From: john on
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: Peter Parry on
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:10:49 -0000, "john" <nospam(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.

From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:0k1en51qh7ni78n6jqqf34c2tbmh0o18a1(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:10:49 -0000, "john" <nospam(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


From: Peter Parry on
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:24:24 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:


>"Peter Parry" <peter(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).
From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:ro2gn55fdnapj5j002nlfh7ucaaepaa0u3(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:24:24 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:

>
> 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).

No Parent Ever Complained to GMC. The prosecution would have called them if
they thought it would affect Wakefield, obviously, they didn't.