Prof. John Walker-Smith was one of Andrew Wakefield’s colleagues at the Royal Free and participated in the research there. Prof. Walker-Smith was struck off the medical register along with Andrew Wakefield by the General Medical Council. Prof. Walker-Smith appealed and the GMC’s decision has been quashed.
Here is the conclusion of the appeal decision:
For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion. Miss Glynn submits that the materials which I have been invited to consider would support many of the panel’s critical findings; and that I can safely infer that, without saying so, it preferred the evidence of the GMC’s experts, principally Professor Booth, to that given by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch and by Dr. Miller and Dr. Thomas. Even if it were permissible to perform such an exercise, which I doubt, it would not permit me to rescue the panel’s findings. As I have explained, the medical records provide an equivocal answer to most of the questions which the panel had to decide. The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously. The GMC’s approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary – an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel’s determination flowed. It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination.
The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.
From The Telegraph’s MMR doctor wins battle against being struck off:
A doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct over the MMR controversy has won his High Court appeal against being struck off.
And:
Chief executive Niall Dickson added: “Today’s ruling does not however reopen the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism.
“As Mr Justice Mitting observed in his judgement, ‘There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield’s) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked’.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Speechless?
Odd statement–I just put up a blog post about it.
Do you want commentary?
1) Wakefield might be kicking himself for not appealing. There has been at least one other GMC appeal that went through where the court chastised the GMC for not giving enough explanation of their reasoning.
2) Much of the decision for Prof. Walker-Smith has to do with the argument that the GMC didn’t discern what his intent was–what he was thinking. From the Irish Independent:
That is not the case with Andrew Wakefield. Clearly he had intent to do research without ethical approval. The famous birthday party episode is a clear example of that. His hidden conflicts of interest–working as an expert for the LAB and business interests–as well add to the evidence.
3) Mr. Wakefield’s other transgressions include taking actions of a clinician when his appointment prohibited them.
4) I disagree with the court’s finding that the evidence was equivocal as to whether procedures such as lumbar punctures were warranted. This is not and has not been a standard proceedure. When Prof. Berelowitz testified he noted that many papers used lumbar punctures but when pressed, admitted that these were only for research.
5) I would love to hear what Prof. Walker-Smith has to say about the entirety of the experience. In specific, how he feels about Andrew Wakefield declaring that he (AW) wanted the GMC hearing only later to say he no longer needs registration and then to give an incredibly weak defense. And how he feels about the way Mr. Wakefield conducted himself at the Royal Free and later.
I haven’t had time to read the decision thoroughly, but those are some of my immediate thoughts. If that fits your definition of “speechless” then you have a different definition than mine.
No written diarrhoea, Sullivan?
Maybe you should offer an apology to Prof W-S!!
century,
I guess I am not allowed to put up a brief article. I have rarely written about Prof. Walker-Smith. As I just wrote, I disagree (as a layman, of course) that the lumbar punctures were clinically indicated in all the cases, for example.
That said, I appreciate that he, through his attorney, has made it clear that the MMR hypothesis of Andrew Wakefield’s is not supported by respectable medical opinion.
Ha, Ha, Ha, SOOOOOOO toxic vaccines do cause autism Ha, Ha, Ha,!
I doubt it; Wakefield’s case cannot be compared to Dr. Walker-Smith’s and the former wouldn’t stand a chance on appeal, particularly given he didn’t offer a shred of defence in the FTP hearing.
I also see it didn’t take long for the braintrust to come out and exhibit their logic, intelligence and honesty.
Yes, but the tone of the court towards the GMC has been sharp against the GMC lately. But, I said “might”. This also includes my view that Mr. Wakefield makes decisions which are not always well grounded. As his supporters rush to claim that this exonerates Mr. Wakefield and, as we have just seen, somehow this proves vaccines cause autism, Mr. Wakefield might believe some of that hype himself.
As I noted as well–the reasons for quashing the decision against Prof. Walker-Smith would not have applied to Mr. Wakefield. I think intent could and was established, as well as the fact that other charges found proved were proved.
Science Mom,
I’m trying to find the previous case(s) where the court has chastised the GMC for not being clear in why they came to their decisions. The Walker-Smith appeal follows largely in that light.
Spin, spin, spin.
Sullivan: It’s nice to see that you posted this news. I would argue that your splicing of the judge’s conclusion to keep Andy in guilty zone are smelling quite political and one-sided.
