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The two of the three vaccine brands that were introduced in 1988 had to be withdrawn for safety reasons and yet Dr Salisbury in his statement to the GMC sums up by saying this is a vaccine with an exemplary safety record.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