The Immunization Partnership Applauds Meachum's Ruling, Exposing Her Conflict of Interest
By Jake Crosby
Confirming her conflict of interest, Judge Amy Clark Meachum's decision to throw Dr. Andrew Wakefield's defamation case out of district court was publicly applauded by the President/CEO of The Immunization Partnership who promised to continue working with the Texas Academy of Family Physicians (TAFP), for which Judge Meachum's husband lobbies.
On August 9th in the comments section of “Science”Blogs, The Immunization Partnership President/CEO Anna C Dragsbaek wrote:
Thanks for your very humorous blog. I am the President and CEO of The Immunization Partnership, the organization that hosts The Texas Immunization Summit every two years. We applaud the judge’s decision in this case and continue to work with TAFP, and countless other organization around the state to ensure that Texas is protected against vaccine preventable diseases. As you might imagine, we are at ‘ground zero’ in the anti-vaccine debate. We fight everyday to counteract the egregious flow of misinformation and erroneous assertions that are propagated by Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues. As for the conspiracy theory, if working in collaboration with all of the stakeholders locally and nationally to ensure that families do not suffer the consequences of vaccine-preventable diseases is conspiracy, then color us guilty. In the meantime, we will continue to advocate for evidence-based immunization laws and policies, educate the public and support immunization best practices. We welcome your participation in our upcoming Texas Immunization Summit, September 27th and 28th. Come see how Texans are stepping up to the plate on this critical issue.
However, the keynote address at this upcoming TAFP-sponsored summit will not be given by a Texan, but by the vaccine industry's media go-to guy Seth Mnookin, who has made libeling Dr. Wakefield a considerable part of his career. At the 2011 World Science Festival in New York City, I was standing right next to Mnookin when I heard him tell another attendee that Dr. Wakefield “faked his data.” At a conference put on by a Merck-chaired organization, Seth Mnookin booted me out when I defended Dr. Wakefield in Q and A. Similarly, when the judge's decision was announced, Mnookin tweeted:
Wakefield harassment suit against BMJ & journalist thrown out of court. http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/08/03/wakefield-vs-bmj-lawsuit-dismissed-on-jurisdiction-grounds/ … h/t @ejwillingham
In 2008, the Texas Immunization Summit hosted a keynote speech by millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit and in 2010, hosted a talk – sponsored by TAFP – given by anti-vaccine-autism research group Autism Science Foundation's president/founder Alison Singer. She tells parents to vaccinate recklessly even though she split the MMR vaccine into three separate shots for her neurotypical second daughter.
The week Dr. Wakefield's lawsuit was filed, the Houston Chronicle quoted The Immunization Partnership's co-chair to its advisory council Dr. Julie Boom, as saying:
"Yes, there are many who have 'hurt feelings' regarding the aftermath of his faulty research," in response to “Injury to feelings” being listed in Dr. Wakefield’s lawsuit as one of the damages sustained as a result of the British Medical Journal's libel.
Last June, Dr. Boom sat on a panel with Alison Singer hosted by The Immunization Partnership titled “Vaccine Safety Concerns and How to Respond to Vaccine-Hesitant Parents.”
In a slide presentation for that event, Dr. Boom even embellished the accusations against Dr. Wakefield by stating that in “2011 - BMJ investigation labels Wakefield's study 'an elaborate fraud' and Wakefield's medical license is revoked.” In reality, the revocation of Dr. Wakefield's medical license had nothing to do with Deer's fraud charges; it was based on charges of serious professional misconduct in the Lancet paper that would later be officially disproved on appeal by Dr. Wakefield's colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith.
The Immunization Partnership obviously does not care; they need Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal’s defamation of Dr. Wakefield to support the vaccine-autism cover-up. It does not matter that the accusations against him are completely made-up; the whole reason they were made-up in the first place was to keep his voice out of the vaccine-autism controversy and continue to cover up the fact that vaccines do cause autism. Any judge deciding the merits of Dr. Wakefield’s lawsuit should not be tied to The Immunization Partnership, which its own President/CEO admits has a huge stake in the suit’s outcome. Yet the judge in this case, Amy Clark Meachum, is still married to Kurt Meachum who lobbies for the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, which continues to work with The Immunization Partnership.
