From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:b7kgm5lhghjr963k4ph1m5il60fs44nf60(a)4ax.com...
> The Lancet has announced that following the recent GMC Fitness to
> Practice Panel judgment it has fully retracted the paper :-
>
> Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
> hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental
> disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637-641
>
> "...the claims in the original paper that children were "consecutively
> referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics
> committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract
> this paper from the published record."
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/

more lies


From: john on
http://cryshame.co.uk/
GMC FINDING ON FACT - 28 JAN 2010
DR WAKEFIELD AND PROFESSORS MURCH AND WALKER-SMITH
A STATEMENT FROM PARENTS OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN TREATED BY THE THREE DOCTORS
The GMC was WRONG to find the doctors guilty on the findings of fact when no
parent or patient was a complainant in this fitness to practice hearing. The
Panel has chosen the facts it wants, and rejected those it doesn't want, to
find the doctors guilty on fact - facts that go back 16 years.

The evidence

Parents heard the doctors put up a robust defence. Documents and evidence
produced by the doctors showed

the 1995 ethics committee letter granting approval for the Lancet research
was produced
the research followed the terms of the approval given
the Lancet editor knew that Wakefield was doing a separate legal aided study
all the children were on the autistic spectrum
the children were recruited as described in the Lancet paper
the use of invasive interventions - colonoscopies, etc - was clinically
justified
no child was harmed; no parent refused consent; no parent complained

However, the GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval and substitute a
1996 approval, allowing them to reach the findings they did - a blatant
disregard for justice. They also insisted that 'pervasive developmental
disorder' was not the same as autism spectrum disorders which of course it
is; and that only children who had had the measles or measles/rubella
vaccine should have been admitted onto the project, not those who had had
the MMR. The hearing moved the goalposts so that the doctors had no chance
of overturning the serious charges against them.

The injustice
This is the same GMC that missed Harold Shipman, the Bristol babies and
Alder Hey. We believe it has made another blunder.

This scandalous show trial was used to mask real concerns parents have about
why their children regressed into autism following MMR. The GMC and
government engaged in a callous and diversionary tactic to end speculation
about MMR safety and ensure scientific research into autism and bowel
disease, and the role of vaccines, ended.

Parents' requests that this research should continue fell on deaf ears. At
the same time the numbers of autistic children has risen thirty-fold since
the MMR was introduced in 1988 amidst the parents' constant pleas for
research into why their children were damaged. What role vaccines play in
our children's deaths (in some cases), seizures, regressive autism, bowel
disease, daily pain and disability must be investigated.

The effects of the GMC hearing are to warn off doctors from expressing
similar concerns about one size fits all vaccination policy and to ensure
that scientists won't investigate vaccine safety. The effect is to ensure
government contracts with the large drug-makers are safeguarded and that
clauses compelling government to make good their loss of earnings should MMR
sales drastically fall are not activated. The commercial interests of the
drug-makers take priority over research into why autism has increased
dramatically.

The plan has been to "discredit" the doctors and ensure they are left
undefended in the media. The press have been compelled to refer to their
"discredited" work. But scientists claiming this have never fully replicated
their work; the doctors' research remains original and significant.

Independent research into why autism has increased must be funded, without
powerful drug makers influencing the research agenda to keep share prices
high and protect their products.


Please voice your support for the doctors with the CryShame Facebook Group.


From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:27:39 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>http://cryshame.co.uk/

Would this be the site set up by Wakefields now employee and head of
spin, one Stott?

>the 1995 ethics committee letter granting approval for the Lancet research
>was produced the research followed the terms of the approval given

You should read what that was.

>However, the GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval

Probably because, as they explained in their findings, it wasn't what
was claimed by Wakefield.

>The GMC and
>government engaged in a callous and diversionary tactic to end speculation
>about MMR safety and ensure scientific research into autism and bowel
>disease, and the role of vaccines, ended.

No, they acted to correct a fraud.

>The effects of the GMC hearing are to warn off doctors from expressing
>similar concerns

Do remember that the MMR claims in the UK were ended when the
_claimants_ barristers, having seen the report by Bustin disproving
Wakefields measles virus claims, , went to Court to state they had no
realistic prospect of proving any link between MMR and ASD.

That is the claimants lawyers, the ones acting for the parents, not
those acting for the defendants.

