Peter Parry
Pharma gang

[Pharma newsgroup presence throwing mud Wakefield (to hide the fact the dangerous autism and bowel causing MMR vaccine has been in use since 1988), for the record.  May be false name.]

5 April 2010 misc.kids.health

24 Feb 2010

23 Feb 2010

21 Feb


On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:14:57 +0100, "john" <nospam@bt.com> wrote:


>"Peter Parry" <peter@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
>news:uknds59rrncngvmafibv7p4jdlk3dm013d@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:36:26 +0100, "john" <nospam@bt.com> wrote:
>>
>
>Chucking mud at wakefield

Wakefield is wallowing in a mud bath entirely of his own manufacture.
These advertisements you keep posting for him are simply showing up
the way he is trying to distort reality.  Unfortunately for him the
stench around his rotting ideas will never go away.

>isn't going to hide the fact you have kept a
>dangerous vaccine on the market for 22 years and counting, causing a huge
>epidemic of autism and bowel disease.

There isn't a shred of evidence to support this asinine ideas.
Wakefields reliance upon the flawed work of Unigenetics has been
proven to be worthless.  His hypothesis depended upon finding measles
in the gut and it simply wasn't there.  He is now chasing money, not
science.

> satanic sums that up

Would that involve burn marks from sitting on Ley lines?


On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:09:21 +0100, "john" <nospam@bt.com> wrote:

>[Transcript.] Where dies it leave the GMC if you are not guilty?   Very good
>question on a very broad front.  They have some tough decisions to make.
>One on the level of the case itself, and have they misinstructed their
>experts, are they going to have to retrench in a different set of charges.
>They have to take time to structure those charges and get a response from
>their experts.  Are they going to be allowed to do that, I don't know, but
>it must be becoming obvious to them now that much of the original
>information they were given, was, had been, misconstrued, and basing their
>charges on that information has been in error.

This would have been quite a good rant had it not been for the trivial
point that the GMC proceeded to find him guilty of dishonesty
irresponsibility and misrepresentation.

>PART TWO. The other dilemma they have is who do they represent in the end?
>Because the GMC have historically stood for the patient, the patients
>rights, the patients protection from, for example, medical malpractice.
>Well, who do they stand for now because we stand for the patients.

Would that be the parents recruited by the lawyer he was also
providing paid advice for in their endeavour to sue for vaccine damage
or the parent of Child 10 with whom he was trying to set up a company,
Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltd, to develop "Transfer Factor" .
 
>Everything we have done is in the best interests of the children. 

Not what the GMC decided. 

>What they are representing and prosecuting is not on behalf of the children no parent
>ahs complained agaisnt us,

Setting aside Wakefields earlier exhortation - that he not merely
welcomed but insisted upon the GMC investigation - if he felt the
parents were so much on his side why didn't he call any as witnesses
on his behalf?

It is all very well saying no parent complained - but also no parent
spoke in his defence at the GMC and he could have called any or all.


On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:10:49 -0000, "john" <nospam@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.


On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nospam@bt.com> wrote:

> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction
> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut,

Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no
measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut
of these children.  The results Wakefield reported were false.


On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:18:56 -0000, "john" <nospam@bt.com> wrote:


>And so it came to be

Anyone interested in facts rather than the ramblings of a failed hack
can find the  GMC verdict at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected

>Dr Wakefield and colleagues had applied to the research ethics committee at
>the Royal Free Hospital to carry out research programme 172/96, this
>programme was to study children who had inflammatory bowel disease.

Not quite, 172/96 covered research funded by the Legal Aid Board via
the solicitors Wakefield was working for. (Page 10/11 of the
findings).

>The defence case had been straightforward and unlike the prosecution case,
>had seemed more or less unarguable. Around 1994, various parents whose
>children suffered from terrible bowel problems, and regressive autism,
>sometimes immediately after their MMR vaccination, began to approach the
>Royal Free Hospital, wishing the country's  gastrointestinal experts to
>examine them and give a diagnostic opinion.

You forgot the bit  about them arriving via the solicitors  Wakefield
was working for.

> Dr Wakefield's
>involvement in these cases had deepened when it began to become evident that
>many of the children were suffering from a new, or novel bowel illness. Dr
>Wakefield was, after all, the head of the Experimental Gastrointestinal Unit
>at the Royal Free Hospital.

and paid specialist for the claimants solicitor.

>In 1997, before any formal research trials were begun or carried out, Dr
>Wakefield with a number of other colleagues, began to assemble 'a case
>review paper', which involved recording the cases of 12 children who had
>arrived at the Royal Free consecutively in the preceding few years.

"Consecutively"?  Almost all of these children [through their parents]
were actually clients and contacts of a UK solicitor, Richard Barr. In
February and June 1996, Barr wrote to numerous clients and contacts,
mainly people who'd got in touch following publicity and advised them
that those whose children had any of a list of possible symptoms of
Crohn's disease [such as bouts of diaorrhea, gut pain or even mouth
ulcers] should contact him for possible referral to Wakefield. 

" the Panel is satisfied that these referrals did not constitute
routine referrals to the gastroenterology department.  "

(Findings P45/46)

"c.  The description of the referral process in the Lancet paper was
therefore,
i. irresponsible,
    Found proved
ii. misleading,
    Found proved
iii.  contrary to your duty to ensure that the information in the
paper was accurate;
Found proved
 
In reaching its decision, the Panel concluded that  your description
of the referral process as "routine",  when it was not, was
irresponsible and misleading  and contrary to your duty as a senior
author.  "

'35.  a.   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   "

> No money was used or received from
>outside the National Health Service, for either the clinically necessary
>evaluation of the children or for the case review study.

Not quite :-

"f.  On 6 June 1996 Mr Barr submitted copies of the Costing
Proposal and the Legal Aid Board Protocol to the Legal Aid Board, 
Found proved
 
g.  On 22 August 1996 the Legal Aid Board agreed to provide a
maximum cost of 55,000 to fund the items in the Costing Proposal as
proposed by you and as set out at paragraph 3.d.,
(amended) Found proved
 
h.  The Legal Aid Board provided funding in two installments of
25,000, in late 1996 and in 1999 respectively, which was paid into an
account which was held by the Special Trustees of the 
Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust for the purposes of your research
generally,
Admitted and found proved
 
i.  The money provided by the Legal Aid Board was not needed for
the items listed at paragraphs 3.d.i. and ii. above, which were funded
by the NHS;  
Admitted and found proved "

>In 1998, Dr Wakefield along with eleven other authors published 'a case
>review' paper in the Lancet. The paper charted the details of 12 children
>who had sequentially arrived at the Royal Free Hospital in search of
>clinical treatment for serious bowel conditions.

Nope, it charted the details of a group of children sent by a
solicitor Wakefield worked for.

> In 2003,
>legal aid was withdrawn from the claim being prepared by parents against
>three vaccine manufacturers.

Because the _claimants_  received the report by Dr Bustin on the
failures in Unigenetics upon which they relied.  It was the
_claimants_ lawyers who told the court they no longer had a
sustainable 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