Adding further insult to injury, Judge Meachum’s husband is also a lobbyist for the Texas Chapter of the American College of Physicians, which promoted and linked to the BMJ's defamation against Dr. Wakefield in its online publication ACP Internist. All things considered, Amy Clark Meachum should recuse herself from any future decision-making related to Dr. Wakefield's lawsuit. That she failed to do so discredited her ruling to toss out his case and was a breach of ethical judgment.
Jake Crosby has Asperger Syndrome and is a contributing editor to Age of Autism. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a BA in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy. He currently attends The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services where he is studying for an MPH in epidemiology.
The immune system is in the gut system.That is where the maternal antibodies transfer over to the newborn.If the gut system is damaged,then the newborn is damaged.They need to
control Dr. Wakefield and nullify his research because
DR.WAKEFIELD IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
This was also a warning and to control the others --- what can happen if you do the "wrong research",that big pHarma does not want you to know.
These people are all connected by their wallets.
Posted by: oneVoice | August 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM
One would think Brian Deer would welcome a chance to slay the Wakefield dragon in court. Not so much, I guess.
Posted by: Carol | August 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM
If what you say about Judge Amy Clark Meachum is true, then does it qualify as conflict of interest in the court's eyes? Did we know about this beforehand? I mean really, we are being extremely optimistic to expect a vaccine zhar's wife to be neutral, so a request should have been made before the trial to get a different judge.
Posted by: Heidi N | August 23, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Anyone following the movements of AoA are familiar with so many "conflicts of interest."
Now that Judge Meachum's conflicts of interests have been exposed, NOW WHAT?
Will the appeal recognise anymore conflicts of interests?
Will Dr Wakefield receive a fair hearing?
Elizabeth Gillespie - currently caught-up in my own legal battle fighting for my 10 yr old, severely autistic & non-verbal son.
Posted by: AussieMum | August 23, 2012 at 07:45 PM
From Dictionary.com
fascism noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Posted by: rosycurler | August 23, 2012 at 06:41 PM
Of course, the issue of waste in relation to the GMC hearing barely comes into it - the government and the medical establishment buying themselves time, and my goodness they bought loads. Eight years to start off with, but even after Mitting the struggle against the fall out of deception from it all is only just begun. £8m is nothing when it comes to the protection of the over-powerful.
Posted by: John Stone | August 23, 2012 at 02:58 PM
Deer is a monumental disgrace. Of course, the GMC is a bigger disgrace for having allowed themselves to be manipulated by the disgraceful vaccine-industrial-complex.
Posted by: Mark Struthers | August 23, 2012 at 02:52 PM
Mark Struthers
Sorry -My mistake. The ACTUAL costs of the three year GMC trial have NEVER been admitted, so any 'costings' are only estimates. I think Deer's £8million is probably closer to the real figure. However much it cost, the money was wasted.
I cannot get my head round Brian Deer's warped suggestion that Andrew Wakefield is somehow to blame for all this waste of money. If the 3 year GMC trial was a complete travesty of justice, which Justice Mitting's verdict indicates-IT WAS. Then the blame lies fair and square on Deer for his trumped up so called 'complaints', and the GMC for devising all those convoluted charges against these three honest and talented doctors, and the equally convoluted efforts to obtain guilty verdicts.
Of course the REAL costs are being paid by a whole generation of damaged unhealthy children. Dr Wakefield was only doing his job. It was his duty to accurately report on his research findings. The clinical details in the Lancet 1998 article were all written by Professor Walker-Smith, and the neurological assessments were carried out by qualified neurologists. Dr Wakefield has been vilified for expressing a viewpoint, dictated by his conscience, for a return to single Measles,and Rubella jabs, in use in the UK for around 20 years, prior to the MMR vaccine introduced in 1988.
The Mumps MMR component has proven to be more trouble than it was all worth, what with the initial Urabe virus strain causing meningitis, and now with a generation of young adult men catching mumps at a time when it can render them sterile. Since most of these young men were MMR vaccinated, there is now a grudging admission that the mumps vaccine efficacy does not last!!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | August 23, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Mark thankyou. This is such good news. The timing would be right,if the opportunity is still open for him to do so. Whatever the outcome of his appeal in Texas.
