. Has apple done an “App” for the Lancet 12 medical files, yet Sullivan?
As for epidemic you admit to that Sullivan, thanks. Yes, this is going to remain like this for at least the next 17 years with numbers increasing due to the damage done by the killer vaccines, full of mercury and goodness knows what else.Not forgetting the increase of vaccines now given to children . Then you have the panic Jab(swine flu) packed solid with mercury ,flu jab,cervarix,etc ,reduce it from others , put it in another, and increase the dosage.. s-h-i-f-f-f-t-t-t-y???
@Sheldon
“Deer nefariously broke into the records office of the Royal Free hospital”
I never said by what means he stole the documents, but he technically stole them ,look up the definition of stole ,before holding forth please.
“So he broke the criminal law.”
Music to my ears,Yes Deer did indeed break the law.
“Bad Brian, Bad Brian Deer”
Your right again ,but if I were to mention the” War “ I would be banned..thanks
“I haven’t heard of any claim that the records aren’t what they purport to be”
Again without mentioning “The War” as above ” (Deers non defence of the GMC questions) your probably right ,without Deer coming back to defend the articles ,we don’t have his side of the argument but from the Lancet 12 side big problems, full of lies by Deer in the GMC articles.
“blatantly obvious fraud”
Exactly Deer is a fraud.
(Mercury) “it is removed, leaving only a trace”
I knew you would argue that and no links ,hence my angle with excipient`s Sullivan trying the same tacts.
Daedelus
“How can Brian Deer possibly recognize human rights violations by Wakefield if Brian Deer has not commited human rights violations himself?”
Deer is the only person on the planet to complain ,no parents, the kids,no other health body complained,and when he was treating kids related to medical experts , bit strange that ?is it not?surely people in the medical profession would have smelt a rat??if the parents never..
Sheldon
“If Brian Deer did something bad, that was before the ruling in the libel lawsuit. So where are the parents complaints from back then?”
You on your side would never hear of the multitude of complaints’, FOI
requests, all knocked back..,so far. So,far with Deers recent diatribe in the GMC papers I know of least several complaints from the parents to the GMC.Sad times for the world indeed, lets hope Wiki leaks lets bits out. fingers crossed.
Sullivan
1. The thimerosal exposures in the UK were never as high as in the US. And, yet, the reported autism rate in the UK was much higher back then (about 1% in the UK compared to about .67 or less in the US).
I assume you base on the 2004 study These studies were carried out in the United States, in Great Britain, in Denmark and Sweden. These studies covered hundreds of thousands of individuals, children, in these populations. They compared systematically in different ways whether you received vaccine with no thimerosal, with some thimerosal, with more thimerosal, and they looked at the relationship of those experiences with the development of autism. Uniformly, the best of those studies all show no association between receiving vaccine of different amounts with thimerosal or without and the development of autism. It was the absence of that association which was the main reason for reaching the conclusion that the evidence points to no association between vaccines and autism.
Sharon,
“Rosemary how have you concluded I am immune to grief and feelings of loss?”
If you were genuine with that comment,you would not be here defending Deer and all pharma stands for…which is death and destruction of children through vaccines.
.
Rosemary, you don’t need to be a geneticist or even have high school biology (me) to research the issue. You just need to realize that for almost any medical condition, there will be a group on the internet.
The US vaccine compensation program paid Hannah Poling compensation. Under similar circumstances they are likely to do the same again. That’s despite a lot of questioning of the concession. And that doesn’t mean that these kids shouldn’t be vaccinated.
“THE UMDF garners national media attention when the Scientific and Medical Advisory Board issues a statement on vaccines and mitochondrial disease. The statement was in response to numerous questions about vaccine safety and mitochondrial disease. The questions arose from a lawsuit against the Federal Government by the Poling family. The Poling’s claimed that their daughter, Hannah, who
suffered an underlying mitochondrial disorder, developed autism after undergoing a series of vaccinations. The UMDF’s SMAB stated “there are no scientific studies documenting that childhood vaccinations cause mitochondrial diseases or worsen mitochondrial disease symptoms. In the absence of scientific evidence, the UMDF cannot confirm any association between mitochondrial diseases and vaccines”.
