June 07, 2009
There are three rules to being a good honest professional when it comes
to vaccines and they are, a) See no evil, b) Hear
no evil, c) Speak no evil.
Break any one of these rules and you are on a slippery slope to professional suicide. Not only will big pharma try to destroy you, so to, will every newspaper known to man, your governing body and even your own friends and colleagues. Play to the rules and you will become rich and successful. So why is it that there are some professionals, who despite being discredited, professionally dissected and left on the scrap heap by the medical profession and their peers,still continue to speak out time and time again against vaccines and the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture them?
In an article I read this morning Catherine Bennett wrote:-
"The continuing resistance by a certain kind of mummy to vaccination is selfish, ignorant and downright dangerous"
She carried on writing a very biased, unbalanced piece of work, with no evidence supporting her claims. She continued:-
"Not until many non-vaccinations later, in 2004, did the Lancet admit that the Wakefield paper was "fatally flawed". At the same time, 10 of its doctor authors carefully retracted its "interpretation" of a possible link between autism and MMR. This followed Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer's demolition of Wakefield's methodology and his shocking discovery that the doctor had not disclosed two glaring conflicts of interest. Before recommending single vaccines to parents on the back of the Lancet paper, Wakefield had patented a single measles vaccine. The GMC has yet to conclude its investigation into his alleged misconduct."
This is when you have to step back from this biased and ill informed
piece and say hold it right there.
Firstly, Brian Deer from the Sunday Times, also, forgot to mention a few conflicts of interest himself. No parent has ever complained about Dr Andrew Wakefield, it was in fact Deer himself that made the complaint to the GMC three days after he published his first article in the Sunday Times.
Secondly, Brian Deer's boss who commissioned his articles was none other than Paul Nuki who is the son of Professor George Nuki who in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo Smith Kline and French Laboratories MMR vaccine Pluserix for approval. However, it caused very high levels of adverse reactions and was withdrawn by the manufacturers on very little notice in late 1992 leaving the Department of Health in an embarrassing position.
On the Child Health Safety website it backs up this with evidence and carries on to state:-
So while Catherine Bennett and the rest of the world say what a brilliant journalist Brian Deer is and what an awful doctor Dr Wakefield is and how his studies are flawed and how he is about to be struck off for professional misconduct it is always worth reading the other side to all this. Maybe readers may like to see Dr Wakefield's complaint about Mr Deer to the UK Press Complaints Committee and see the truth of what Brian Deer really did and how he conducts himself. How he, according to this complaint, appeared to deliberately twist the facts to try to damage Dr Andrew Wakefield. Catherine may be interested to know that Dr Wakefield's case has been almost completely proven, so he may in fact not be struck off at all.
"Large numbers of British children were injured and legal aid claims had already started from as early as 1990, six years before Wakefield became involved and contrary to The Sunday Times´ false claims that this was all a scam set up by Wakefield and solicitor Richard Barr."