| An open letter
to Sir Graeme Catto, President of the UK General Medical Council
from John Stone.
Dear Sir Graeme,
I should like to bring to your attention procedural anomalies in the present General Medical Council hearing against Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch.
It will be recalled that the investigation of these three excellent doctors was precipitated in February 2004 by allegations against Dr Wakefield by Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet. Horton, himself, now faces questions about his claim not to have known about Wakefield's involvement in the MMR litigation at the time of the publication of the controversial Lancet article in 1998, about which he has given evidence under oath [1].
However, this is not this issue which I intend to address, but statements in his book MMR Science & Fiction: Exploring the Vaccine Crisis' [2], published a few months after these events, and particularly to passages on pages 7-8, referring to the situation three days after he made his first public assault on Wakefield's integrity, and one day after the publication of an article by the journalist Brian Deer in the Sunday Times:
"A whirlwind of innuendo ensued which caught us all in its wake. Evan Harris, the MP who had mysteriously joined Brian Deer at the Lancet's offices, called for an independent inquiry into Wakefield's research. Put on the backfoot by the sudden escalation in media interest and by Harris's calls for a public inquiry, Britain's Health Secretary, John Reid, urged the General Medical Council (GMC, the body that regulates doctors) to investigate Wakefield as "a matter of urgency...
"Indeed, the GMC seemed non-plussed by Reid's intervention. The best their spokeswoman could say was: 'We are concerned by these allegations and will be looking at what action, if any, may be necessary.'
In truth, they had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully pannelled room of one of medicine's most venerable institutions."
There must be two basic concerns about legality here, supposing Horton's account is essentially true. The first is that the process is flawed and prejudicial if the GMC was going on a fishing expedition against a troublesome member at the behest of a politician, as described by Horton (which, moreover, is evidently the case). The other is that the process seems further compromised if Horton could at the same time be involved in discussing how the prosecution could be brought about with the prosecuting agency, and act as a witness at the hearing.
If - on the other hand - Horton made it up, it would be disturbing that so much has been based on his word.
I would be grateful for your early comments on these matters.
Yours sincerely,
John Stone
23rd August 2008
[1] Dr Horton and the GMC hearing, JABS briefing note 9th April 2008
[2] Granta Books, London 2004. |
Vaccine Autoimmune Project
On 16 September 2008 we heard that the Vaccine Autoimmune Project web site (vaproject.org) had been hacked-into and shut down just ahead of the publication of this article by Dr F Edward Yazbak. We sincerely hope that this reputable and reliable web site will be up and running soon.
Dr Yazbak, a paediatrician and investigative medical writer has published extensively on regressive autism, vaccine injury, SIDS and Shaken Baby Syndrome.
The Hornig et al publication reviewed here has been trailed as the study which would resolve the Wakefield controversy: indeed, in the US - when it did ultimately appear - it was hailed by some as the final nail in the coffin of that theory.
It is surprising that, despite the unrelenting barrage of anti-Wakefield propaganda in the British media since the start of the General Medical Council hearings, the publication of the Hornig study was never mentioned and only picked in the world news of a few UK newspapers.
So, why might it be that the Department of Health, the Health Protection Agency, and the usual science lobby organisations, were unwilling to promote the new study in the UK?
|
|
| |
The Denial of Vaccine Damage by Government,
Corporations and the Media.
Written by the parents.
In July 2007 the General Medical Council, the regulatory body for
doctors in Britain, began a ‘trial’ of Dr Andrew Wakefield,Professor
John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch. The three doctors were charged under some seventy headings after having published the conclusion of research
and clinical practice that suggested a link between the MMR vaccine, bowel
disease and regressive autism in some children.
The complainant is a pro-MMR journalist. The GMC took almost four years to produce the evidence and the hearing itself is expected to last around two years, making it one of the longest proceedings in British history.
The parents of MMR vaccine damaged children have not been allowed a voice in the GMC hearing. This book is written almost entirely by these parents and for the first time it gives voice to the injustice that has been
done to them and their children.
Price £8.00 plus postage and packaging.
For more information, or to purchase the book, click here.
Welcome
to the new style JABS website which we hope will be more accessible for all
our members and visitors. We have made a number of changes so that information
is easier to find and we would welcome your comments, good or bad, by emailing jackie@jabs.org.uk .
We would like to say a great big thank you to Alice at Hat
Day Designs for the new JABS website design, and to the Datasmith team
for their hard work, patience and commitment in pulling it all together.
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JABS offers visitors to this site information based on parents' experiences. Well- informed parents whose children have suffered side effects and long-term damage from vaccination. Parents who choose to make their voices heard and campaign to raise awareness. This site is for people who want to change things for the better, not retain the status quo. |
|