From the 2007-2008 Annual Report of the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
http://www.umnnual_report_2007-2008.pdf&ei=iSg8TfLGBYjDgQeg8MibCA&usg=AFQjCNE_EsJXzfOWWWo-uBkbjxMCKQdUQg
By the way, compensation wasn’t paid because vaccines caused or contributed to autism. It was paid because there was (according to the US government) a plausible biological mechanism linking vaccines to the worsening of her condition which resulted in autistic-like symptoms. Autistic-like.
Wakefield’s research was into the genetic causes of ASD. So I really doubt that the GMC called a geneticist. Of course Wakefield could have called one, just like he could have called the parents (who wanted to testify on his behalf) and he could have called co-authors of the paper or others at the Royal Free or he could have called experts on research ethics. Interestingly enough, none of the 3 doctors called any witnesses.
Last paragraph should begin “Wakefield’s research WASN’T”
Of course we all have a right to voice an opinion as to whether or not our neighbours should have their children vaccinated but we have no moral right to insist they do. Such is the law.
In the case of warring parents, all steps must be taken to ensure that when the case is heard in court, the ultimate medical expert witness provides a statement, to the Judge, as to the genetic predispostion of the child in question.
Without all relevant information before the Judge, to enable him to make a decision in the child’s best interests, you will end up with a situation similar to that of Dr Wakefield and the GMC whereby his conviction was based on fraudulent evidence.
Sheldon, it was meant to be nonsensical, I was trying to be humorous.
Rosemary, Wakefield had the opportunity to present any and all evidence at the GMC hearing. He presented nothing. He presented nothing to dispute or refute the evidence that was presented.
The law doesn’t specify what is “moral”, it specifies what is “legal”. Morality is a personal decision, I think it is immoral for a parent to not vaccinate their child against medical advice, even if they have the legal authority to do so. I consider it to be a form of child abuse. I also think it violates the implied social contract that parents have with each other and with the rest of society to raise the next generation to be healthy and responsible adults.
I think it is immoral to be unwilling to accept the de minimus harm from vaccinating an otherwise healthy child which then jeopardizes herd immunity and so poses grave risks on the health and lives of those who cannot be vaccinated.
An adult choosing to not vaccinate themselves and only risking their own health (as for example by rejecting tetanus vaccination) is not immoral, morality having to do with interactions with other individuals, it is merely stupid. A parent not vaccinating their otherwise healthy child for communicable diseases like MMR is both immoral (because of the effects on herd immunity and their child) and stupid (because the risks from infection to their child outweigh the de minimus risk from vaccination).
It is both immoral and stupid, even if it is legal. That it is immoral and stupid can’t be changed. That it is legal can be changed.
I have every legal and moral right to insist that parents who do not vaccinate their otherwise healthy child against communicable diseases are being immoral and stupid. I have every moral and legal right to work to change the law such that refusal to vaccinate for communicable diseases according to medical advice does not remain legal. The question for me is does changing the legality of it cause people to do things that are even more immoral and even more stupid and even more harmful? That question is very difficult for me because anti-vaxers don’t base their actions on an understanding of reality and so are unpredictable.
Daedalus
The entire structure of the Human Rights Charter was founded on morality.
A man is innocent until proven guilty – that is the law.
Dr Wakefield was not proven guilty. He was accused and convicted of wrong doing by the corrupt GMC.
Had he have stood in the dock in a regular court of law, the case would have been thrown out.
Rosemary says: ‘Had he have stood in the dock in a regular court of law, the case would have been thrown out.’
So why didn’t he? Why didn’t he appeal to the courts over his GMC conviction (against a criminal standard of proof) for dishonesty and conspiracy to assault autistic children?
He had that right. Did he take it? No. Now he cant and his conviction stands for all time.
Did he call any witness to the GMC hearing? Any parent, fellow doctor, nurse, scientist? No.
Why did he start a libel action against Deer, then try to have it put on hold, so he could tell people he was suing but not actually do it? And then why did he abandon it after a judge laid into him for trying to gag the press, and after he had spent about $2m in costs, and send Deer a check?
What’s your evidence Rosemary?
Bizzare.
Rosemary:
Wrong, I’m afraid. Wakefield had over 30 charges against him “found proven”. He WAS found guilty. Many of the charges were “Admitted, and found proven” i.e. Wakefield pled guilty to the charges.
@John Fryer Chemist: well, let’s start with the fact that 10 of the 12 authors disclaimed the paper and its results in (IIRC) 2008 when they discovered that the lab results were fraudulently changed from normal to abnormal. You can go from there.
