Veracare
Focusing on Unethical Medical Practices
www.ahrp.org
The UK High Court issued a ruling completely exonerating Dr. John Walker-Smith, the co-author of the maligned vaccine article published by The Lancet in 1998, then retracted in the midst of a frenzied, orchestrated witch-hunt. Justice John Mitting criticised the disciplinary panel’s "inadequate and superficial reasoning" and "wrong conclusions" before ruling: "The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it." He urged that in future such cases should be "chaired by someone with judicial experience." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111481/Doctor-struck-MMR-controversy-clears-GMC-dismissal-ruled-High-Court.html
The verdict restores Walker-Smith’s name to the medical register to the medical community, and absolves him of all charges. The basis of the GMC controversial hearing and draconian action against Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Dr. Walker-Smith were prompted entirely by Brian Deer a freelance reporter for Rupert Murdoch publications. No parent of the 12 children whose diagnosis and treatment were the subject of the Lancet paper ever filed a complaint--indeed they were barred from testifying on behalf of the doctors at the GMC hearing.
After the hearing, the BMJ added fuel to the bonfire, when it lent its platform to Brian Deer who vilified the doctors with scathing attacks. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who now resides in the US, has filed a defamation lawsuit in Texas against Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for falsely accusing him of “fraud.”
After the damage had been done, BMJ editor-in-chief, Fiona Godlee, acknowledged that AHRP was right to criticize her and the BMJ for failing to disclose BMJ's substantial financial ties to the two major vaccine manufacturers--Merck and GlaxoSmithKline: "We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so. "
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/rein-response-fiona-godlee
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/780/149/
Why do the defenders of vaccines, and defenders of toxic prescription drugs such as, antidepressants, antipsychotics, or statins, resort to ferocious personal and professional attacks against critics who raise doubts about the safety of certain drugs and vaccines?
The answer is quite obvious: they do so at the behest of their backers in the pharmaceutical industry and often have a substantial personal financial stake in promoting pharmaceutical products. They are not impartial. They should not, , therefore, be the scientific arbiters of vaccine and drug research, nor should they be in a position to set public health policy about vaccines or prescription drugs.
Vera Sharav
In its Press Release the Canary Party (..."canaries in the mines") states:
“Though justice has finally prevailed for Prof. Walker-Smith, the damage done to him and his colleagues has been incalculable,” said Mark Blaxill, chairman of the Canary Party. “The UK government must investigate the corruption in the GMC, which has severely damaged the reputations of good, honest doctors. Most of all, it’s outrageous that Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been vilified by government officials, vaccine manufacturers and physician organizations, and that the media has accepted these unfounded accusations uncritically.”
“It’s time that we started treating responsible parents as reliable witnesses to serious adverse reactions to medical procedures such as vaccination,” said Jennifer Larson, president of the Canary Party. “The work that Walker-Smith and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital did with the Lancet 12 was medically necessary and above reproach. No patient complained, and the charges against the Royal Free team came only from a freelance journalist writing for a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. Meanwhile, the findings reported in the Lancet paper have been replicated in numerous scientific publications and reported by thousands of parents all over the world.”
“It is quite obvious to me that James Murdoch, Brian Deer and GlaxoSmithKline orchestrated the smear attack on Dr. Andrew Wakefield,” said Ginger Taylor, executive director of the Canary Party. “A judge has now ruled that the GMC hearings were a farce. Parents are waiting for journalists to find their spine and start some honest reporting on the character assassination of doctors that is blocking medical treatments for vaccine injured children, and the role that GSK and Merck may be playing to protect their profits on the MMR vaccine. The Canary Party honors and stands by doctors of integrity like Prof. Walker-Smith, who continue to fight and defend their hard-won reputations for going the extra mile to investigate and improve the chronic, difficult-to-treat cases that now permeate our society.”
Read more: www.canaryparty.org
As I often do, I have made a roundup of posts about both the UK high court's ruling on Professor Walker-Smith and Brian Deer's anti-SLAPP suit. I've included this post in the list, both at Thinking Person's Guide to Autism (where the list will be static) "What the UK High Court's Ruling on John Walker-Smith Means and Doesn't Mean",
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkingautismguide.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-uk-high-courts-ruling-on-john.html
and at my own blog, I Speak of Dreams "UK High Court Quashed Rulings Against John Walker-Smith; Means NOTHING about Andrew Wakefield"
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2012/03/walker-smith-ruling-means-nothing-about-wakefield.html
I'll continue to update the latter post daily.