From: Peter Parry on
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:51:16 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

> The prosecution would have called them if
>they thought it would affect Wakefield, obviously, they didn't.

Why should they bother? The evidence against Wakefield was
overwhelming. If their contribution was so compelling it was really
up to Wakefield to ask them to speak on his behalf. He didn't.

From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 14, 6:24 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> "Peter Parry" <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:0k1en51qh7ni78n6jqqf34c2tbmh0o18a1(a)4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:10:49 -0000, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> >>We have been following the GMC hearings with distress as we, the parents,
> >>have had no opportunity to refute these allegations. For the most part we
> >>have been excluded from giving evidence to support these doctors whom we
> >>all
> >>hold in very high regard.
>
> > They were not excluded at all, except by Wakefield et al.  There was
> > nothing to prevent Wakefield and the others from calling these parents
> > to speak on their behalf if they felt they had anything worthwhile to
> > contribute.  They chose not to.
>
> No Parent Ever Complained to GMC

Why should that be a problem? Doctors should be self-policing. We have
had hundreds of posts in these newsgroups where the anti-science
whiners are bleating and braying over the fact the some doctors know
about the drunk Dr. Smith and did nothing. Here, the medical
profession is policing itself.

Kudos to the GMC!

From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 14, 9:44 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:24:24 -0000, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> >"Peter Parry" <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
> >> They were not excluded at all, except by Wakefield et al.  There was
> >> nothing to prevent Wakefield and the others from calling these parents
> >> to speak on their behalf if they felt they had anything worthwhile to
> >> contribute.  They chose not to.
>
> >No Parent Ever Complained to GMC
>
> So?  That isn't particularly unusual.   What is completely wrong is
> their statement :-
>
> "we, the parents, have had no opportunity to refute these allegations.
> For the most part we have been excluded from giving evidence to
> support these doctors whom we all hold in very high regard."
>
> They had every opportunity, the doctors they were so keen to defend
> could have called them to speak but chose not to.  If anyone excluded
> them it was Wakefield et al who obviously didn't want them heard (or
> more likely - cross examined).

If the parents had something to say at the time, they could have
petitioned the GMC to be heard. I saw nothing in their procedures that
would preclude that.

From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:gjpgn5t2nsf80e36mb4u4r2jmubddb6t55(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:51:16 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
>> The prosecution would have called them if
>>they thought it would affect Wakefield, obviously, they didn't.
>
> Why should they bother? The evidence against Wakefield was
> overwhelming. If their contribution was so compelling it was really
> up to Wakefield to ask them to speak on his behalf. He didn't.
>

all lies as shown in http://www.whale.to/vaccine/silenced_witnesses2.html


From: Peter Parry on
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:01:47 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
>all lies as shown in http://www.whale.to/vaccine/silenced_witnesses2.html

Other than demonstrating you can produce a self published book without
any ability to write or understand what it is you are writing about
that particular rant adds nothing rational to the debate.

It is really simple. If Wakefield and co had felt the parents
deserved to be heard by the GMC hearing they could have called them as
witnesses to support their case.

They didn't. No one stopped them from doing so. Wakefield and co
deliberately chose not to allow the parents to speak as witnesses. If
they were denied a voice it was because they were silenced by
Wakefield.

It is that straightforward.