It’s a great day for parents of vaccine-injured kids, and if I were Brian Deer’s lawyer, I’d be worried. It’s too bad Deer doesn’t have a pot to piss in, he’s likely to owe Andy millions when this whole mess is finally over.
JB Handley
When you observe the habits of thought** frequently employed by those who advocate a link between vaccines and autism, you’ll notice a trend towards dismissing evidence that they don’t like, jumping to conclusions and conflation of diverse events: I imagine we’ll be hearing rejoicing and self-congratulation. Thus, I’ll issue a wake-up call to them :
…..JW-S and AJW are not the same person. Their cases were not identical and they did not fill the same roles in the research project. Hint: they both did not appeal. For some arcane reason, one of them failed to do so : perhaps he forgot or was too busy. Therefore, the judgment for JW-S doesn’t somehow include exoneration for AJW in fine print somewhere. No matter how hard you look, it’s not there.
Similarly, this victory for JW-S does not in any manner, shape or form, imply that AJW’s current lawsuit has been already won. Hint: two different legal issues in two different countries — the judgment for W-S won’t just bleed over somehow, staining the Atlantic and part of the continental US. And, -btw-,
time will not run backwards exclusively to please AJW so he might appeal his strike-off…..
Fasten your seatbelts, comrades, this news will engender great ruckus and squawking. Be prepared.
** inferred from their writing- I’ve never spoken to any of them, fortunately for me.
So, as I posted earlier today on the old thread, Brian Deer´s utterly unfounded and malicious interpretations as regards this fine Doctor have been profoundly quashed. What now for this so called self congratulatory “Award winning” journalist? Who would trust his words now? Who would believe anything he writes? Only a fool.
And not only were the GMC “inadequate in their reasonings” but in the words of Judge Mitten they were also “wrong in their conclusions.” Their handling of this case was a national disgrace and a shameful waste of Public monies. And they have acknowledged their own inadequacies in dealing with this case by establishing a New Medical Practice Tribunal.
Shame on them. Shame on the Sunday Times. Shame on the media in the UK that handed an Award to a journalist whose interpretations of the case caused a fine, highly respected and much loved Professor needless years (10) of torment.
Kev,
Care to throw in your two bits?
Denise:
Thanks for your post with all the “hints.” I guess the use of the sarcastic “hint” is supposed to imply that you are somehow smarter than the rest of us? Here’s a hint for you:
Your post is a wonderfully pathetic post of a person advocating a crumbling position.
Good luck.
Hint: You may want to stop posting for now.
JB Handley
Sullivan you doth protest too much.
Ah. Either I say too little or too much 😉
JB: Why do Kev and Sullivan allow you to post here, while you boast that you censor all opposing views at your echo chamber. What are you trying to hide?
On a related note, since you are so pleased by Judge Mittings decision in this case, can I conclude that you also agree with him that ‘There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield’s) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked’?
Denise
No, of course this victory for Prof JWS does not automatically mean exoneration for AJW. Noone is saying that. They are two separate cases linked by a common concern i.e. very sick children with bowel problems of an unknown cause.
What it does mean however is that a) the GMC´s conclusions were unsound and wrong, and what does that tell you about that particular Public Institution, and b)that our “Award Winning” Brian Deer´s theories have been proved to be rubbish. Not simply rubbish either but malicious rubbish.
As to the implications for AJW´s US court case, well let´s just wait and see shall we? But IMO I have to say it throws a more promising light on the odds.
Looking to see how this GMC ruling affects a certain paper:
Lancet. 2010 Feb 6;375(9713):445.
Retraction–Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.
Yep, still retracted.
Chris,
As you know, many of the issues surrounding the Lancet paper were not so much a part of the case against Prof. Walker-Smith.
here is a paragraph on the Lancet paper:
Note the last two lines. The last is the one usually quoted in the press. But, “Dr. Wakefield’s statement and subsequent publicity had a predictable adverse effect upon the take up of MMR vaccine of great concern to those responsible for public health.” is likely to be ignored by those claiming this decision as a Wakefield victory.
Oh, and by The Way…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42841411/merck-created-hit-list-to-destroy-neutralize-or-discredit-dissenting-doctors/?tag=bnetdomain
Two things Patricia, the date of that article is May 6, 2009 7:38 PM, and it has nothing to do with any version of the MMR vaccine. Only one of the Lancet 12 children received a Merck MMR, the one American kid.
