A Statement from Parents of Autistic Children Treated by Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch
STATEMENT FROM CRYSHAME: PARENTS OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN TREATED BY THE THREE DOCTORS
As expected the GMC has today shamefully removed the license to practice medicine from Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith, two good and caring doctors, thereby callously denying children with autism and bowel disease scarce treatment. But we share with Professor Murch and his family their immense relief that he can continue to practice untainted by the GMC’s allegations against the three doctors.
Today, parents and doctors have presented to the GMC three petitions from families and doctors around the world in support of the three doctors.
The Cure (to what ails them)
The GMC based the bulk of its case on the 1998 Lancet paper by the three doctors, claiming it did not have ethical approval and that the children in the study were subjected to invasive procedures that were not clinically justified.
No parent ever complained to the GMC about the three doctors.
A non-medically qualified journalist who reported the hearing for the Sunday Times made the only submission, seeking to bring down the cream of medical science and in turn dismiss the needs of children and parents.
Not one of the Lancet 12 children or their parents was given legal aid to represent their interests at the hearing. Whereas the prosecution relied heavily on the children's medical data obtained in contravention of the Data Protect Act principles.
Eight Lancet-12 parents wrote to the GMC testifying in support of the doctors' professionalism and compassion but had their letter rejected by the hearing.
The Twist (to fit the charges).
The GMC's case is based erroneously on Ethical Approval 172-96 granted by the Royal Free Hospital in 1996, which focuses on specific pathological processes associated with malabsorption of vitamin B12. By contrast the three doctors' discussion in the Lancet focuses on general hypotheses on how bowel disease may be implicated in autism.
The GMC based its unjust case against the doctors on the wrong ethical approval, which was submitted after and not before the Lancet work began. The three doctors claim that the correct ethical approval was granted in 1995 not 1996 and have the letter of proof. Because of this gross injustice the doctors have lost their right to practice and yet they have not harmed one single patient. Indeed the children vastly improved under their care.
The GMC is determined to silence the doctors and ensure they never practice or research again and are severely punished for publishing papers that the GMC claim encouraged open and public criticism of vaccine policy.
The GMC has sought to deceive the public by saying they have only the interests of these sick children and parents at heart. This is the same blundering GMC that missed Harold Shipman, the Bristol babies and Alder Hey.
Yet they continue to fail in their duty to protect the public by not striking off ‘killer doctors’ from the register.
This scandalous show trial was used to mask the real concerns parents have about why their children regressed into autism following MMR. The GMC's real intention has been to discredit research which, if allowed to continue, could implicate the MMR in the alarming rise in the numbers of autistic children.
Parents’ requests that this research should continue fell on deaf ears. At the same time the numbers of autistic children has risen thirty-fold since the MMR was introduced in 1988 amidst parents’ constant pleas for research into why their children were damaged. What role have vaccines played in the children’s deaths (in some cases), seizures, regressive autism, bowel disease, daily pain and disability must be investigated?
The Cold Compress
The GMC hearing will warn off doctors from expressing similar concerns about one-size-fits-all vaccination policy and ensure that scientists won’t conduct independent research into vaccine safety. The effect is to ensure government contracts with the large drug-makers are safeguarded and that clauses compelling government to make good their loss of earnings, should MMR sales drastically fall, are not activated. The commercial interests of the drug-makers take priority over research into why autism has increased so dramatically.
The plan has been to “discredit” the doctors and ensure they are left undefended in the media. The press have been compelled to refer to the doctors' “discredited” work. But researchers around the world have replicated their findings and supported their work. The doctors’ research remains original and important.
Independent research into why autism has increased must be funded, without powerful drug makers influencing the research agenda to keep share prices high and protect their products.
CryShame is a group of parents who saw their children regress into autism after the MMR jab. Cryshame wholeheartedly supports the three doctors, Dr Andrew Wakefield, Professors Simon Much and John Walker-Smith, each an expert in paediatric gastroenterology – Professor Walker-Smith an expert of world class.
Notes to editors
1. For an account of the GMC prosecution's mix up on the question of which ethical approval applied to the 1998 Lancet paper, see Martin Walker's account on closing days of the hearing: http://www.facebook.com/l/a8866;www.cryshame.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=50&Itemid=48
2. The hearing is the longest and most expensive hearing in the GMC’s history. Estimated at over £10m, this money could have been spent on autism research
3. The length of time between the events on which the charges are based and the time of the GMC hearing was up to 16 years, so eroding the witnesses’ memory of the original events and the availability of key documents lost or destroyed in the intervening years.
4. In 2006 only £1m was spent on autism research in the UK. Yet the numbers of children with autism reached 1 in 66 in 2009, from one in 2000 in 1987 – a thirty-fold increase during the period since MMR was introduced. This so far unstoppable increase will force a rethink on the role of vaccination. All the US Presidential candidates in 2008 committed to funding research into vaccines and autism.
5. In 2002, Wakefield et el found measles virus in the bowel of 75 out of 91 autistic children who had had MMR but not wild measles, but rarely in the controls (Uhlmann et al, ‘Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease’, Jnl of Clinical Pathololgy: Molecular Pathology, 55
6. Read David Thrower's summary of research supporting Wakefield's work http://www.facebook.com/l/a8866;www.jabs.org.uk/pages/thrower.asp
7. The only study to partially replicate Wakefield’s 2002 study and arrive at different findings studied only five children (out of a total of 25) who had received MMR before onset of autism and bowel disease, compared with 75 such children in the 2002 (Hornig et al (2008) ‘Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study’, Plosone)
8. Wakefield’s work has not been fully replicated and therefore Wakefield’s work has not been discredited
If you want to know what really causes autism and how to cure it look up Body Ecology Diet on youtube. These doctors know that vaccines play a huge role in autism. Please watch the video!
Posted by: Edna Nathan | May 31, 2010 at 01:21 AM
How much further will GMC go to cover up the truth? I'm a parent of 2 autistic children and I know this whole thing is a farce!
Posted by: Edna Nathan | May 31, 2010 at 01:18 AM
Yes, just like Andrew Wakefield we are NOT going to disappear but will keep on campaigning until the world finally wakes up to the truth.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | May 26, 2010 at 06:18 PM
I think it's important for these parents to continue to speak out. Why they were not included in this farce of a GMC trial amazes me. It's a very powerful message that none of these parents seem to think they were the victims of "callous disregard" and openly support Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Walker-Smith.This is great.
Posted by: Anne | May 26, 2010 at 12:22 PM
I scratched my head over notes 7 and 8 above. I think the gist is that since Hornig et al. were seeking to confirm or refute Wakefield's findings, they should have investigated more children whose parents reported regression after MMR vaccination.
The kids Hornig studied weren't the first ones who walked through the door after all; Hornig went out and found them.
You can read that study (and others) with comments here:
Posted by: Carol | May 26, 2010 at 08:15 AM