@CHS: yes, thimerosal was removed from contact lens solustions because people were developing allergies to it after years of use and, since other solutions that were antibacterial had been developed, thimerosal was not needed. The other solutions are more expensive, but less likely to cause allergies.
My daughter developed an allergy to strawberries after years of eating them and foods flavored with strawberry juice. Should I now demand all those food flavored with strawberry juice be taken off the market to protect my daughter and others like her? There are other flavorings that can be used, after all.
I still can’t believe these idiots are going off about thimerosal. We had it in our vaccines, we had it slopped all over our open wounds when injured (and yeah, THERE it was going directly into the blood). We used it to paint ourselves when we wanted to play cowboys and indians so the indians would have red faces. The levels of autism were not any different. AND THE MMR NEVER HAD THIMEROSAL IN IT ANYWAY!!!!!
And I wish AWOL, CHS and others would learn about the dose making the poison…
Dawn – yes and look at the state of you now
Fly by night – sorry I mean drive by – I refer you to the fraudulent GMC who will offer you relentless explanations which should keep you buzzing
Julian Frost – the king of opinion – your opinion does not surpass medical science.
@ Rosemary:
Says the commenter who called the GMC corrupt and claimed that had Wakefield faced charges in a regular court the case would have been thrown out.
Irony Meter go BOOMM!!
Dawn, the coauthors retracted their authorship in 2004, shortly after Deer’s first expose.
Julian Frost January 23rd, 2011 21:16:09
LOL – scraping the barrel a bit here.
Like where he was found guilty of being a licensed medical practitioner? Looks like all licensed doctors must be struck off immediately. They are all guilty.
Dawn January 23rd, 2011 21:59:20
Only if you have evidence it is a sensitisation agent. Do you?
Do you think foods containing strawberry juice should carry a warning that it is an allergen to protect your daughter? And if so what have you done and are doing about it?
Nothing? If so that makes me wonder about everything else you say if you are not taking steps to protect your daughter.
Julian Frost January 23rd, 2011 22:51:36
Wrong. One sentence was retracted. The authors did not retract the paper or their authorship.
The retraction wss headed “Retraction of an Interpretation”.
Nothing else was retracted. And as a matter of logic you cannot retract an interpretation of a possibility [ie. here of “environmental triggers”].
So the retraction was meaningless and no doubt the authors realised they were retracting nothing but doing so got them off the hook in the public eye.
@ AWOL, I’d really like to hear the throught process on your statement to me above as it seems inherently disjointed and unreasonable. Actually on the other hand dont bother, I really don’t give a shit.
@CHS: I’ve said nothing misleading. Got proof? Cite it or go scratch.
@Rosemary: you’re distorting comments and confusing basic concepts by design as it seems. I don’t know what you’re even doing here if it’s not to learn or educate. Worst yet you call the GMC corrupt without an ounce of evidence. You clearly protect Wakefield’s professional interests intensely while maligning other professional reputations in the process. Do you not see your own hypocracy?
@AWOL: put the tin foil back on.
CHS: If I look at your website, will I see the retraction of the statement that MMR vaccine makers were given blanket immunity?
And where can I make a comment about the error on your website?
CHS, you stopped too early
”
‘2. Your Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that you would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients;
Found proved
The Panel has accepted the wording of the job description and the letter of employment (contract) sent to you, which show clearly that you would not be involved in a clinical management role with patients.
In the May 2010 sanctions decision
”
The Panel has already found proved that Dr Wakefield’s Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that he would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients. On five occasions (child 2, 4, 5, 12 and 7) he ordered investigations on children, when he had no paediatric qualifications, and in contravention of the limitations on his appointment. The Panel considered this alone constituted a breach of trust of patients and employers alike.
“
sheldon
“CHS: If I look at your website, will I see the retraction of the statement that MMR vaccine makers were given blanket immunity?”
It would be more appropriate if you would donate to CHF,and give a written apology forth with…IT IS CAST IN STONE!!!
With respect to the indemnity offered by the DoH to UK manufacturers, Professor Salisbury has both denied and acknowledged its existence. A series of emails from Professor Salisbury have been brought to our attention:
On Sept 13th 2006, Professor Salisbury states:
“as has been stated on innumerable occasions, there was no immunity/indemnity given to MMR manufacturers”
Later on the 23rd of March 2007 he states:
“We have found that North East Thames District Health Authority (that no longer exists) agreed with at least one MMR vaccine manufacturer to indemnify them against outcomes that were consequences of failure by We can find no further evidence of any other indemnification with regard to MMR vaccine made by North East Thames District Health Authority.”