Posted by: patricia | August 23, 2012 at 02:11 PM
patricia
On the EverydayAutismMiracles show (8/13/2012), Andrew Wakefield said at 36:45, ...
"I'm now trying to re-invoke my appeal in the UK to restore my licence. But I could not afford to go forward with the process; John Walker-Smith did, and it was in that ruling by Justice Mitting in the English High Court that basically said the GMC were incompetent" ...
Posted by: Mark Struthers | August 23, 2012 at 01:33 PM
Jenny Allan told us that,
"The GMC trial took three years and is estimated to have cost £3million [$4.8 million]."
... whereas Brian Deer told us,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b00zm328
at 27:30 ... "that the legal bills alone, to get to the bottom of what Wakefield did, would have cost, I don't know, probably about £8 million [$12.7 million] ... "then there were the costs of my investigation, and all kinds of things that have gone on over the years" ...
Deer is a disgrace ... and a hugely expensive mistake ... for the medical profession ... and all of us.
Posted by: Mark Struthers | August 23, 2012 at 01:27 PM
Why are we met with corruption at every turn ? Blatant conflicts of interest led this judge to dismiss this case . The judge herself should be considered for dismissal in my view because she knew full well she was not impartial .
Why are we still having to deal with studies out of a financial pariah state like Iceland . Iceland has proven to the world how trustworthy they all are in just the last few years ....are there any banks left in Iceland after all those frauds ? What is wrong with a decent vaccine\autism study based in UK or in the US . Where the results , if dishonest , can be challenged and discredited in a court of law (hopefully with a judge who is truly impartial and not married to the Pharma Harma mob .)
Posted by: Justin Young | August 23, 2012 at 12:16 PM
John Stone
re your link to the radio show Toginet, I can't link to anything re AW. Can you just give me the relevent text re AW returning to the GMC and an Appeal? Does he intend to do this?
Posted by: patricia | August 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM
John O'Neil says:-
"Just one point here. While the striking off of Dr Walker-Smith was overturned, the decision had nothing to do with the striking off of Dr Wakefield."
More than 'one point' Mr O'Neil. About 75% of the GMC charges against Professor Walker-Smith were identical to those against Dr Wakefield. In fact the entire GMC case was underpinned by sole complainant Brian Deer's assertion that the Lancet 12 children were 'used' for purely research purposes and that they were given unnecessary invasive procedures for non clinical reasons. Deer also stated (and QC for the GMC Sally Smith, shamelessly led an expert witness to 'confirm'), the three doctors failed to obtain the correct ethical approvals. In the London High Court, Justice Mitting took only a few days to ascertain this was complete nonsense and that all the children were properly diagnosed and treated in accordance with clinical need.
Mitting's judgement, which had some scathing comments about the GMC's 'superficial and inadequate' examining of the evidence, completely cleared Professor Walker Smith and Professor Simon Murch, whom as clinicians, both faced identical charges. Prof Murch was found 'guilty' but admonished purely on account of him being 'junior' to Prof Walker-Smith.
Dr Wakefield's Royal Free employment was as a medical researcher. His contract precluded ANY clinical contact with the children. This meant the GMC's charge that he 'caused' the Lancet 12 children to undergo invasive procedures was, as Mitting quickly realised, 'nonsense'. Dr Wakefield was based in his laboratory!!
The additional, and some might say 'spurious' additional charges dragged up by the GMC against Dr Wakefield included a failure to declare his involvement as an expert in an MMR vaccine litigation preparation in the UK. Yet Professor Rutter, expert witness for the GMC and the main source of this 'conflict of interest' critisicm against Dr Wakefield, completely forgot to mention that he had himself been an expert witness for the vaccine manufacturers in the US. The GMC trial took three years and is estimated to have cost £3million. In the end we all pay!!
The 'callous disregard' GMC verdict on some children donating blood for 'control samples' at a kids party with the full permission of the parents and the kids themselves, can be summed up very simply. This was none of the GMC's damned business!!