By the way, where is that evidence that the MMR started to cause issues in the USA when it was introduced in 1971, more than twenty years before that now retracted Lancet article? Just list the papers that are dated before 1997.
What difference does the date make to its content? None. MMR is not the issue here. Rise above it Chris. Raise your horizons just a little. You may be surprised by what you see.
I don´t do lists , you should know that by now.
@ JB Handley:
My abilities have nothing to do with the fact that dear AJW did not appeal. I wonder why that is? If I were falsely accused of *speeding* while driving, I’d certainly challenge it! He was struck-off! That’s a bigger issue. Why didn’t he appeal?
@ Patricia:
JW-S appealed and was exonerated: why didn’t AJW appeal? Why didn’t he jump to correct the miscarriage of justice perpetrated upon him? He could also have sued the BMJ et al in the UK- so why not? If someone spread malicious lies about me, I’d sue them immediately to clear my name and get satisfaction.
btw : you both mis-spelled my name, but I won’t hold that against you: what’s a consonant amongst friends? Have a nice day!
Sorry to disappoint you Sullivan but noone who supports AJW is claiming this case is a victory for him too. What they are claiming however, and rightly so, is that the GMC was weak, gullible and utterly inadequate in their handling of the case against all the doctors. Nuff said.
“Sorry to disappoint you Sullivan but noone who supports AJW is claiming this case is a victory for him too”
Aside from this comment? “It is quite obvious to me that James Murdoch, Brian Deer and GlaxoSmithKline orchestrated the smear attack on Dr. Andrew Wakefield”
My guess is I could peruse a few blogs and find other counterexamples.
Chris,
Two things Patricia, the date of that article is May 6, 2009 7:38 PM, and it has nothing to do with any version of the MMR vaccine. Only one of the Lancet 12 children received a Merck MMR, the one American kid.
You need to get your facts right. I do know for a fact that two other children in the Lancet study had the Merck MMR vaccine. Do not know about the others.
MMR vaccine did cause problems with our children and no matter how many in the medical profession say this is not the case we witnessed this happening first hand.
Patricia: yes, the “apparent” issue here is that Walker-Smith won appeal. But it is a “justice” problem. None (I mean people with a functioning brain) even judges and law itself, has one doubt that
– mr. Wakefield published a fraudulent study
– there is no link between MMR vaccine (or any other vaccine) and autism
– since 1998 (and before) to the pressent days mr. Wakefield and other have been spreading quackery like this.
Sorry for my english language, I am italian.
la tigre della malora
Be careful about using the word ‘fraudulent study’ unless you can back that up. Others who did have a writ against them.
Just friendly advice.
Patricia
Sorry to disappoint you Sullivan but noone who supports AJW is claiming this case is a victory for him too. What they are claiming however, and rightly so, is that the GMC was weak, gullible and utterly inadequate in their handling of the case against all the doctors. Nuff said.
Sorry to disappoint you, read “articles” published in Age of Autism like these
Prof Walker-Smith Cleared and the Beginning of the End for Allegations Against Andrew Wakefield link http://tinyurl.com/774a7lq or
Professor John Walker Smith Exonerated in Autism MMR Case link http://tinyurl.com/88coza2
At the end you (and many other persons) forget that this “victory-in-appeal” refers to only one doctor, Walker-Smith.
Thank you, Isabella. Replace “fraudulent” with “retracted” and place study between two “.
No, it’s a reporting of an important distinction. Dr. Walker-Smith’s successful appeal has nothing to do with exonerating Wakefield’s fraudulent hypothesis that MMR is causal for autism. Your objection is pure sour grapes.
The last time you were this cocksure, you didn’t come out of it too well so I’d be more reserved if I were you. It has nothing to do with “vaccine injured kids”; it has to do with the GMC FTP hearing against Dr. Walker-Smith (who was one of the authors who retracted the Lancet interpretation) and in all likelihood, duped by Wakefield.
What are you on that you think Wakefield’s defamation suit is a foregone conclusion particularly in light of an appeal that has nothing to do with the defamation suit? Do you understand that Wakefield didn’t appeal nor did he win? This is about Dr. Walker-Smith and we shall see what happens in Texas.
The association between measles virus containing vaccine and autism was first noted in 1991 in the USA by Warren R et al in Utah, and was not first made by Andrew Wakefield.
The association with what was called “secondary autism” by those researchers was noted independently where they linked susceptibility to this condition to a congenital deficiency of the C4B complement protein. [1], [2]
[1] Warren RP, Singh VK, Cole P, Ode11 JD, Pingree CB, Warren WL, White E. “Increased frequency of the null allele at the complement C4B locus in autism.” Clin Exp Immunol. 1991;83:438-440.
