Wakefield GMC quotes (Allopathy lies shredded)
[back] Wakefield GMC Hearing 2007    [back] Medical lies

[You can see the lies used to smear Dr Wakefield being easily shredded.]

The two of the three vaccine brands that were introduced in 1988 had to be withdrawn for safety reasons and yet Dr Salisbury in his statement to the GMC sums up by saying this is a vaccine with an exemplary safety record.  Well, if that is his idea of an excellent safety record then we have a very different perception he and I of vaccine safety. [2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words question 1

    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.
    At another level they are under big pressure from the Department of Health, and David Salisbury in particular has been calling them on a regular basis urging them to prosecute this case more vigorously against me, be nastier, be meaner, throw more in, and I know this because we get sent the unused material, and so I took the opportunity (he didn't know this, I mean you get all the telephone conversations, all the conversation between people, all the draft reports which is an interesting advantage to us), so I was able to write to David Salisbury and was able to say I am now in a position to have read the unused material from the GMC, and I note your entreaties to them....He was furious, he contacted the GMC and said: "I didn't know they were going to get the unused material...you never told me, this is a disgrace!"   And the wonderful thing about that is that we get the documentation of that telephone conversation as well (laughs).
    So, you can see they are under a great deal of political pressure to prosecute this case and it is interesting in the public domain David Salisbury has said we don't want this to be seen as a vendetta on behalf of the Department of Health.  So, mixed messages. 
    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.  Everything we have done is in the best interests of the children.  What they are representing and prosecuting is not on behalf of the children no parent ahs complained agaisnt us, but on behalf of the Department of Health, on behalf of the new kid on the block, 'the greater good.'  
    So here we have a body who has traditionally represented the patient, the victim, if you like, against the medical profession or againts medical malpractice.  Now they are defending the diktat of public health against the rights of the individual.
S    o they are in a real quandary, or if they are not they should be, about quite who they represent, because I know who I represent--the individual patient. [2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words Question 3

[2010 Feb] Dr Wakefield's Inquisitioners Have Their Day By  Dr Sherri Tenpenny   Wakefield's observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of *some* autistic children, has been replicated by other researchers.
   > Japanese study: Detection and Sequencing of Measles Virus from Peripheral Mononuclear Cells from Patients with Inflammatory Bowel  Disease and Autism 
   > NJ Medical School: Dysregulated Innate Immune Responses in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Their Relationship to Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Dietary Intervention

"I can’t stress enough that one is sitting in the midst of something which is bubbling away like some witch’s cauldron in central London. You inevitably become embroiled in this false and rather evil world of chicanery, corruption and distortion.   Sitting there, listening to it, you get completely denuded of any better self, better feelings, any kind of spirituality you might have had when you arrived in the morning.  It is a very stultifying and morally dangerous thing to have to participate in day after day."---[Interview of Martin Walker Sept 2008]

Specifically, I have been "warned" not to print any more articles written by Dr. Andrew Wakefield (he wrote for the first time in the last issue); I was also warned not to invite him to speak at our conference. Separately, some organizations have warned me that they will not have anything to do with me if I continue to support and publish papers by him. Some advertisers tell me they have to stop working with us as they are "under pressure" to pull out, and a number of celebrities, high earning individuals, journalists, scientists, practitioners, and people who want to contribute to the magazine or to our campaigns say that it’s more than their job’s worth to be associated with the work of this man more than their job’s worth to even listen to what he has to say. All of them say that they can’t support The Autism File if The Autism File appears to support Dr. Wakefield. [2010 Jan] Polly Tommey of Autism File Magazine on "Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"  

