Patricia- 'LBRBNB'- thanks that just gave me quite a good laugh which would normally be great but I'm having a bout of sciatica ; )

Patricia says:-
"AW must Appeal to the GMC."

As I understand it a 'behind the scenes' approach HAS been made to the GMC by Dr Wakefield and/or his UK lawyers. In view of the fact that 75% of the charges against Professor Walker-Smith were also made against Dr Wakefield, and JWS was completely exonerated by Judge Mitting in the UK High Court, particularly on the crucial issues of ethical permission and clinical need, the GMC have NO REASON AT ALL to continue to withhold Dr Wakefield's medical licence to practice. Issues specific to Dr Wakefield were the 'Kid's party' where some control blood samples were taken, and his failure to declare his expert fees for legal work undertaken on behalf of a group MMR litigation.

In the UK it is presently perfectly legal for young children to receive ear and body piercings and for boys to be circumcised for non clinical reasons. Dr Wakefield had permission from both the children and their parents,several of whom were medical colleagues, to take blood samples. The blood was taken by an appropriately qualified nurse at the party. This was neither illegal nor a reason for 'striking off' a doctor, although Dr Wakefield himself acknowledges he was unwise to speak publicly about this incident.

It is perfectly usual for doctors and scientists to prepare expert reports for litigation cases. Indeed the GMC's own expert witness, Professor Rutter, had also received fees and plane fares for appearing as an expert witness in US vaccine litigation cases. His evidence was used by vaccine manufacturers as part of their defences. Prof Rutter, condemned Dr Wakefield for not declaring his involvement in MMR litigation, but developed amnesia in relation to his own conflicts of interest.

According to Dr Wakefield, his reason for not declaring his MMR litigation involvement was to prevent the GMC case from prejudicing the childrens' cases. Seems reasonable to me. Dr Wakefield's insurance company, having spent a huge sum on his GMC defence, refused to fund his High Court appeal. The insurers will be regretting this decision. A Wakefield win would have meant they could have reclaimed all their money!!

Jenny they certainly are being challenged! Well done. But at 94 comments and still rising I am not sure that the mods can cope. I have a feeling they are overwhelmed. When will they call a halt I wonder. Perhaps not until the end of the week. Some of the LBRB stuff is patently desperate now and the Deer inspired inflammatory defaming is becoming so repetative it is reminiscent of robotic moronic automatons. That's what they are of course. Good to read some interesting comments from ASD whoever he or she is.

Yes Jenny and I see the latest load of loathsome lies and Deer induced vomit making rhetoric is also up there now, spewing forth from that well known saloonbar contributor Lilady of LBRB! Should expect it I guess. She really detests Andy because he "talks posh", that just about sums her up.

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/vaccine-autism-debate-coming-to-la-crosse/article_88fe3612-0a92-11e2-bf97-0019bb2963f4.html
So which department did invite Deer? I thought it was the English Department?

Dan's words are so true: "The truth... is that the story began when vaccines began causing autism, and what keeps the story going is that vaccines keep causing autism."

Oops correction, I was in a rush:

Let's say that of these 10,000 vaccines half of them contain 250 micrograms of aluminum.
That means the baby would receive 1,250,000 micrograms of aluminum, which is 1.25 grams.

*********************

Offit's original claim referred to 100,000 vaccines... so what he actually said was that a baby could receive 12.5 grams of aluminum

* Brian Deer has requested no unauthorized filming of these events. (From the blog/flyer)

I expect there will be some attempts to prevent the use of recording devices and mobile phones during these lectures, but in view of the fact that they are apparently free and open to anyone, this is going to be very difficult to enforce. Anyone attending, please take pens and paper and write as many copious notes as possible.

Deer commonly uses threats and other devices to prevent his toxic comments from being repeated, but these are public lectures and there's nothing to stop anyone from reporting his verbatim comments. Deer is a fool, who imagines the high level protection he has enjoyed in the past will last forever, and he can do and say whatever he wants, whenever he chooses. Deer's 'sponsors', whoever they are, will disappear like 'snow off a dyke' if he says anything to bring them into disrepute or even public notice.