>ensure that scientists won't investigate vaccine safety.

On the contrary, the verdict threatens only the dishonest, not those
carrying out genuine research.

>The plan has been to "discredit" the doctors

They discredited themselves, although in the case of Wakefield made
himself wealthy at the same time.

>The press have been compelled to refer to their
>"discredited" work. But scientists claiming this have never fully replicated
>their work; the doctors' research remains original and significant.

It hasn't been replicated because it was based on laboratory error.
The research was never significant nor original, now it is shown quite
clearly to be worthless.

>Please voice your support for the doctors with the CryShame

Wakefield self promotion exercise.
From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:27:39 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:


>the 1995 ethics committee letter granting approval for the Lancet research
>was produced

It was not approval for the Lancet research.

"Re The taking of two extra mucosal biopsies for research purposes
during the course of colonoscopy in children. I am pleased to be able
to inform you that your recent submission to the Ethical Practices
Sub-Committee has now received approval by Chairman�s Action.
This approval will be formally documented at the next meeting of the
full committee and meanwhile you are free to carry out the above
procedure at the Royal Free.
Please note the code number 162-95 that the submission has been given
and quote this in all correspondence. "

>the research followed the terms of the approval given

The approval was for the taking of biopsies during routine surgery or
investigation which was going to take place anyway. It did not
authorise colonoscopies or any other procedure.

>the Lancet editor knew that Wakefield was doing a separate legal aided study
>all the children were on the autistic spectrum
>the children were recruited as described in the Lancet paper

No they were not, they were described as a "case series", in other
words routine referrals to the gastroenterology department. In fact
the children were recruited to the trial.

As the findings state (P45 onwards) :-

"In a letter to the Lancet volume 351 dated 2 May 1998, in
response to the suggestion of previous correspondents that there was
biased selection of patients in the Lancet article, you stated that
the children had all been referred through the normal channels (e.g.
from general practitioner, child psychiatrist or community
paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms,

Admitted and found proved

b. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 32.a., 34.a. and 34.b.
this statement was,

i. dishonest, - Found proved.
ii. irresponsible, - Found proved
iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information
provided by you was accurate; - Found proved "

>the use of invasive interventions - colonoscopies, etc - was clinically
>justified

No it was not. The colonoscopies were for research only, they were
not part of the childrens treatment..

>no parent refused consent; no parent complained

As they were involved in litigation this is hardly surprising.

>However, the GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval and substitute a
>1996 approval, allowing them to reach the findings they did - a blatant
>disregard for justice.

They did not ignore 162-95 but rather interpreted its boundaries as
they were written.

"The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted
for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project
172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children�s
investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of
those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project
162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected
this proposition. "
(P3).

> and that only children who had had the measles or measles/rubella
>vaccine should have been admitted onto the project, not those who had had
>the MMR.

That is because that is what the proposal submitted for approval
(172-96) specifically said in its objective. "We will test the
hypothesis that in genetically susceptible children measles
vaccination is associated with ..."
http://briandeer.com/mmr/royal-free-11.htm
If they had wanted to investigate MMR they should have said so.

>The hearing moved the goalposts so that the doctors had no chance
>of overturning the serious charges against them.

No goalpost was moved or required moving.

>Parents' requests that this research should continue fell on deaf ears.

It didn't fall on "deaf" ears. In court the parents own lawyers,
once they had read Bustins report on Unigenetics (whose findings were
crucial to Wakefields conclusions) said they could not prove their
case :-

"The actions proceeded and expert evidence was exchanged. At this
stage, three leading counsel for the claimants in the group action
produced a lengthy advice. They advised that, as the evidence stood,
there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that the MMR vaccine
could cause ASD,"

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/155.html

Of course the parents involved wanted the legal gravy train to keep
rolling and yet more millions of � to be spent but the reality was
that despite vast expenditure nothing had been discovered and there
was no indication anything would be.

Given that the solicitors were employing such world class "experts" as
Byers, Krigsman, Geier, Halvorsen, Stott, Bradstreet and Shattock
(diploma in agricultural and veterinary pharmacy) as well as Wakefield
it is probably unremarkable that they were not getting anywhere.

From: john on
The Lancet was named after the device that spread infections around the
world for over 100 years, killing over a million
http://www.whale.to/v/lancet.html