Peter Parry
April 23rd 10, 06:40 PM
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:30:57 +0100, "john" > wrote:
>'I am a consultant paediatric gastroenterologist and I was initially
>appointed to a consultant post in 1978 at Westminster Children's Hospital,
>London... I first came to know Prof Walker-Smith in 1978. He is a highly
>regarded colleague, a man of integrity and honesty... The allegations which
>have been the subject of the GMC hearing have created surprise and
>consternation amongst his peers.'
Regrettably his greatest failing was to be taken in by, and believe,
someone who was later found out to be dishonest.
>and the second from Isabella Thomas,
of the anti-vaccination group JABS and at the time a client of the
solicitor Wakefield was working for.
>Among the many allegations made are the suggestions that the
>doctors acted inappropriately regarding our children, that Dr Wakefield
>'solicited them for research purposes' and that our children had not been
>referred in the usual way by their own GPs.
It hasn't been "alleged", it has been proven.
>'We have been following the GMC hearings with distress as we, the parents,
>have had no opportunity to refute the allegations. For the most part we have
>been excluded from giving evidence to support these doctors whom we all hold
>in very high regard.
This chant is often made. Someone should point out to this woman that
if they were excluded then they were excluded by Wakefield,
Walker-Smith and Murch. They were the ones who _chose_ not to call
them to give evidence. No one but the defendants excluded them.
>I am saddened that I was not allowed to give evidence on behalf of my boys
>and was upset to hear the lies about my family from the other side. I felt
>we did not have a voice and my boys were not protected in this.'
So blame the defendants. They were the ones who excluded the parents.
They are the ones who refused to call them.
>or why parents
>who appear in the prosecution case as being to some extent victims of the
>doctors unethical action were never called to give evidence. The answer to
>this last question should naturally be kept a complete secret.
It is no secret, the doctors under investigation decided they would
not call them. Ask _them_ why if you are interested.
>'At St Bartholomew's Hospital I knew from discussions with colleagues and
>friends how very highly he was regarded in respect of his work. He was, in
>my experience, a man of the highest integrity. He is a very committed
>Christian and utterly devoted to his church. He is a man I would trust
>completely with the treatment of my children, a man who I do not think would
>ever harm anybody. The idea that he should be in any way held guilty of
>anything of any sort which is discreditable is to me completely
>unbelievable.'
There is no doubt that Walker-Smith and Murch are in a quite different
class than Wakefield, both professionally and morally. Their
dedication and lack of either commercial interest or acumen left them
ill fitted to deal with someone whose eye was more on his bank account
and opportunities for publicity than his research.
>Good for Murch but gratuitously bad for Dr Wakefield. During my twenty years
>of para-legal work,
Is that what Walker calls his freelance writing?
> It would
>seem important to me that we put both their cases in context and understand
>that for a couple of years after the Lancet paper, all three doctors were
>continuing to work clinically on cases which came to the Royal Free. Only
>when Brian Deer hit the fan in 2004 and the GMC began preparing charges, did
>everyone appear to turn on Dr Wakefield.
That is probably because until the facts were revealed no one had
realised the depths of his deception.
> It was while listening to mitigation for Professor Murch and Professor
>Walker-Smith with Dr Wakefield missing, that one realised just how deep was
>the divide between the two professors and Dr Wakefield.
It has been clear for years that the divide was huge, on the one hand
two respected but unworldly doctors and on the other a commercially
ambitious publicity hungry but scientifically mediocre middle ranking
opportunist..
>And both counsel and
>the other defedants seemed to play on these differences, almost as it were,
>blaming Dr Wakefield for having pulled the case down on everyone.
I don't think they have only just realised that.
> Mr Miller drew attention to the "press briefing", and suggested that it was
>then, not with the publication of the Lancet paper that 'everything went
>wrong'. The real damage was caused when Dr Wakefield took it upon himself to
>promote the adoption of monovalent vaccines, which was nothing to do with
>the paper.
Correct.
>And, of course, he could have chosen this time tell the panel why the
>defence themselves had not called the parents.
