"Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield" 
Author Message
 "Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"

Quote:

>>Polly Tommey of Autism File Magazine on "Discredited Defamation of Dr.
>> Andrew Wakefield"
>note the 3 lies that we hear here all the time from the likes of Bowditch
>and co

Lies?  Are you referring to these three? :-

Quote:
>> First, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that The Lancet study was not
>> funded by Legal Aid. Not one penny of Legal Aid money was used for the
>> study.

Barr, the solicitor involved, has admitted that he arranged legal aid
funding for the Lancet study so how it has been "demonstrated beyond
doubt" that there wasn't any really needs a bit more explanation.

Quote:
> Second, it has been shown that the children in the study were not
> sourced by lawyers.

It has?  Wakefield started working for Barr (the solicitor involved)
two years before the Lancet paper was published.  Of the 12 children
(presented by Wakefield in the paper as a random group of patients)
most were clients of Barr or had contacted him to become clients.  One
was flown in from the USA.  None lived in London, two were brothers.
Six had legal aid approved before even being recruited to the trial.

As Walker-Smith wrote to Wakefield:-
"It is clear that the legal involvement by nearly all the parents will
have an effect on the study as they have a vested interest... I would
have been less concerned by legal involvement if our work were
complete and we had a firm view. Never before in my career have I been
confronted by litigant parents of research work in progress. I think
this makes our work difficult, especially publication and
presentation." (20 February 1997)

Quote:
>>None of the children reported in The Lancet study were
>>involved in any legal action at the time of their referral to the Royal
>>Free Hospital.

Well it was certainly true that no court case had started being heard
however, legal action had most certainly started otherwise why would
legal aid certificates have been granted to them?

Quote:
>>Third, we now know that The Lancet had been told, in
>> communications between Dawbarns and Horton, about Dr. Wakefield's
>> involvement with them in April 1997. So, they knew. A whole year before
>> the paper was published, they knew.

The idea of disclosure in scientific papers is not that it relies upon
someone remembering a conversation from years ago but that the author
openly declares their interest in the paper itself. Wakefiled didn't

Quote:
>> There are many other aspects to this convoluted and exhausting story,

Indeed,  I assume Wakefield has been told the GMC verdict is  expected
soon and has mobilised his propaganda forces yet again as there
appears to be no other reason for this flurry of interest in him.

Quote:
>> the idea of Dr. Wakefield's being discredited comes straight from this
>> inaccurate exchange in 2004 between two journalists, one an academic, the
>> other one not.

No, it comes from the evidence that he manipulated data, that he had a
personal financial interest and that he picked only test results
favourable to his preconceptions.  He also failed to respond when it
became absolutely clear that the "measles detection" he relied upon
was inaccurate and had not in fact detected measles virus - a fatal
blow to his hypothesis.

Quote:
>> But  for
>> me, finding out that this is the position taken by a major and influential
>> autism organization is more concerning.

Why?  The evidence is that Wakefields hypothesis is completely
discredited is overwhelming.  Why would anyone want to pursue it
further or give him a platform to promote junk science?

Quote:
>>Of most fundamental importance,
>> however, is that the future of our magazine was being threatened as a
>> result. And that is, frankly, stunning.

Why should people fund junk?

Quote:
>> As a journalist trying to understand the politics of autism, bigger
>> questions have to be answered:

As a (self appointed) journalist why not try understanding the science
first?  Then you would understand that the politics, if any, are
irrelevant.  Despite the efforts of various airheads you can't make
science out of preconceptions and {*filter*} theories.

Quote:
>> . Why is it so important that Dr. Wakefield is seen to be discredited?

Who cares what he is seen as.  He _is_  discredited, that is a fact.

Quote:
>> . Who stands to gain from this?

From all this arm waving and shouting?- Wakefield who has a lucrative
business to protect and various hangers on reliant upon him.

Quote:
>> . Who will lose out if the truth is revealed?

Wakefield and the various loonies now making a living off his coat
tails.

Quote:
>> . What is it that people are so frightened of?

Loosing their jobs if they are found to be frauds?

Quote:
>> . What is it they don't want us to know?

That Wakefields work is thoroughly discredited.  Admit that and an
awful lot of "activists" could be out on the streets.

Quote:
>> At around the time of World Autism Awareness Day this year, I appeared
>> with a colleague on the Wright Stuff television chat show on Channel 5.