And then in an email sent on 3rd April 2007 he states:
“In the contract between NHS Procurement Directorate, acting by its agent NETRHA, and Smith Kline & French (SKF), there is a paragraph on indemnity to SK&F:”
“NHS shall indemnify SK&F against any proven loss which SK&F shall suffer as a result of any act or omission of the Nominated Distributor in connection with the performance or non performance of this Agreement where such act or omission appears to be within the scope of the Nominated Distributor’s authority as agent of NHS provided that SK&F shall immediately notify NHS of any claim under the provisions of this clause”
The indemnity is an “all cause” indemnity. Clearly the JCVI and the UK government understood at least one of the MMR manufacturers to be indemnified when marketing their MMR product. This is confirmed in the unambiguous JCVI minutes of May 7th 1993:
‘SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without liability.’
sheldon101 January 24th, 2011 00:18:54
Wrong. It was answering the allegation Wakefield admitted numerous charges of professional misconduct when that was and remains untrue.
So does your posting a point wholly irrelevant to what was stated amount to trolling?
sheldon101 January 23rd, 2011 23:59:03
No. The auppliers were. The indemnity covered Pluserix MMR distributed through the official distributor and not Pluserix MMR distributed through any other means such as direct sales by the manufacturer.
You choose not to agree.
Gina January 23rd, 2011 23:48:07
Here is an example:-
Medicine, as Dr. William Osler put it, is an “art of
probabilities,” or at best, a “science of uncertainty”.
“The Quotable Osler” Silverman ME, Murray TJ, Bryan CS, eds.
Philadelphia, Pa.: American College of Physicians; 2002.
ChildHealthSafety–Has this really devolved into quibbling about whether medicine is a science? Having had it demonstrated time and again that your positions about Mr. Wakefield are unsupportable, that the man did engage in fraud and unethical behavior, you now try to discredit people in this discussion with claims that they are wrong about whether medicine is a science or not?
Instead of a quote, how about a definition?
“the art or science of restoring or preserving health”
Medicine is a branch of health science concerned with restoring and maintaining health and wellness. Broadly, it is the practical science of preventing and curing diseases. However, medicine often refers more specifically to matters dealt with by physicians and surgeons.
It is perfectly reasonable to call medicine a science.
It is perfectly reasonable to call Andrew Wakefield’s work a fraud.
At Sullivan
The arguments about fraud must include all 13 scientists involved.
Why is Andrew Wakefield singled out?
The old research in the glare of recent publicity, future work is perhaps of a poor quality but typical of much published research. Often hasty, not checked and full of glaring errors if people take the trouble to look, which sadly they rarely do.
There are 76 medical drugs under current scutiny by the French scientists and doctors of which two are hot news for the known harm done to hundreds of patients.
This research produced one catastrophe but the 76 under investigation have killed hundreds and possibly thousands of patients.
What concerns me is the over condemnation of Andrew Wakefield selectively over his dozen collaborators.
His motives are clear in that he is going after harm and thought he had a strong lead on one cause of autism. This is now accepted as largely incorrect.
He has moved on to other causes more likely to be involved and his and the others involved did put MMR under the spotlight. Thimerosal never will be proved safe to inject into anyone.
The whole of the medical profession can be summed up by the faults real and imaginary in this case.
Large sums of money do only mean that you are over loyal to the person with the purse strings.
The drug companies pay huge sums to many doctors, politicians et al and transparency is vital.
The huge sums paid to Andrew Wakefield alone make any work by him subject to close scrutiny but likewise this applies to hundreds of other unrelated workers.
Thomas Verstraeten and his top job in a vaccine company is but one counter example.
The level of farce of this case was brought home to me when the Medical board charged him with being a doctor to which he of course pleaded guilty.
This is the Alice in Wonderland World of Witch Hunting hat has put this person out of a job out of his country and cost him much more than any money he unwisely chose to take.
If only the same rules were applied to everyone in the medical, legal, political world we would have a much better idea of harm from chemicals.
It is hard to believe even in France we have recently just one case of agricultural chemicals known to have cause cancer and even here it is not the pesticide but the solvent that gets the blame. A simple change of solvent and it will be another 50 years to get at harm to humans from chemicals designed to kill every living insect, fungus et al but totally harmless to man. If you believe this you are in the same camp as those that believe the brain destroying deliberate addition to childrens vaccines is totally safe.
