Weekly Wrap: Snickering About Shingles, Sticking It To Andy
What Doesn’t Kill You

MMR and the Crumbling Façade of the British State

David salisbury
Dr David Salisbury - Head of UK Immunisation in Victoria Towers Garden by the Palace of Westminster
By John Stone

Truth is a hard game and when people start admitting it you scarcely know where it might end. Today, the BBC and the United Kingdom Department of Health tacitly admitted that a key finding of the GMC hearing against doctors Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch was false, to wit that the Wakefield Lancet paper of 1998 was identical to a study commissioned by the Legal Aid Board: with that finding out of the way – dismissed as it was Mr Justice Mitting in the High Court in the appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith – then many of the other accusations against all three doctors crumble to dust.

 

This is the wording of the BBC report:

 Dr Wakefield's study considered whether there was a link between the three-in-one MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease.

It focused on tests carried out on 12 children who had been referred to hospital for gastrointestinal problems.

Dr Wakefield was also paid to carry out another study at the same time to find out if parents who claimed their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine had a case. Some children were involved in both studies.

However,  this  study was not the abandoned  one that the GMC panel insisted on in its findings:

The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.

Obscenely, the GMC panel deliberated for three years over this falsehood and yet such is justice that it has only been over-turned in the case of one of the doctors. However, it really is time that the manufacturers of these official deceits started answering questions. For instance, why - if MMR was safe - were such disgusting perversions necessary to protect its reputation?

 John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

Comments

Judy Hayman

I guess I am being hopelessly naive, but if we could raise the money for the legal fees for Dr Wakefield to fight the GMC ruling in the High Court would that solve the matter once and for all or is that just wishful thinking?

David H. Payne

VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM

The real question is why all of this honesty now? These people are life long liars what happened what is about to come out that compelled this begrudging confession?

There are numerous journal articles on the failure of the MMR vaccines and they well knew that prior to castigating Wakefield and others. Why come clean now? Has to make you wonder what is up.


VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM

Angus Files

Great posts Mark spot on...My youngest two have had no vaccines oral or jabbed....(such bad parents we arent)

They both had measles,we thought it was midgy bites as we were camping at the time ..did not put them up nor down,All cleared within the week..The same cant be said for Geoffrey my second oldest who had MMR and his Autsim came from the needle that day ,and he will have to live with that forever,non verbal,lowfuctioning school assesed age of 2 at best..

You take your baby to the doctors but you dont expect the devestasion this vaccine causes WORLDWIDE...God bless all the kids harmed by this un-tested vaccine if not killed by it,,

Angus

Mark Struthers

Professor (Sir) David Salisbury & his mates at Bad Pharma have simply spread 'fear and loathing' about measles and the perils of not being jabbed with MMR. However, apart from Jayne Donegan, another beacon of common sense on measles and MMR in the UK is Magda Taylor, who believes in honestly informing parents about the risks.

http://www.informedparent.co.uk/mmr

Magda has lately been rifling through some back copies of the BMJ from a time when the journal could probably have been trusted to say things as they truly were (how things have changed!). Magda writes that contracting measles may well play a beneficial role, "resulting in priming and maturing a child’s immune system". The reality, of course, is that contracting measles is not as bad a picture as Salisbury and his silly shills have painted.

John Stone

Carol

Thanks. It does make it clearer.

John

Carol

I think the sentence "Today, the BBC and the United Kingdom Department of Health tacitly admitted that a key finding of the GMC hearing against doctors Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch was false, that the Wakefield Lancet paper of 1998 was identical to a study commissioned by the Legal Aid Board...." could use a "to wit" before the phrase "that the Wakefield Lancet paper...."

At first I took it to mean that they had found that Lancet paper = LAB study and did a double-take.

Thank you

Did you notice that AOA is one of two "Related Internet links" at the bottom of the BBC article?

Also, FYI, the whale.to site is sufficiently controversial that it provides a basis for reflexively discounting legitimate material it may contain. See: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scopie's_Law#Scopie.27s_Law

Why are links to the site appearing in the comments to this excellent article?

Mark Struthers

I would just add that Dr Jayne Donegan published an excellent article about measles in 2011 - updated for the recent outbreaks in 2013.

http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/measles-2013

I especially like the bit about the benefit of getting measles. Eradicating measles may not be to the greater good of mankind: interfering with the ecology between measles and man may well have unexpected effects. I've been a GP for nearly 30 years and have certainly noticed an explosion in the prescription of asthma relieving inhalers over that sort of time. My impression is that asthma is a more common, albeit a rarely life threatening illness. Or perhaps it's better controlled with prescription medication and doctor/nurse/patient education than it once was.

Competing interest: I had measles as a 7 year old and mumps and rubella (probably) as a young teenager. I had flu as as a 17 year old and no illness anywhere as near severe since then. I have never had a flu jab - despite Professor Sir David Salisbury's dutiful entreaties to all NHS clinical staff.

PS. I think Jayne Donegan should be appointed the UK's Director of Immunisation ... with immediate effect.

Mark Struthers

Salisbury "led the persecution of MMR whistleblower Dr Andrew Wakefield."

http://whale.to/a/salisburymmrurabe.jpg

Let us not forget that is was Salisbury who also led the persecution of Dr Jayne Donegan.

http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/gmc

At the end of her story about her experience with the GMC, Dr Donegan asks,

"What ‘take home message’ that can be gained from my experience?"