[2] Limmell JC and Bhatt HR (1995). “Inborn errors of B12 metabolism
and their management.” Bailière’s Clinical Haematology 8, 567-601.
Some notorious anti-vax groups on their websites have been flogging the pending, now completed Walker-Smith court decision. They have been analyzing both sides of the pending decision ie, if Walker-Smith’s appeal was unsuccessful…it was “proof positive” that the GMC was biased toward their “brave maverick” hero Wakefield; if Walker-Smith “prevailed” it would indicate that Wakefield was also “innocent”.
The difference here is that Walker-Smith, filed an appeal…Wakefield didn’t.
The difference here is that Wakefield instituted a lawsuit against Deer in the U.K….then discontinued the action and had to pay all of Deer’s legal costs. (First bite of the apple)
The difference here is that Wakefield then went to the United States and got support from these same anti-vax groups which hold him up as their personal savior.
The difference here is that these same notorious anti-vax groups have held fundraisers for Wakefield’s “Justice Fund” to commence another lawsuit against Brian Deer in a Texas court (second bite of the apple). Supposedly, the basis of that lawsuit, is that Deer’s reporting of Wakefield’s dealings with and remuneration from the attorneys who were gathering clients for a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers…impaired (Wakefield’s) ability to earn money in the U.S. (after he was struck from the register by the GMC). Deer also reported that two separate corporations were set up by Wakefield to profit from the results of his study and the anticipated success of the lawsuits against the vaccine manufacturers (one to manufacturer/sell an alternative to the 3 antigen MMR vaccine and one to set up a laboratory and market test kits to test for Wakefield’s “new” diagnosis of regressive autistic enterocolitis).
Nothing has changed for Wakefield since the Walker-Smith court decision. He is still struck off the register, he is still a disgraced researcher…and any loss of income and loss of prestige is his own fault.
Keep grasping, you’re bound to find a straw in here somewhere. First, Deer’s paymaster may well be on his way to indictments in two countries, with the collapse of the Murdoch’s power a disctinct possibility, now this. Not a good day for the corporate toadies.
Hey Kev, cat got your tongue?
Patricia: People who read Brian Deer’s work have been aware of Merck’s Vioxx coverup for almost a decade. Deer has been a foe of the dangerous medical practices of both corporations and (former) doctors for his entire career. I wonder if Merck is paying Wakefield to sue Deer?
Denice you ask why AJW didn´t appeal. The answer is twofold.
a)He didn´t have the funds to do so. He was advised to drop a suit for defamation against Brian Deer as there was insufficient time to prepare for his defence. As a result of the Judge´s decsion not to allow his counsel to persue this defamation case, (it was a very costly decision), AJW´s insurance would not fund an appeal against the GMC decision to remove his licence to practice in the UK.
b) Of equal importance in deciding not to appeal was the fact that he did not need the accreditation to practice in a clinical capacity; his work is in research in an academic capacity (and had been for many years), unlike Prof JWS.
I do not and cannot know his exact motivation in not appealing, I do not know him personally, but it is not difficult to imagine that he was deeply offended by the decision of the GMC council to strike him off, and he most likely felt it would simply take more time and money to pursue it any further, when both time and money were in precious and limited supply.
The continued and determined persistance of Deer´s libellous accusations against him was however becoming a threat to his reputation and integrity and ability to earn a living in the United States. He has now apparently decided that the time has come to put a stop to this malicious pursuit.
Ms. Thomas:
Fantastic! Finally someone who can answer some questions of mine that have been ignored. So please tell me which of the three MMR vaccines used in the UK was Wakefield basing his study on? Did he include any with the Urabe strain of mumps?
Plus what data did he have starting from the 1971 introduction of the MMR vaccine in the USA to 1997 to suggest parents get single vaccines instead of a vaccine that been used around the world for almost thirty years? Just list the journal, date and titles of those papers, and only those that date prior to 1997. Thank you.
Here’s some more useful friendly advice; don’t threaten people, you look like a mewling idiot.