Re: Indemnity for MMR
There was a problem with the way the comments ate the link to my blog posting. So I’ve made a tinyurl http://tinyurl.com/indemnity-truth and if that doesn’t work google “vaccines work urabe mmr – no indemnity” without quotes.
The key clause of the contract is:
“NHS shall indemnify SK&F against any proven loss which SK&F shall suffer as a result of any act or omission of the Nominated Distributor in connection with the performance or non performance of this Agreement where such act or omission appears to be within the scope of the Nominated Distributor’s authority as agent of NHS provided that SK&F shall immediately notify NHS of any claim under the provisions of this clause.”
That’s pretty straightforward. I think was a standard clause in NHS contracts. The indemnity is limited to actions or omissions by the distributor. Does it apply if there is a piece of finger in a sealed vial of vaccine? No. So it isn’t a blanket indemnity.
And CHS’ claim was that it was a blanket indemnity.
CHS’s answer is to say that my information is wrong — with the implication that if it is correct, he will make the correction.
Tell me when the correction has been made.
Go to….
http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/JCVI/DH_095050
Then …..
“Download minutes 1993”
Click to access dh_117403.pdf
AND QUOTE…
“whilst SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without liability.”
That looks like a blanket to me ?
Mind you,” horse to water “I cant make you drink it.Just like the BMJ papers when you want to believe Mr Deer at all times is correct …Emperors, and new clothes, spring to mind ..must come as a shock?
sheldon101 January 24th, 2011 21:07:42
The indemnity indemnifies against all acts of the distributor including lawful ones [all causes], which includes distributing the vaccine. That triggers no-fault liability for the supplier under The Consumer Protection Act 1987. That law was passed by the English Parliament the year before the contract was signed.
Provided the supplier had disclosed to the UK licensing authority all the problems with Trivirix in Canada, which it appears from an ABPI statement was done, the supplier could have no liability in negligence.
The clause is not standard. Normally the customer is indemnified by the supplier. In this contract the NHS is not – more than a bit unusual.
No correction necessary.
While people go back and forth on the question of “liability” vs. “blanket liability”, perhaps those who have followed the UK MMR-with-Urabe-strain-mumps story can point me to where Andrew Wakefield made use of the information the “whistleblower” gave him.
I’d hate to think that Mr. Wakefield sat on that information for 10 years, while he pushed his own, incorrect, hypothesis of MMR causing injury.
CHS — so you’re saying that there was no direct relationship between the vaccine maker and the person getting vaccinated which would allow the person getting vaccinated to sue the vaccine maker?
If that’s true, then did the MMR causes autism lawsuit kids sue the distributor or the vaccine maker? So the lawsuit was really against the NHS and not the vaccine makers? And what MMR vaccines was he suing the urabe or the Jeryl Lynn?
Which was after 1992. I think that was the case. So were this second set of MMR maker’s indemnified as well? After all there was UK MMR litigation from 1996 or earlier until legal aid recognized it couldn’t win in 2003.
Did the second Jeryl Lynn NHS contracts have the same indemnification clause and was this the UK way of protecting MMR makers from lawsuits similar to the US,The US had passed the childhood vaccination program in 1986. And although the issue is now before the US Supreme Court, the vaccine maker and the US gov’t is arguing that aside from badly made vaccine or not warning properly, the vaccine makers weren’t liable. And that not being liable would apply to design issues (which would seem to apply to urabe).
If the first got indemnification and the second Jeryl-Lynn didn’t get indemnification who has seen the NHS contract showing that’s the case.
My idea might be wrong. But I want to know the story of the lawsuits for MMR causing autism.
Medicine was created by scientists – scientists such as Louis Pasteur.
When science is replicated, time and time again, such as in Dr Andrew Wakefield’s case – then you have scientific proof. In other words you have, ‘The truth of science.’
Louis Pasteur and Andrew Wakefield have created, through science, ‘jobs’ for GPs and Psychiatrists to practice medicine. Frequently those practicing medicine do not want to understand the science behind their practice.
When I state that the GMC is corrupt. What I mean is that they provided no evidence to show that Dr Wakefield’s science was not replicated. No evidence equals fraudulent evidence in my view.
You cannot convict a man without evidence.