Wonder why he didn't?
>'I am a consultant paediatric gastroenterologist and I was initially
>appointed to a consultant post in 1978 at Westminster Children's Hospital,
>London... I first came to know Prof Walker-Smith in 1978. He is a highly
>regarded colleague, a man of integrity and honesty... The allegations which
>have been the subject of the GMC hearing have created surprise and
>consternation amongst his peers.'
Regrettably his greatest failing was to be taken in by, and believe,
someone who was later found out to be dishonest.
>and the second from Isabella Thomas,
of the anti-vaccination group JABS and at the time a client of the
solicitor Wakefield was working for.
>Among the many allegations made are the suggestions that the
>doctors acted inappropriately regarding our children, that Dr Wakefield
>'solicited them for research purposes' and that our children had not been
>referred in the usual way by their own GPs.
It hasn't been "alleged", it has been proven.
>'We have been following the GMC hearings with distress as we, the parents,
>have had no opportunity to refute the allegations. For the most part we have
>been excluded from giving evidence to support these doctors whom we all hold
>in very high regard.
This chant is often made. Someone should point out to this woman that
if they were excluded then they were excluded by Wakefield,
Walker-Smith and Murch. They were the ones who _chose_ not to call
them to give evidence. No one but the defendants excluded them.
>I am saddened that I was not allowed to give evidence on behalf of my boys
>and was upset to hear the lies about my family from the other side. I felt
>we did not have a voice and my boys were not protected in this.'
So blame the defendants. They were the ones who excluded the parents.
They are the ones who refused to call them.
>or why parents
>who appear in the prosecution case as being to some extent victims of the
>doctors unethical action were never called to give evidence. The answer to
>this last question should naturally be kept a complete secret.
It is no secret, the doctors under investigation decided they would
not call them. Ask _them_ why if you are interested.
>'At St Bartholomew's Hospital I knew from discussions with colleagues and
>friends how very highly he was regarded in respect of his work. He was, in
>my experience, a man of the highest integrity. He is a very committed
>Christian and utterly devoted to his church. He is a man I would trust
>completely with the treatment of my children, a man who I do not think would
>ever harm anybody. The idea that he should be in any way held guilty of
>anything of any sort which is discreditable is to me completely
>unbelievable.'
There is no doubt that Walker-Smith and Murch are in a quite different
class than Wakefield, both professionally and morally. Their
dedication and lack of either commercial interest or acumen left them
ill fitted to deal with someone whose eye was more on his bank account
and opportunities for publicity than his research.
>Good for Murch but gratuitously bad for Dr Wakefield. During my twenty years
>of para-legal work,
Is that what Walker calls his freelance writing?
> It would
>seem important to me that we put both their cases in context and understand
>that for a couple of years after the Lancet paper, all three doctors were
>continuing to work clinically on cases which came to the Royal Free. Only
>when Brian Deer hit the fan in 2004 and the GMC began preparing charges, did
>everyone appear to turn on Dr Wakefield.
That is probably because until the facts were revealed no one had
realised the depths of his deception.
> It was while listening to mitigation for Professor Murch and Professor
>Walker-Smith with Dr Wakefield missing, that one realised just how deep was
>the divide between the two professors and Dr Wakefield.
It has been clear for years that the divide was huge, on the one hand
two respected but unworldly doctors and on the other a commercially
ambitious publicity hungry but scientifically mediocre middle ranking
opportunist..
>And both counsel and
>the other defedants seemed to play on these differences, almost as it were,
>blaming Dr Wakefield for having pulled the case down on everyone.
I don't think they have only just realised that.
> Mr Miller drew attention to the "press briefing", and suggested that it was
>then, not with the publication of the Lancet paper that 'everything went
>wrong'. The real damage was caused when Dr Wakefield took it upon himself to
>promote the adoption of monovalent vaccines, which was nothing to do with
>the paper.
Correct.
>And, of course, he could have chosen this time tell the panel why the
>defence themselves had not called the parents.
Wonder why he didn't?