Deer's lecture at the Johns Hopkins University a couple of years ago was never transcribed or even accorded a report by the university. An unofficial account in AoA by an attender reported some outrageous allegations from Deer using card tricks to demonstrate how Andrew Wakefield got 'jackpots of money'. In fact, large tranches of cash have been thrown at discrediting Dr Wakefield and it is reasonable to assume that Deer is getting well rewarded for his part in the demolition process. He has very little other apparent visible means of support.

Another poster reasonably asks if Deer's lectures are being paid for or sponsored and organised by a third party, or if there have been any large pharma donations to the University of Wisconsin - La Crosse.

Those interested in attending the event, here is the complete schedule.

Andy Wakefield press conference 1:00pm at Myrick Park (Gun Club Shelter) across from the north side of the University. LaCrosse Street and Hillview.

Brian Deer presentation at Centennial Hall. This is on the south side of the university off Vine St.

Also, the town will be very chaotic. One of largest Octoberfest celebrations in the country will be taking place along with Homecoming for the university.

Need more information email me. [email protected]

I am a few hours from lacrosse and would love to make a drive next week if we can get some others to attend and ask home some HONEST questions!!!!

Angie
Proud Mom to Ethan, Alex, Megan, and Sega our Miracle Service Dog

Of course, Offit's load of old codswallop is enshrined in the British Department of Health ideology:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/10/best-of-age-of-autism-paul-offit-and-the-milgram-experiment.html

Jenny,

Paul Offit did originally claim that a baby's immune system could cope with 100,000 vaccines administered simultaneously.

This nonsense appeared in the October 2005 edition of Parents Pack Newsletter, from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

You can see it for yourself in either of the following two links:

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/offit23.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/Offit%20June%202006.pdf

Thanks Dan if I write about Deer it isn`t usually fit to be printed anywhere..so I shall leave it at well done Dan...

Angus

cmo thankyou for that link. This article copied and pasted to them.

So is there a way to contact that department and flood them with questions to pose?

Autism began to appear in large numbers after the US passed a law preventing parents from ever suing vaccine makers in regular courts, thus kids went from a few to more than 70. The biggest jump began when 3 -12 hour old babies started getting Hepatitis B shots rather than testing the mother to see if she had it, back in 1991-others acquired autism as a result of the DPT shot in the 80's. Wakefield had nothing to do with that. Brian Deer did not work as a journalist, rather he is a "DEJOURNALIST." He has added to the DEstruction of true journalism. That is why the public does not know how the US pays out billions to tragedies caused by vaccines or people do not learn that most diseases were nearly gone before vaccines. The public does not know that aluminum, antifreeze, aborted fetal cells, dog parts, dangerous peanuts are in those plastic and latex syringes-none are healthy. Wakefield did the honest ethical reports and he was scapegoated. The University is fast Losing credibility. 1 in 5 children now have Neurological Impairments, 1 in Developmental Disabilities only since the 70 vaccines. WHO is funding the Deer Experiments? Science and Journalism without Conscience.

John and Dan,
Have you seen that the Thompson Center's Mazurek has published a study, said to be first of its kind, finding that autistic children often have bowel problems which lead to anxiety? I looked up autistic enterocolitis on wikipedia to make sure, but it clearly stated that most professionals thought that the association between bowel disease and autism was just something that Wakefield invented. Is it just saying that the problems can cause anxiety that is new, or is it that Big Pharma has decided it can't deny it any more, and has decided to gradually let the cat out of the bag, letting one of their own claim credit for this particular point? The rest to follow. I wrote a letter to the editor, but of course they wouldn't touch that one!

And did you see the article last month about gluten sensitivity on the rise? It said that comparisons of blood samples stored since the 1950's showed that blood markers for sensitivity were extremely rare then, much more common now. I wrote a letter to the editor that was published saying that this shows that many people getting vaxed are being sensitized to gluten by ingredients in the vaccines, and, while they may not go so far as to develop autism, they do go so far as to develop intolerance to gluten as part of their vaccine reaction, hence the explosion of gluten insensitive and celiac disease people.