Ms. Thomas, if you don’t like people calling Wakefield’s study a fraud, then you should understand there was absolutely no evidence in it for him to suggest parents get single vaccines. A suggestion that included those hoping to profit from the Wakefield fueled scaremongering to illegally import mumps vaccines that used the Urabe strain. The reason that the UK stopped using two MMR vaccines in 1992 (which in the real world is before 1998): The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) has advised that Urabe mumps vaccine is associated with an unacceptable risk of aseptic meningitis and that the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) should object to importation of unlicensed mumpsvaccine containing the Urabe strain of mumps virus. On the basis of that advice, the MCA has today contacted importers notifying them that the vaccine should not be imported.
Even if it was not fraudulent, Wakefield’s evience free “advice” was incredibly stupid.
What are you on about? Brian Deer merely reported the GMC’s FTP outcome regarding Dr. Walker-Smith as did so many other media outlets. As far as I know, he never speculated as to any role Dr. Walker-Smith had in Wakefield’s creative enterprises. His investigation was of Wakefield and for that, he most assuredly deserved the Press Award. Get over it.
Here is what Mr. Deer has written of Dr. Walker-Smith which is fully corroborated: http://briandeer.com/mmr/st-jaws-warning.htm
http://briandeer.com/mmr/royal-free-9.htm
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-walker.htm
Dr. Walker-Smith has been exonerated by the appeal board but his hands aren’t completely clean.
Wah wah wah. Do you know there that Dr. Walker-Smith is a different person than Wakefield?
@ Patricia:
I beg to differ: I saw a photo of AJW’s home in Austin- not exactly low-rent- how’d he manage to purchase that? His wife is a doctor, he comes from a family of physicians and he’s worked for 20-odd years: I imagine he must have had *some* additional assets or ways to raise money. Right now, he’s able to raise funds from supporters in the US. He can’t cry poverty.
Being struck-off may not affect his ‘academic capacity’ but it sure doesn’t look so great on paper. If you personally were treated unfairly in a court decision and in the media, losing your ability to make a living and maintain your dignity- hold your head high in society, would you not appeal and stand your ground? I certainly would.
I was hoping we could have an adult conversation on this blog but with so much aggression and attacks on anyone who has a different opinion or information reminds me of bullies in a school playground. My son’s were part of the Lancet study so I think I have more facts about this case than all of you put together.
This is my last post on here as I will use my time in helping my boys and others in finding a way to stop the pain they are in most days. I do hope that you will also look at helping our sick children and young adults to lead some sort of life instead of attacking doctors who have tried to do this.
Excuse me? I asked you some questions. You have information that I have never received any answers on, mainly exactly which of the several MMR vaccines Dr. Wakefield was studying. I even prefaced my question with the word “Fantastic.”
Was it the use of explanation mark and my enthusiasm for you to tell me those facts that you considered too aggressive?
Was it an “attack” when I explained the unfortunate consequence with Wakefield’s suggestion in a press release to not use the MMR that parents had their children vaccinated with a mumps strain that was removed from the UK in 1992?
Chris,
It was the tone of others on the blog that I did not like and did not want to waste my time with so much negative energy.
I need some sleep now as I may be woken up in the middle of the night. Will speak to you tomorrow. Good Night.
“Was it an “attack” when I explained the unfortunate consequence with Wakefield’s suggestion in a press release to not use the MMR that parents had their children vaccinated with a mumps strain that was removed from the UK in 1992?”
Except that that mumps strain only caused viral meningitis when it was in MMR.
@Joe:
The GMC hearing was about medical misconduct, and said nothing one way or another about the data of the research, or the conclusions drawn from the data. So this finding in no way exonerates Wakefield’s research.
@JB Handley:
Wakefield’s current lawsuit against Deer is about the article Deer published in the BMJ a year ago, and that article wasn’t a rehashing of the GMC hearings. And even if that article was a re-hashing of the GMC hearings, the lawsuit is taking place in the U.S., where to win a defamation lawsuit Wakefield will have to prove that Deer published with “actual malice”, meaning that Deer either knew what he published was false or published with a reckless disregard to the truth of what he was writing. Given that the GMC agreed with him, establishing either of those two things would be very difficult.
Nevertheless, it seems that you are either profoundly ignorant of the scientfic evidence that emphatically refutes Wakefield’s hypothesis or you simply prefer to ignore that evidence. Whether Wakefield was an absolute fraud or instead a caring researcher who sincerely attempted to help children like yours but was very clearly wrong, he is at, the very least, wrong. No court decision can change that.
Indeed, in the morning Ms. Thomas could read MMR vaccine—worries are not justified, and then explain how those authors have erred in this commentary. Plus she can tell us how this research from the Royal Free and University College Medical School are not relevant:
Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9.
Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.
BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6.
Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.
In addition there is further commentary. One thing that should be observed is that these cites all predate anything by Brian Deer.
Young Master Crosby:
Citation needed.
Perhaps something like from the mumps epidemic in the UK, Mumps Complications and Effects of Mumps Vaccination, England and Wales, 2002–2006:
More information is in Risks of Convulsion and Aseptic Meningitis following Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in the United Kingdom, which says:
Which is a whole lot smaller than even 1% (which is 1/100). And still, the MMR vaccines containing the Urabe strain were removed from the UK in 1992. Except unsuspecting parents had their children vaccinated with illegally imported single Urabe mumps vaccine because of Wakefield’s comments.
Chris,
A monovalent Urabe mumps vaccine Pariorix had a UK Product Licence as far back as 10th August 1983. Vaccination against mumps however was not advocated as part of the DOH childhood immunisation schedule in the UK until it was included in the trivalent MMR vaccine which was launched in October 1988. Even after the DOH ceased using the two urabe containing MMR’s in 1992, the licence for Pariorix was still current and remained so up until 27th October 1998. It wasn’t until August 2002, ten years after the DOH stopped using Urabe containing MMR’s, that the CSM/MCA imposed an import ban on Urabe containing vaccines.
Sullivan wrote
“I disagree (as a layman, of course) that the lumbar punctures were clinically indicated..”
Indeed, you’re a layman – so you would know about clinical indications LOL
Mathew cline
“the GMC agreed with him so….” So??!!
A High Court of Appeal has just found the conclusions of this Institution to be “wrong”. Not only “wrong” but “inadequate in its reasonings”.
Who in their right mind would want this corrupt body as supporters of their malicious theories?
Patricia:
That the verdict was overturned does not mean the GMC is corrupt. It means they did a slightly shoddy job when ruling on john Walker-Smith.
Mathew cline
I would suggest that “slightly shoddy” is a massive understatment. I have no hesitation in using the word “corrupt” in regard to the GMC, namely because they have clearly showed themselves to be hopelessly weak and inadequate in the face of political pressure from a Government Public Health department to find all the doctors guilty of unprofessional conduct, for reasons which have now been made quite clear.i.e. corrruption from within and without the political arena.
“…in the face of political pressure from a Government Public Health department to find all the doctors guilty of unprofessional conduct…”
Could you point to the language within the appeal decision which supports this? I ask because there is none.
Century:
“Indeed, you’re a layman – so you would know about clinical indications LOL”
I find it amazing how parents are given credit for being able to use Google to give themselves an education in everything from gastroenterology to psychology to mitochondrial disease to toxicology–but only if they use that information to promote the vaccines-cause-autism concept. Perhaps I missed where Isabella Thomas received a medical degree, for example.
Isabella Thomas:
I appreciate the effort you have made to participate in the discussion here.
“My son’s were part of the Lancet study so I think I have more facts about this case than all of you put together.’
True. Having the most facts is not the same as having the correct interpretation. For example, I would argue that Prof. Walker-Smith has more facts than you. He is stating through his attorney that the Wakefield hypothesis for MMR causing autism: “has now been utterly disproved” in the opinion of “respectable medical opinion”. To whom should people turn for the correct interpretation in this? For myself, I turn to the scientific literature which has, time and again, shown that the hypothesis put forth by Mr. Wakefield. I turn to the public records which show that there were numerous irregularities in the way he performed his professional duties as a researcher.
On the statement that the link between MMR and autism “has now been utterly disproved”–I find it odd that people are (a) trying to ignore this and (b) throwing such support behind Prof. Walker-Smith, his attorney and the judge. Typically such comments are met with instant and harsh disapproval (to put it mildly).
As to Prof. Walker-Smith, I admire the man for fighting to keep registration after he has already long retired. That is not the same thing as saying I agree with all his actions. I don’t know whether they rose to the level of professional misconduct, but I won’t ignore the fact that I disagree with, say, lumbar punctures as clinically indicated. Also, while I accept that Justice Mitting’s ruling is final, I disagree with it on many counts. As Orac points out, there are some very frightening implications of this in regards to human subjects research.
Correction to last post. It should have been addressed to Julian Frost not Mathew cline.
Wakefield appealed the striking-off decision but withdrew his appeal. He was probably advised by his lawyers that his appeal prospects were hopeless.
His supporters must be bitterly disappoined by paragraph 7 of the judgment in Walker-Smith’s appeal:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html