BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR DOCTOR

[john[_5_]]

http://www.box.net/shared/zks6g0ekub


[2010 April pdf] BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR
DOCTOR "It is extraordinary that a journal like the BMJ should have
reduced itself to this sort of tabloid medicine from an entirely unqualified
and biased source. The egregious errors in Deer's report should cause
embarrassment to the BMJ's editors. In a relentless and misguided effort to
distract attention from vaccine safety issues, agenda-driven journalism has
once again made a mockery of medicine."

[dr_jeff]

john wrote:
> http://www.box.net/shared/zks6g0ekub
>
>
> [2010 April pdf] BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR
> DOCTOR "It is extraordinary that a journal like the BMJ should have
> reduced itself to this sort of tabloid medicine from an entirely unqualified
> and biased source. The egregious errors in Deer's report should cause
> embarrassment to the BMJ's editors. In a relentless and misguided effort to
> distract attention from vaccine safety issues, agenda-driven journalism has
> once again made a mockery of medicine."

Wakefield lost his license, in part because of inappropriate tests done
on kids and lying about conflicts of interest.

And, now you believe Wakefield the liar?

[Peter Parry]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:24:16 +0100, "john" > wrote:


>BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MMR
>DOCTOR

Claims the "Autism File" magazine whose "scientific advisors" include
Andrew Wakefield and his publicist "Dotty Stotty" aka Carol Stott.

The BMJ article can be read at :-

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/apr15_2/c1127

a related editorial is at
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/apr15_2/c1807
and offers a somewhat different view of the claims made in the Autism
File article.

[john[_5_]]

That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer

[D. C. Sessions]

In message >, john wrote:

> That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer

How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions > -+

[john[_5_]]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, john wrote:
>
>> That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer
>
> How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
> filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.
>


No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now the
GMC farrago is over

[Peter Parry]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:36:46 +0100, "john" > wrote:

>
>
>No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now the
>GMC farrago is over

He has already tried it once without success, what makes you think he
will do better if he tries again?

[D. C. Sessions]

In message >, john wrote:
> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In message >, john wrote:

>>> That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer
>>
>> How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
>> filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.
>
>
> No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now the
> GMC farrago is over

Nice historical revisionism there, Scudamore. The GMC proceedings
were *after* Wakefield paid Deer to settle the suit that Wakefield
filed, plus Deer's legal bills.

However, since you're so sure that Wakefield will refile that claim
I'm willing to make this interesting. How about five hundred pounds
on whether he refiles in two years or less? You're pretty sure of
yourself, so it should be easy money.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions > -+

[john[_5_]]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, john wrote:
>> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In message >, john wrote:
>
>>>> That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer
>>>
>>> How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
>>> filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.
>>
>>
>> No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now
>> the
>> GMC farrago is over
>
> Nice historical revisionism there, Scudamore. The GMC proceedings
> were *after* Wakefield paid Deer to settle the suit that Wakefield
> filed, plus Deer's legal bills.
>
> However, since you're so sure that Wakefield will refile that claim
> I'm willing to make this interesting. How about five hundred pounds
> on whether he refiles in two years or less? You're pretty sure of
> yourself, so it should be easy money.
>

Wakefield dropped that claim as Deer wanted all his documents that related
to the gmc case and he didn't want to let him have them for obvious reasons.

[D. C. Sessions]

In message >, john wrote:

>
> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In message >, john wrote:
>>> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In message >, john wrote:
>>
>>>>> That header should read : More lies from Brian Deer
>>>>
>>>> How's that libel suit going? You know, the one that Wakefield
>>>> filed against Deer in the UK's plaintiff-friendly courts.
>>>
>>>
>>> No idea, something to look forward too. He will be doing that now, now
>>> the
>>> GMC farrago is over
>>
>> Nice historical revisionism there, Scudamore. The GMC proceedings
>> were *after* Wakefield paid Deer to settle the suit that Wakefield
>> filed, plus Deer's legal bills.
>>
>> However, since you're so sure that Wakefield will refile that claim
>> I'm willing to make this interesting. How about five hundred pounds
>> on whether he refiles in two years or less? You're pretty sure of
>> yourself, so it should be easy money.
>>
>
> Wakefield dropped that claim as Deer wanted all his documents that related
> to the gmc case and he didn't want to let him have them for obvious reasons.

Lawyer: "Your Honor, I object!"
Judge: "Why?"
Lawyer: "Because it's devastating to my case!"

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions > -+

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:04:59 +0100, "john" > wrote:


>Wakefield dropped that claim as Deer wanted all his documents that related
>to the gmc case and he didn't want to let him have them for obvious reasons.

As there is a strict time limit of twelve months for taking legal
action for allegations of libel, slander or malicious falsehood
(running from the date the supposedly defamatory statement was made)
he now has a bit of a problem doesn't he?

[john[_5_]]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
>
> Lawyer: "Your Honor, I object!"
> Judge: "Why?"
> Lawyer: "Because it's devastating to my case!"
>

You wish. Some court that was, a phrama front

[D. C. Sessions]

In message >, john wrote:
> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message

>> Lawyer: "Your Honor, I object!"
>> Judge: "Why?"
>> Lawyer: "Because it's devastating to my case!"
>
> You wish. Some court that was, a phrama front

/Whoooooosh!/

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions > -+

[john[_5_]]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
>
> /Whoooooosh!/
>

get your owm moronic replies, that's Bowditch the vax liar