In the UK, babies can legally get pierced ears and circumcision for non clinical reasons.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2190391/Panel-rules-MMR-jab-girl-deaf--payout.html
A young woman, who was part of the group litigation mentioned above has just proved her deafness was caused by the MMR vaccine she received as a baby, but no compensation payable because she is deemed only 20% disabled. That's MY idea of 'callous disregard' (The litigation was abandoned after the Legal Aid Board withdrew funding).
Posted by: Jenny Allan | August 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM
I know what we need . We need a study out of the Solomon Islands on the cause of Autism . Or maybe Rockall , that is entirely un-populated and under Danish control . Poul Thoresen could probably work wonders with Rockall .
No doubt Poul's results would come back that we the parents have all mercury\aluminium poisoned our own children .
Older Fathers , Obese mothers , marmalade on my toast .....This annoying charade has gone on long enough .
Conflicts of interest is a polite way of saying these people are completely corrupt and devoid of all moral compass .
Posted by: DeliberatelyPoisoned | August 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM
John O'Neill
The case against Wakefield over the Lancet paper was originally contingent on a conviction against Walker-Smith who was both senior clinician in regard to patients and senior author of the paper. It was never possible to see how Wakefield could be guilty in these matters if Walker-Smith was not, and indeed Walker-Smith was not. So any decent and fair minded person ought to be outraged by the fact that that GMC has made no move to review its findings against Wakefield and Prof Murch although they've already been proved to be unfounded: that there was no deception over referral, that the children were seen and treated purely on the basis of clinical need, that the paper had nothing to do with protocol 1772-96, and it was not commissioned by the Legal Aid Board.
But, of course, I was talking about decent and fair minded people. If you are a troll, you will continue to point out that the findings, however, impossible have not been withdrawn against Wakefield (or Murch). You will continue to make ludicrous points pretending that there is doubt over the reasons for Wakefield's not appealling, although he has now made it clear he intends to return to it.
http://toginet.com/shows/everydayautismmiracles/
Posted by: John Stone | August 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Just one point here. While the striking off of Dr Walker-Smith was overturned, the decision had nothing to do with the striking off of Dr Wakefield. Dr Wakefield did not appeal the judgement - until he does, it is inaccurate to say charges of misconduct against him have been overturned.
I appreciate that John Stone will say that Dr Wakefield's insurance precludes an appeal (and there's no evidence that that's the case, as far as I'm aware) but he's brought a court case in Texas without relying on insurance.
Posted by: John O'Neill | August 23, 2012 at 09:47 AM
If the obvious conflicts of interest presented by Jake in this case are .. indeed .. true .. one wonders what it would have required for Judge Meachum to have recused herself from presiding over a trial where both parties deserve the right to have their case decided by a conflict-free judge?
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | August 23, 2012 at 08:10 AM
It is appalling to me that groups with a vested financial interest continue to suppress and distort the facts about vaccines. My daughter had an immediate reaction to her 4-month shots - it was unmistakably an adverse reaction because of the immediate onset of that horrendous, worst pain of her tiny life screaming (from brain swelling) that started soon after shots. After this happened and I began to research vaccines, I had this eerie feeling that this was not her first reaction. My daughter left the hospital strong after being born and we were cruising beautifully until about the time of her 2 month well visit. It was sometime after that visit that I can remember at least 2 episodes of very LONG nights of sheer panic and terror because she would STOP BREATHING! Apnea "out of no where". Really? Out of no where? NOT SO! In fact the apnea and breathing distress post vaccination is a very predictable thing at surprisingly predictable intervals! Did not know this until this week and it is so succinctly shared at the link below. The fact that MDs are not trained to know this and look for it is reckless endangerment of babies!
http://www.mommypotamus.com/vaccines-and-sudden-infant-death-syndrome/
Posted by: Mad as Freaking Hell this week | August 23, 2012 at 08:02 AM
"In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded"
From
The Lonesome Death Of Hattie Carroll -Bob Dylan
(Apparently Dylan's lyrics are the most quoted in US courtrooms-I'm a fan!)
Posted by: Jenny Allan | August 23, 2012 at 07:00 AM