....In the days leading up to Deer’s initial "revelations" about Andrew Wakefield and others in The Sunday Times in February 2004, a meeting took place between Deer and Horton in which Deer made a number of claims. These all centered on a paper written by Dr. Wakefield and colleagues, which was published in The Lancet in 1998. In the now notorious paper, Wakefield et al. had reported on a possibly novel form of bowel disease, with autistic-like developmental regression, in 12 children referred to the gastrointestinal department of London’s Royal Free Hospital. Eight of the children, according to their parents or general practitioner, had the onset of developmental regression soon after their MMR vaccine. 
    Despite what is usually inaccurately reported in summary, the paper actually concluded that: "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described … further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to the vaccine."
    In the February 2004 meeting, the major issues of relevance to Dr. Horton were three specific claims made by Deer. First, he claimed that The Lancet study was funded by Legal Aid money. Second, he claimed that the children reported in The Lancet were sourced by lawyers. Third, and perhaps most crucially, Deer claimed that Dr. Wakefield had hidden his involvement with Dawbarns, the firm of lawyers involved in the MMR litigation, from The Lancet and Dr. Horton. 
    On hearing these claims from Deer, Horton was apparently horrified, and within hours of the meeting he stated publically that the 1998 paper was "fatally flawed." He further claimed that had The Lancet been aware of Wakefield’s involvement with Dawbarns at that time the paper would never have been published. This statement about the "fatally flawed" paper was, therefore, the seed of the "discredited" myth that prevails and is clearly influencing many more people today.
    Let’s fast forward to the GMC hearing, which has been investigating these claims for nearly three years. What do we find? 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. Second, it has been shown that the children in the study were not sourced by lawyers. 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. 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.  [2010 Jan] Polly Tommey of Autism File Magazine on "Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"

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. Before going on air, the host Matthew Wright joined us in the "green room" and said that he had been told by the show’s lawyers that if Dr. Wakefield’s name was mentioned, he had to say that Wakefield was "discredited." We questioned why, but Matthew said that he had no choice these were his lawyers’ instructions . . . .When I was on GMTV they said pretty much the same thing, and we have all read the same in many newspapers.  [2010 Jan] Polly Tommey of Autism File Magazine on "Discredited Defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield"

[2009 Dec] The Council of Foreign Relations Enters the Vaccine Biz. Desperate Attempts to Salvage a Corrupt Science with Sound-bites by Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null  Garrett is eager to go on the offensive against what she calls Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s “thoroughly refuted evidence” for a link between vaccines and autism. No Ms. Garrett, Wakefield’s studies have not been thoroughly refuted. In fact, we spent over six months investigating the charges against Dr. Wakefield. From our original investigation, not only is Dr. Wakefield innocent of all charges but he is to be commended for having the courage to stand up against the entire power and might of the pharmaceutical industrial complex. In addition, his findings have been further substantiated by later independent research, most notably by researchers at New York University, New Jersey Medical School, and Utah State University.

[2009 Dec] We all know exactly what has happened here: three doctors have been set up as “scapegoats” and why? Because they had the audacity to listen to parents who said their children had suffered an adverse effect from a vaccination. Because they carefully assessed, and investigated those children and found a treatable bowel disease.  Because they published their findings in a scientific journal and had the temerity to suggest more investigations were needed.  This whole inquisition against the ‘Royal Free Three’ has a clear imperative and one that should strike a chill into the heart of every parent and professional in the world; the message is terrifyingly clear. If you dare to speak out against a pharmaceutical product, we will hunt you down and stop you. This inquiry is intended to ensure that this generation and future generations of doctors and scientists remain with their toes firmly on the “party line” mindful of who underwrites their scientific establishments, provides grants and funds research – you guessed it Big Pharma.-----Carmel Wakefield http://www.rescuepost.com/files/carmelwakefield1.pdf

How bizarre it is that Horton chose to focus his undermining of Wakefield on the matter of conflict of interests, when his immediate online manager is a director of the GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine that Wakefield has cited as causing adverse reactions in children! Conflicts of Integrity by Martin Walker