Ah, the not exactly prime time daytime TV chat/entertainment show
fronted by a grinning maniac.  Favourite watching of unemployable
single mothers and chavs in council estates.  Broadcast from the third
floor of Whiteley's Shopping Centre it airs at the peak time of 9:15AM
just as the target audience are thinking of getting up.

I can see that hosting a serious discussion

Quote:
>> This is my take on the whole thing: Billy, my son, had a bad reaction to
>> the  MMR vaccine, a reaction that I know caused irreversible damage.

Oh well, if she "knows" it it must be true.  Why bother with all this
science stuff?

Quote:
>> So, is Dr. Wakefield a threat because he is presenting research evidence
>> that vaccination does cause damage to some individuals?

No, he is a disredited irrelevance.

Quote:
>>If he isn't
>> producing further evidence, then why is everyone so desperate to stop him
>> or anyone reporting this? It just doesn't make sense.

Because silly people like you  don't understand and won't accept that
he found nothing, proved nothing and made a lot of money from doing
so.  You now make a lot of money from peddling his false hypothesis
and promoting the anti MMR message.

Quote:
>> So, why the block on vaccination research?

There isn't one.  There is, not unsurprisingly,  a shortage of
interest in researching thoroughly discredited theories.


Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:34:59 GMT
 "Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"

Quote:
> note the 3 lies that we hear here all the time from the likes of Bowditch
> and co

What would those three "lies" be?


Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:52:54 GMT
 "Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"


Bollocks deleted. I don't have the time for spiel.

You guys kill millions every year with {*filter*} and bad medicine
Eg 400,000 from AZT
{*filter*} millions every year to Benzos and SSRIs
With millions of kids on speed repackaged as 'Ritalin'
Kill millions from cancer every year by suppressing cancer therapies
Cause millions of cases of autism over 70 years
and so on

Yet when a man suggests (with the support of his line manager) using single
vaccines over triple all hell breaks loose.  We all know why that is.

whatever the outcome of the hearing is, either way you will shoot yourselves
in both feet, can't wait.  If any of those kids parents came out againts
him, that would help your case.  And it is telling your lot never called any
as witnesses for the prosecution.



Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:42:35 GMT
 "Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"


Quote:




> Bollocks deleted. I don't have the time for spiel.

BS, you just posted {*filter*}about vitamins.


Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:22:24 GMT
 "Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"

Quote:




> I don't have the time for spiel.

You should, you can learn a lot from it.

Quote:
>Kill millions from cancer every year by suppressing cancer therapies

Like little boxes with 555 timer IC's in them?

Quote:
>Yet when a man suggests (with the support of his line manager) using single
>vaccines over triple all hell breaks loose.  We all know why that is.

Indeed we do, it was journalism at its worst with appallingly bad
reporting.  So bad it is now used on journalism courses as _the_
example of how to get things dreadfully wrong.  As far as the science
was concerned it was pretty minor.  it didn't take long to show his
theory was flawed.  When the evidence showed the test results he
utterly relied upon were wholly incorrect he should have published
that - but didn't.

Quote:
>whatever the outcome of the hearing is, either way you will shoot yourselves
>in both feet, can't wait.  If any of those kids parents came out againts
>him, that would help your case.  And it is telling your lot never called any
>as witnesses for the prosecution.

It isn't altogether clear what you are trying to say but I assume you
are referring to no parents being called as witnesses to the BMJ
hearing?  If so - why should they be?  He is accused of serious
professional misconduct.

The exact details are at

http://www.gmc-uk.org/news/4129.asp

(Which also explains the minor flurry of activity from the Wakefield
supporters club and publicity machine - the results are due at the end
of he month).

None of the charges involve the parents so why would any be called and
if they were -  for what purpose?



Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:14:37 GMT
 
 [ 8 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD AND THE MMR CONTROVERSY

2. Why Medical Authorities Went to Such Extremes to Silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield

3. Dr. Andrew Wakefield takes legal action against the Evil Doers

4. Dr. Andrew Wakefield Reveals Real Story Behind Vaccines

5. Letter to NEJM from Dr Andrew J Wakefield

6. BBC withdraws allegation that Dr Andrew Wakefield was paid to conduct MMR investigation

7. Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words

8. Video transcripts: Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words

9. Dr Andrew Wakefield on HPV and H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccines

10. Andrew "Christian" Chung FAQ, Issue 4.27

11. Andrew "Cardiologist" Chung FAQ, Issue 4.27


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software