From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:7anin5pao1gmsr3j4scc8qkmr768ltebrf(a)4ax.com...

>
> 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.
>

bollocks


From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 15, 11:41 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> "Peter Parry" <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:7anin5pao1gmsr3j4scc8qkmr768ltebrf(a)4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> bollocks

BRILLIANT!

From: Jan Drew on
On Feb 14, 6:59�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No Parent Ever Complained to GMC: Public Statement from Lancet
Families
Supports The MMR3
http://www.ageofautism.com

February 11, 2010


No Parent Ever Complained to the GMC: a Public Statement from the
Lancet
Families Supports The MMR3 (Dr. Wakefield, Prof. Murch, Prof. Walker-
Smith.)
"All of the investigations were carried out without distress to our
children, many of whom made great improvements on treatment so that
for the
first time in years they were finally pain free."


One fact often lost in the media frenzy over the MMR 3 is that the
accusations against the three doctors came entirely from the medical
industry and their hired guns, never from the parents of the patients
who
were served. Most of the parents of the 12 children in the original
case
series published in The Lancet (now retracted for no reason that
anyone
involved in the frenzy can explain coherently and support with
evidence)
made a decision to go public Last May, we posted a letter from the
parents
of 8 of the 12 children in which they express their support for Dr.
Wakefield and his colleagues. We thought it was important enough to
post
again today.


An Open Letter


To Whom It May Concern


We are writing to you as parents of the children who, because of
their
symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease and associated autism, were
seen at
the Royal Free Hospital Paediatric Gastroenterology Unit by Professor
Walker-Smith and Dr. Simon Murch with the involvement of Dr Andrew
Wakefield
on the research side of their investigations. Our children became the
subjects of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998.


We know these three doctors are being investigated by the General
Medical
Council (GMC) on the basis of allegations made to them by a freelance
reporter. Among the many allegations made are the suggestions that
the
doctors acted inappropriately regarding our children, that Dr.
Wakefield
'solicited them for research purposes' and that our children had not
been
referred in the usual way by their own GPs. It is also claimed that
our
children were given unnecessary and invasive investigations for the
purpose
of research, and not in their interest.


We know this was not so. All of our children were referred to
Professor
Walker-Smith in the proper way in order that their severe, long-
standing and
distressing gastroenterological symptoms could be fully investigated
and
treated by the foremost paediatric gastroenterologists in the UK. Many
of us
had been to several other doctors in our quest to get help for our
children
but not until we saw Professor Walker-Smith and his colleagues were
full
investigations undertaken.


We were all treated with utmost professionalism and respect by all
three of
these doctors. Throughout our children's care at the Royal Free
Hospital we
were kept fully informed about the investigations recommended and the
treatment plans which evolved. All of the investigations were carried
out
without distress to our children, many of whom made great improvements
on
treatment so that for the first time in years they were finally pain
free.


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. It is for this reason we are writing to the
GMC
and to all concerned to be absolutely clear that the complaint that is
being
brought against these three caring and compassionate physicians does
not in
any way reflect our perception of the treatment offered to our sick
children
at the Royal Free. We are appalled that these doctors have been the
subject
of this protracted enquiry in the absence of any complaint from any
parent
about any of the children who were reported in the Lancet paper.


J. Ahier
P. Aitken
D. Hill
R. Hill
R. Kessick
R. Poulter
R. Sleat
I. Thomas
I. T. Thomas


From: Jan Drew on
On Feb 15, 7:01�am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> "Peter Parry" <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:gjpgn5t2nsf80e36mb4u4r2jmubddb6t55(a)4ax.com...
>
> > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:51:16 -0000, "john" <nos...(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 inhttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/silenced_witnesses2.html

Actually it is the truth.
From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 15, 1:24 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:01 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> > "Peter Parry" <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:gjpgn5t2nsf80e36mb4u4r2jmubddb6t55(a)4ax.com...
>
> > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:51:16 -0000, "john" <nos...(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 inhttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/silenced_witnesses2.html
>
> Actually it is the truth.

Jan is telling the truth when she agrees that the whale.to website is
all lies, as she did here.