Not one parent has complained about the treatment that their child received under the care of the clinical team at the Royal Free. Indeed, because the parents of vaccine damaged children, entirely support the work of Wakefield, Murch and Walker-Smith, the GMC clearly could not call any of them as complainants against the doctors. Because they didn’t want Brian Deer’s motives disclosed under cross examination, they have not called him either. So it would appear that there is no real complainant behind the GMC hearings. More importantly perhaps the voices of the children and the parents have been stifled in this whole process while both the government and the GMC have tried hard to convince the public that there are no vaccine damaged children. [Feb 2008] NEW LABOUR, THE VACCINE SCANDAL AND THE CHARACTER ASSASINATION OF DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD by Martin Walker

The person who commissioned Deer was Paul Nuki, Sunday Times' sometime Head of Newsroom investigations and "Focus" editor. Paul Nuki is son of Professor George Nuki. Professor George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories' Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval. ......sitting on the CSM with Professor George Nuki was Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Sir David Hull............it was Professor Sir David Hull in 1998 who, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, started the attacks on Wakefield's work 
    As Chairman of the JCVI, Professor Sir David Hull could have taken action to deal with the issues over the MMR and protect British children
    In 1998 Professor Sir David Hull wrote (on home headed notepaper) to Dean Zuckerman of The Royal Free, suggesting the Royal Free Hospital's work was unethical research without clinical justification (wrongfully, as the public would have learnt if The Observer had been reporting the current GMC hearings into the Wakefield case)
    Despite his attacks on Wakefield's work, two years later in 2000, it was Professor Sir David Hull who rewrote the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health ethical guidelines to permit research on children where there was no clinical benefit (albeit in The Royal Free's case all the investigations were clinically justified)  [April 2008] MMR/AUTISM & THE TAMING OF THE BRITISH MEDIA--Clifford Miller

"Brian remains isolated, a social pariah, who will undoubtedly be cast aside like a used condom when his benefit to the Department of Health and ABPI comes to an end."--- [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

Dr Andrew Wakefield began telling his story. If there isn't a legal maxim that states ‘It's more difficult to defend an innocent man than one who is guilty', there should be. While a guilty man knows exactly what actually happened and can therefore present a completely plausible defence, the man who is wrongly accused, often doesn't have the faintest idea how or why everyone is making up stories about him. [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

 After a week of listening to Dr Wakefield describe all the charges against him in simple and everyday terms, two things might occur to the intelligent observer. First, how is Miss Smith, left holding such a tattered banner, going to proceed when it must be evident, even to her, that she was only ever briefed with a marginal percentage of the truth. Having winged-it through the prosecution case, with no opposition, Miss Smith is now faced with the most difficult task of cross-examining an innocent man in an attempt to get him to speak untruthful words. [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

There was no evidence at all that Dr Wakefield, as a research worker, had anything to do with the clinical operations and procedures carried out on the Lancet children. In order, however, to involve him in an illegitimate area beyond his terms of employment, the prosecution had claimed that, in the case of the children,  Dr Wakefield had ‘caused' these procedures to occur. This ludicrous wording makes it appear that one day Wakefield had been charging through the hospital, scalpel and colonoscopy equipment at the ready, when he had tripped and fallen crashing into and a member of the clinical team who had caught the equipment and been jettisoned into the procedure. The truth of the matter was that far from ‘causing' the procedures to occur, Dr Wakefield had had nothing whatsoever to do with them and could, literally, have been miles away from that particular operating theatre at the time any procedure was carried out.
              Once Mr Coonan had talked through a procedure and Dr Wakefield's non-involvement in it, he would then ask; ‘Did you in fact have anything to do with ‘causing' the colonoscopy to take place?' To which Dr Wakefield would state in a clear and measured manner ‘No'.  [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