Dr. Wakefield was professionally destroyed by vaccine mafia, because he dared to conduct the PROPER study, investigating origin of comorbid diseases in autistic children. Vaccine mafia refuses to conduct similar studies, because they know such studies provide convincing evidence, that vaccines cause autism and many other crippling diseases in children.

It is of course La Crosse's annual Bavarian style beer fest so perhaps that's what attracted Deer to going there at that time. Will he be wearing his lederhosen?

Hey Jake, will you be attending? Please??

Who is funding the talk? is there a donation by pharma or a pharma backed group to the university?

From Dan Olmstead's article (above):-
"There's nothing wrong with having Deer speak at an American university, although I can't see much point in it. But the issue needs to be presented as a debate, a dialogue, and prosepective journalists need to study the controversy, not slaver over the author because he has won some awards."

Absolutely!! and this gives us all 'food for thought' about what present day universities are actually trying to achieve? There was a time when students were encouraged to weigh up the evidence and make up their own minds. Radical thinking was encouraged. Now it seems students are being indoctrinated into what is called 'mainstream opinions and scientific thinking', and encouraged to use language and semantics to promote the establishment line. This is nothing less than fostoring the skills of 'spin doctoring' in order for graduands to obtain well paid jobs promoting often dubious corporate and political interests.

The following is from a now archived UK Open University course unit, which examines the Wakefield MMR issues in some detail. I apologise for the 'wordy' length of this excerpt. As a science graduate of the OU I was impressed by the excellence of their course material, although this is obviously from one of the 'arts' courses. I was fascinated to see they 'swallowed' Paul Offit's totally unscientific/unproven assertion about 'safely' giving a baby 100,000 vaccines at once!! I recommend reading the entire unit which I estimate to be around 10 years old:-

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=398720&section=3
"The hypothesis that the immune system is overloaded by combined childhood vaccines has never had scientific currency, but in light of the MMR controversy, a team of researchers led by Paul Offit re-examined the issue (Offit et al., 2002). Modern vaccines contain fewer antigens than in the past. Collectively, the immunisation programme recommended for infants in Britain exposes them to less than 100 antigens whereas the immune system is theoretically capable of responding to about 1010 antigens. Other studies tested the hypothesis that if the MMR vaccine did damage the immune system, an increased level of hospitalisation for infectious diseases would occur following the vaccine. Again, no association was found (Miller et al., 2003). It is, however, worth reflecting at this point on the difficulty in collecting and interpreting trends where there are a multiplicity of interdependent variables – a situation which confounds many epidemiological studies.
The main stance of the Department of Health has been that single vaccines expose children to the possibility of infection while waiting to complete the immunisation schedule. Fitzpatrick (2004) associates the momentum of the single-vaccines campaign with the Labour government's policies which have continuously emphasised parental choice, especially with regard to schools and hospitals. By not making available single vaccines as an alternative to MMR, the government's stance has been seen as an active denial of choice, counter to the policy of patient empowerment.
In stark contrast to the unwavering stance of the government, Wakefield is often portrayed as the ‘listening doctor’ in the press – an image he has taken care to cultivate. In response to criticism of the Lancet paper, he said: ‘the approach of the clinical scientists should reflect the first and most important lesson learnt as a medical student – to listen to the patient or the patient's parent, and they will tell you the answer’ (Wakefield, 1998).
In the battle for hearts and minds that characterises the MMR controversy, the sympathetic Wakefield clearly trumps the perceived heavy-handed authoritarian approach of the health establishment.
5.2 Blair's babe
The ESRC report demonstrated the high awareness amongst the public of the Leo Blair issue, in spite of it not being the most prominent aspect of the media coverage. In December 2001, during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons, Tony Blair was asked whether his infant son had been immunised with MMR. Mr Blair declined to answer on the basis that it was a private family matter. The perception in the media was that if Leo had been immunised, Mr Blair would have been happy to say so. His wife, Cherie Blair, had been the subject of media reports highlighting her interest in New Age alternative medicine which contributed to the suspicion that Mr Blair was promoting MMR in public but opting out in private. The impact of this issue on immunisation levels is hard to measure in isolation but uptake certainly fell in the wake of the publicity (Fitzpatrick, 2004)."