MMR and the Crumbling Façade of the British State
By John Stone http://www.ageofautism.com
April 2013
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, 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.
Of course, this is still not true because the second study never took place, but the GMC panel insisted in its findings that the two papers were one and the same:
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 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.
http://www.whale.to/v/yazbak1.html
Nothing has changed.
He still is.
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.
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
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?
You have to laugh ... as Andrew Wakefield does.
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.
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?
You have remember that Guardian newspapers sacked an editor in chief 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 epidemiological footing whether MMR is safe or not, but jab on regardless.