What had not been entirely clear from the prosecution case was whether or not Wakefield had personally carried out the operations and procedures, perhaps even for the febrile prosecutors such a charge might have sounded too loopy, so they settled with the magical formulation, ‘had caused to happen'.
              The grandest and most glaring hole in the prosecution case, had to do with Ethical Committee approval for a research project that hadn't actually taken place. Because the prosecution had acted on Deer's ‘bad brain-day' narrative, they were insistent from the beginning to the end of their case that Wakefield had not gained research ethics committee (REC) approval for any of the things that he was supposed to have done. In fact the protocol (No.172/96) that the prosecution founded the majority of their case upon, was the protocol for a research project which had not, at that time, begun. It was not, as the prosecution had been led to believe, in any way related to the data reported in the Lancet paper.
              All of the ethical approval that was necessary for the work on the Lancet paper case-series had been granted under protocol No. 162/95. This protocol had even been renewed and modified in January 1997, so as to include a more extensive research agenda. [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

The other major offence argued by the prosecution related to the money they said had been given to Wakefield from Legal Aid, that he had not only accepted – apparently a sin in itself - but also never declared in the Lancet paper. All of this was utter baloney, one of the charges even suggesting that Wakefield had himself personally received the money and used it to finance clinical experiments on the Lancet children. It was explained clearly that all the legal aid money that was claimed by the Royal Free, went towards the salary of a research worker working on a quite different area of research. Not only did this money not go towards any research or clinical work on any of the Lancet children, but Dr Wakefield didn't see a penny of the money. [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

Only when it came to dealing with the 12 Lancet paper children in detail, did Dr Wakefield's evidence-in-chief seem to grind to a halt and this was no doubt because everyone in the room had sat through this recitation from different perspectives on about five separate occasions. All the prosecution evidence in relation to the children was denied by Dr Wakefield. ‘No' he had not himself referred this child to himself at the Royal Free. ‘No' he had not examined this child at an out-patients surgery. ‘No' he had not prescribed treatment for this child. ‘No' he had not carried out this or that procedure on the child. ‘Yes' he would have expected to have Research Ethics Committee approval for his biopsy samples to be removed. ‘Yes' he would have expected to have REC approval to research these samples in the laboratory. ‘Yes' he did have research ethics approval for these things. ‘Yes' this was under protocol 162/95. [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

Along with research ethics committee approval, came the thorny subject of parental consent, both for the clinical work on children that didn't actually have anything to do with Dr Wakefield and the research work on biopsy samples that he was involved in. In every case the defence produced the parental consent form that the prosecution claimed had been missing.  [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

One of the most serious and bizarre avenues down which Dear Brian had taken the prosecution case, was that of transfer factor. According to Dear, this was a vaccine in major competition with MMR, and it was this competition that motivated Dr Wakefield. The only real problem with this story was that it was completely wrong. There was no proposal to use transfer factor as a vaccine prophylactic against mumps, measles or rubella or for that matter any other virus. Wakefield had rather, proposed its use experimentally as a kind of ‘morning after' vaccine for those children who, having been adversely affected by MMR, were unable to eliminate measles virus. [April 2008] The Defence Opens to a Prosecution Continuing Downhill by Martin Walker MA

[Lie--that Wakefield was attacking MMR so he could profit from a single vaccine that he was making.] 
"As for the assertion that Dr Wakefield tried to make a personal profit from manufacturing a vaccine in competition to the multinational drug companies, it became clear during Mr Tahan’s evidence - and that of previous witnesses - that firstly, this was not a vaccine against measles, but a therapy that might ameliorate the adverse effects caused by measles vaccine; that Dr Wakefield had actually sought partnership with pharmaceutical companies to develop the therapy and finally that all profits from the patent, had it become a viable product, would actually have gone to the Royal Free Medical School.....When Miss Smith took Tarhan through his evidence-in-chief, she clearly wanted to make it appear that Wakefield had taken out the patents on transfer factor, in order to make profit for himself. With the most reliable air, Tarhan disputed this. In fact although Dr Wakefield, exasperated with the time it might take, had moved to take out two patents himself, Tarhan was quick to point out that they were taken out either in the name of Free Medic as the UCL business venture was then known, or the Royal Free Medical School."   Dealers in Second Hand Words by Martin J Walker

