From: "Clifford G. Miller   <cgmiller@cliffordmiller.com> (regarding Jayne Donegan's case)

Now don't that beat all - WHO telling outright lies.  If you circulate this please include my address in England so WHO can try to sue me -  note the word "try".

Sheri Nakken wrote:

Millions of deaths are prevented by vaccination every year, yet public anxieties and vaccine scares that ignore rigorous science continue to hamper immunization programmes. Jane Parry reports.

In the Donegan case before the UK's General Medical Council last August in an exhaustive three week hearing involving 5 medical expert reports and approaching 400 medical references, the absence of any "science" was the most remarkable thing.

In particular, not a single paper was produced which established the safety of any childhood vaccine in use in the UK.  A witness of fact who also was an expert in her own right regarding the testing of pharmaceutical products confirmed also that what is considered the gold standard of medical evidence - the placebo controlled randomised clinical trial is simply not carried out on vaccines - yep, not even ones for kids.   And that was why the expert she sought out Dr Donegan, for advice about whether to vaccinate her children.

Fortunately, Dr Donegan's advice on vaccination is the only advice available in the UK which has been proven in rigorous detailed and extensive legal proceedings to be valid.  That cannot be said of the advice from our Department of Health.  Not only was Dr Donegan acquitted by the GMC, but most unusually they found her defence proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whenever WHO claim lives in the third world have been saved, they refer to "estimates" - guess WHO produces those "estimates".  And are "estimates" science?  Not in this case or in the case of WHO.  But that is not all.  There is no "rigorous science".  Medical research is medical research and not "science" even if they try hard to pretend it is science.  And medicine is not science either. And try as hard as they can, I am not sure it is truly accurate to describe any medical research as "rigorous".  Biological systems are a little too uncertain to be rigorous about everything.

"Clifford G. Miller" <cgmiller@cliffordmiller.com>