She answers,

"Perhaps it is that if a parent says, “I’m worried about the safety of vaccination,” they are told, “You don’t understand, you’re not a doctor.” However if a doctor says, “I’m worried about the safety of vaccination,” they are told, “We’re charging you with serious professional misconduct.”


Mark Struthers

Yesterday, the Independent also published a disgraceful editorial that could easily have been written by Professor (Sir) David Salisbury ... and probably was:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/andrew-wakefields-baleful-legacy-8570168.html

All comments have now been pulled on the Jeremy Laurance article and on Andrew Wakefield's statement of yesterday. However, the commentary on the editorial continues apace with the entry this morning of one of Salisbury's snappy little attack dogs (Addryanne Adamsyn). You have to laugh at the brass neck!

john

Salibsury, a man you can trust
http://whale.to/a/salisburymmrurabe.jpg

Angus Files

Salisbury I am sure his nose has grown again since the last picture on here ...

John Stone

MN

You have remember that Guardian newspapers sacked an editor in chief of the Observer for allowing an accurate report of the rising autism numbers, and that they are presently in partnership with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ed

David Salisbury presumably follows the advice of Cochrane in both 2005 and 2012:

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803

IE 'We have no idea on an epidemiological footing whether MMR is safe or not, but jab on regardless.'

Ed Yazbak

Salisbury was wrong twelve years ago.

http://www.whale.to/v/yazbak1.html

Nothing has changed.

He still is.


mn

John

In today's Observer Catherine Bennett takes us through the MMR story and the quackery basically an idiot's guide. The motto of this article never let the truth get in the way it might spoil the story. Also I don't think she will be lining up for a New Year's honour.

AussieMum

Thanks John,

It is positive in a way to see at least there is some discussion about Dr Wakefield's et al study.

However, regardless of the bickering and semantics going one,at the end of the day our children have been damaged by vaccines-End Of!

Elizabeth Gillespie

Mark Struthers

Is this a trustworthy guy? Why should patients trust this man? Here, the director of vaccination policy in the UK gives unconvincing answers to the FOIA Centre (freedom of information):

http://www.foiacentre.com/news-MMR-comment.html

The whole archive from 2007 (before the GMC trial of the Royal Free Three) makes interesting reading.

http://www.foiacentre.com/news-MMR-files.html

Why should doctors respect this man?


Mark Struthers

Salisbury is no match for Andrew Wakefield and he knows it. Whatever else, Professor (Sir) David Salisbury is not a man of courage or real conviction: there will be no televised debate between the two.

Mark Struthers

Andrew Wakefield gets the measure of the man, the director of vaccine operations at the Department of Health in London ... in this YouTube video.

http://youtu.be/uhTYMoBTL6o

You have to laugh ... as Andrew Wakefield does.

Mark Struthers

Divisive and destructive: the abuse of power was their stock in trade. David Salisbury reminds me of Sir Roy Meadow, the other less than gallant paediatric professor of the Thatcher era.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4685511.stm

Sallie O. Elkordy

Autism Mothers gathered to show their appreciation to Dr. Wakefield the day that his license was revoked. Guess where this took place? It was announced to Andrew live on air on NBC during an interview outside in Rockefeller Plaza in NYC. Let me say that again, in Rockefeller Plaza. I was fortunate to get an interview with him directly thereafter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1xHYnmfgc

Jenny Allan

The Independent published a 'timeline'. My comments challenging the accuracy of some of these statements were pulled, along with hundreds of comments on the Independent's other articles, including Dr Wakefield's statement. However, at least they were to prepared to publish this, when no other mainstream newspaper was prepared to stand up to the UK medical/political establishment. It seems The Independent has now 'caved in' to establishment demands to get rid of all our comments supporting Dr Wakefield.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/timeline-how-the-mmr-scare-story-spread-8570591.html
Timeline: How the MMR scare story spread
From above:-
"December 2001
The Prime Minister Tony Blair is ambushed by Dr Wakefield’s supporters, who claim Mr Blair’s son Leo did not have the MMR jab. The Blairs initially decline to comment but later deny the claim."
WRONG -The Blairs have NEVER told us what vaccines Leo got. They just said he had been 'fully vaccinated', against Measles, Mumps and Rubella.

From above:-
"February 2004
An investigation by Brian Deer of The Sunday Times reveals that the Legal Aid Board funded the Lancet research and that many of the children were litigants."
WRONG The LAB did not fund the Lancet research.

Also, the timeline mentions the withdrawn vaccine, (Urabe mumps MMR component), but states it only caused 'transient mumps meningitis', making it sound far less harmful than it actually was, causing permanent damage in an unknown number of cases. At least one baby died after receiving this vaccine, but it was denied the vaccine caused the 'unexplained' death.

Adriana

Wow. A bit speechless. So because tort suits are so difficult to undertake in the UK, it took this long for the falsehood to be processed, merely because John Walker-Smith happened to have legal insurance? And, given that so many top notch doctors in the UK do not have legal insurance and can't file suit, if Walker-Smith hadn't been insured, the truth would never have been conceded?

It's insanity. How will the spin doctors try to spin this industry defeat? This count against the defendants has been the central talking point of all generalized attacks on the vaccine injury theory of autism in the US and global press. What now?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)