[A typist typing polyvalent instead of monovalent? Typing error my arse!  Wakefield took all the flack for recommending a single vaccine.]
In cross examination, the defence had previously put it to Professor Zuckerman that he had co-operated with the media committee, and with Dr Wakefield, in their plan to make clear their view of MMR and regressive autism. Professor Zuckerman, who had chaired the media committee which organised the press briefing had, it turned out, been appraised of the intention to propose a return to the single vaccine.
    In evidence, Zuckerman had denied this. A letter from him to Dr Wakefield produced in evidence, however, twice stated that in the event of a question being asked, he hoped that Wakefield would push the use of monovalent (single) vaccine. When asked about this letter in cross examination, Zuckerman had said that the twice used word ‘monovalent’ was on both occasions a typing error, and it should, of course, have read that they should push the ‘polyvalent’ (triple) vaccine. This was almost plausible, but if it was not true it hinted at a much deeper conspiracy on the part of the establishment than even I had imagined.
    As Miss Smith, heroine of the defence, led Salisbury through his evidence, she presented him with a letter written by Roy Pounder head of Wakefield’s department, to the Department of Health. A letter which Salisbury had seen. The letter, according to the twisted narrative of the prosecution, was supposed to be an example of how the Royal Free research team had constantly tried to blackmail the DoH. In the letter, Pounder had notified the Department of their intention to recommend at the press conference that parents ask for the ‘monovalent’ vaccine. He wrote, Pounder said, making this clear because he did not want the NHS to be caught short when requests for the single vaccine were made. ‘Did they have sufficient stocks?’ he asked. Now, unless monovalent was also a typing error in this letter, a nightmare picture of conspiracy and deceit is beginning to unravel in the GMC hearing.  The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker

[Millions are spent by the government (taxpayer) so they can market the products of the drug industry more effectively.  See Dr. Buchwald MD quotes re fear research.]
The other considerable matter which Salisbury onanistically droned on about was his department’s determination to understand public perception of the various vaccinations. He introduced this matter by suggesting that no one else (no other government) in the world was able to track the take-up and public perception of vaccines in the way that the British government could. The data on public perception of vaccine was massive, he said. The survey methods were infinitely sensitive, the government even knew what newspapers respondents read. In all, Salisbury and his colleagues had carried out 30 surveys into the public outlook on vaccination, costing millions of pounds.
    Listening only lethargically to this ‘evidence’, one might be moved by it. ‘The government really is interested in the public experience of vaccination’, an observer might think. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. All this data, all these surveys, all these millions of pounds have been spent in order to advance the marketing of vaccines and to plan public relations strategies which will ensure that the public accept the vaccine programme without question. This is nothing to do with science, this is jury rigging. The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker


"Prof Denis McDevitt,.....attended meetings that discussed warnings from other countries about an early form of the triple jab, using the Urabe strain of mumps virus, which caused encephalitis and meningitis. Despite warnings and the fact that this vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, the Urabe-containing jab was introduced in the UK in 1988.  Some of the 12 children whose medical history featured in the controversial 1998 Lancet paper, drawn up by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues and which suggested a possible link between the jab and bowel disease and regressive autism, had received the Urabe-strain vaccine - as indeed had some of those children in the high court litigation with manufacturers." [June 2007 Private Eye] MMR Conflict of Interest Zone

The refusal to cross examine might appear risky, in that it seemed to let Salisbury off the hook with respect to important and simple questions such as: ‘Why did it take you two years to respond to Dr Wakefield’s first communication with you, which warned the DoH of a public health crisis over MMR?’ and ‘Why did it take six years for you to organise a meeting with Dr Wakefield to discuss his ground breaking research?’ and finally, ‘Did you intend to suggest in your evidence that Dr Wakefield was trying to blackmail the Department, by suggesting he would precipitate a public health crisis unless you gave him money for research?’
    All the facts relevant to the charges against Dr Wakefield, Professor Murch and Professor Walker Smith will of course be given in evidence by the defendants themselves. If they remain accused. Dr Wakefield, in particular, will be able to inform the panel about the considerable evasion indulged in by Professor Salisbury and the Department of Health from the time that they were first informed of the epidemic of adverse reaction to MMR. The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker

I have been interested to hear the Chairman of the panel refer to the proceedings on a number of occasions as an ‘enquiry’. By no stretch of the legal imagination could this be the case. The proceedings are adversarial and at their heart is a hard brought and fought prosecution.
    The prosecuting authority is the General Medical Council, which is acting in concert with government public health policy and pharmaceutical company marketing strategies. The ultimate point of the prosecution is, from the prosecutor’s perspective, to defend the regulatory tenets of industrial scientific and medical research, isolate Dr Andrew Wakefield, and cast him out beyond the pale of informed medical opinion.
    Were this an ‘enquiry’, an independent GMC would, from the beginning, have produced evidence of process, which would cast light on the motives of the sole complainant in the case, Brian Deer. Had it been an enquiry, many hours would have been spent recording the evidence of all the parents who had cajoled, fought and pushed their way to the Royal Free in order to get their children the best medical attention available in Britain.
    This hearing is to all intents and purposes, a ‘trial’. As such, it is remarkable in contemporary society for not questioning, in any degree whatsoever, issues arising from the power of the pharmaceutical companies, their vested interests and their marketing strategies. The word ‘kangaroo’ became associated with the word ‘court’ presumably on account of that animal’s capacity to jump over great swathes of ground. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker

"Prof Denis McDevitt,.....attended meetings that discussed warnings from other countries about an early form of the triple jab, using the Urabe strain of mumps virus, which caused encephalitis and meningitis. Despite warnings and the fact that this vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, the Urabe-containing jab was introduced in the UK in 1988.  Some of the 12 children whose medical history featured in the controversial 1998 Lancet paper, drawn up by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues and which suggested a possible link between the jab and bowel disease and regressive autism, had received the Urabe-strain vaccine - as indeed had some of those children in the high court litigation with manufacturers." [June 2007 Private Eye] MMR Conflict of Interest Zone

Dr Berelowitz would, he said, have nothing to do with Wakefield after the press conference. So vehement was he on this matter, that it occurred to me for a second that he was going to say that Wakefield had forged his signature on the protocol form for subsequent research in which he had clearly been involved. In the event, however, Berelowitz claimed that he was tentatively involved in the research in name only and after a time had not gone through with any involvement...................In many ways Dr Berolovitz was hoist by the same petard as all the other prosecution witnesses. He had willingly taken part in the research for a period of time, and he, as those before him, now had to somehow cast that involvement in an innocent light, while appearing happy to endorse the prosecution against Wakefield.
......Take the matter of Dr Berelowitz and lumbar punctures. The GMC prosecution have presented these as highly invasive, risky procedures which should on no account be used on children; they were portrayed as arcane and evil experimental methods. But how could Dr Berelowitz agree with the prosecution on this matter? If he did, he too would surely be admitting guilty involvement. So, on this, as on a number of other matters, Berelowitz, witness for the prosecution, essentially gave evidence for the defence.
.....Dr Berelowitz had to make a similar defence on the issue of ethical approval, another of the main planks of the prosecution case. On this he maintained very clearly, as others have done before him, and as others will no doubt do after him, that the writing up of a case-series does not require ethical approval.  [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker

Both GPs refused to fall in line behind the prosecution supposition that in referring the children to the Royal Free the doctors had given up their patients to the devil. Both declared with ringing common sense that they had done what was best for their patients and their parents. What is more, both felt that their actions had been thoroughly vindicated when they received the discharge summary from the Royal Free and when later it became apparent that the two patients had been offered a believable diagnosis and treatment which had in differing degrees helped their condition.
    The second of the GPs was an ebullient man who despite being called for the prosecution, determinedly spoke for the defence. .....The fact that these worthy doctors had been brought to London in order to give evidence against three other doctors and, in a sense, against their patients and their parents made one wonder at the GMC's political turpitude. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker

A mother had approached her Consultant Paediatrician, with her son’s case. The consultant appears to have taken a jaundiced view of both the mother and the child. Despite having no real idea himself of how a diagnosis might be reached, he had bridled at the suggestion that the child be referred to the Royal Free, saying that he could not see how the child might benefit.
    To get support for this decision, based upon ignorance, he communicated the details of the case to Dr Kirrage. Kirrage in turn had immediately sought advice from a friend in high places, Dr Elizabeth Miller. Miller had told him that Andrew Wakefield’s theories and research were now discredited and that there was no link between MMR and autism. In her opinion it was best not to refer the child to the Royal Free.
    Using a pro-vaccine propaganda leaflet sent him by Miller, that he copied into an apparently personal letter, Kirrage wrote back to his consultant friend. He suggested that the consultant send a copy of this letter to the parents, at the same time informing the child’s mother he could not see that either the child or the family would gain anything from travelling to the Royal Free in London.
    What made this apparently ideologically motivated decision even more hurtful was the fact that neither the consultant nor Kirrage appeared to have the faintest notion of how they might get a proper diagnosis or specialised treatment for the child in their own Health Authority area. They were, as the mother wrote in a heart wringing letter to the consultant, dooming her son to incarceration in an institution where he would be drugged to keep him manageable. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker

Professor Zuckerman made the point on a number of occasions that in 45 years, he had never come across funding for research which entailed 'lawyers directing the research'. He didn’t have to explain this in any depth and defence council never put to him the endless evidence that in much research into workplace illness, in for example, the chemical industry, not only is the funding supplied by associate industrial interests but the work is carried out in industry funded establishments with data provided entirely by the industry in question.
.......Zuckerman clearly detested Wakefield. He poured sugary flattery on both Professor Murch and Professor Walker-Smith. Answering cross examination from Dr Wakefield’s counsel, he was completely defensive. Obviously feeling trapped and threatened, he was always on the brink of leaving his chair and the hearing.
    .....But the most intriguing question of all related to the press briefing shortly before the publication of the Lancet paper. Zuckerman had helped organise the ‘conference’ and he seemed happy to chair it. He had a preview of its structure and the questions it would address. However, when a journalist at the end of the briefing, asked what approach parents should now have to the MMR combination vaccine, Zuckerman directed the question to Dr Wakefield. This was despite the fact that he knew Wakefield to have had concerns about the polyvalent vaccine for many years. Despite the fact Zuckerman was at that time in receipt of a letter from Dr Wakefield in which it was explicitly stated that, if asked at the press briefing, Wakefield would make clear those concerns.
    As soon as Dr Wakefield had made the statement which apparently ended his career at the Royal Free, suggesting that it might be better to suspend use of MMR until research had proved its safety or otherwise, Zuckerman re-directed the question to Professor Murch. Murch quickly expressed his complete support for the vaccine. Why, one might ask, had Zuckerman directed the question to Wakefield?  
    Slowly with steady articulation, Mr Koonan put it to Professor Zuckerman that he had alleged Dr Wakefield was implacably opposed to any attempts at replication of his work, although, in fact, replication did take place. 'It’s as simple as that', Mr Koonan blandly ended the statement. There were signs, then, that Zuckerman was about to lose it.
    Koonan’s next set of questions dealt with the press briefing. He suggested to Professor Zuckerman that Zuckerman was not displeased to have the paper published by Dr Wakefield and other researchers from the Royal Free. That he thought the work reflected well on the medical school. He was even, Mr Koonan suggested, pleased to chair the briefing.
    At this, Professor Zuckerman lost his footing and began to slide down the cliff face, his terse venomous responses coming almost automatically. 'I absolutely reject this. I absolutely reject this. I absolutely reject this' he said in triplicate at one point.
    At the end of Zuckerman’s evidence one was left with the impression that he had performed cleverly, expressing his personal detestation of Dr Wakefield, defending his professional interests and managing to avoid answering the most damaging exchanges with Mr Koonan by utilising a display of histrionics. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker