Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 The Parlour
 The Dr Jane Donegan, "Witch Hunt"

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is OFF
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
 

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Richard L Posted - 11/30/2006 : 11:24:24
Vaccination is a very controversial subject, and it would probably be better for all ( except those who are injured by vaccines) if it was not discussed. The GP Jayne Donegan who provided expert evidence to a court will be brought before her regulatory body on December 11 ( see the charges below). The GMC do not like the medical evidence she presented to the hearing which in effect supported two mothers decision not to vaccinate their children.

The pro vaccine epidemiologists say,Dr Donegan whose expertise I presume is as a GP and a clinician, presented "Junk Science" to the court. There is no doubt there is much junk science out there, finding the good untainted scientific studies is the problem. Experts told us asbestos was safe; cigarette smoking is good for you and helps you relax; Formula is just as good as breast milk; Aspirin does not cause Reyes syndrome in children: Thalidomide is safe, British beef was safe. Who can forget John Gummer feeding a beef burger to his daughter.

Least we forget vaccines are "safe" and then they replace them with an even "safer" vaccine. How then was it safe in the first place? Many of the scientific truths of yesteryears seem ridiculous today. Some time in the future I believe we will look at vaccinations the way we look at blood letting or smoking and wonder why we went along with it so easily. Doctors were promoting smoking in adverts for Camel cigaretts only forty years ago

I wish Dr Donegan luck for having the courage to speak out, unlike the "experts" who are happy to take money and put their names on the ghost written articles of the pharmaceutical industry and have them published as scientific truths. Its ironic that she is the one accused of allowing "her deeply held views on the subject of immunisation to overrule her duty to the court and to the litigants, and failed to present an objective, independent and unbiased view".


Dr Jayne Lavinia Mary DONEGAN
From : 11 December 2006 To : 22 December 2006
Category : Fitness to Practise Hearings

Planned dates: 11 to 22 December 2006

This case will be considered by a Fitness to Practise Panel applying the General Medical Councilís Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988.

The Fitness to Practise Panel will meet at Regentís Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN to consider a new case of conduct.

Dr Jayne Lavinia Mary DONEGAN
Registration Number: 2826367

Area of practice: North West London

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Jayne Lavinia Mary Donegan, a general practitioner, acted in a way which was misleading, in direct contravention of her duty as an expert witness, unprofessional, and likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

It is alleged that, in relation to two reports she produced for the Family Division of the High Court, Dr Donegan gave false and/or misleading impressions of the research which she relied upon, allowed her deeply held views on the subject of immunisation to overrule her duty to the court and to the litigants, and failed to present an objective, independent and unbiased view.
7   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Joan Posted - 08/09/2007 : 17:08:40
Many thanks John. I shall do something soon as I want to write to the GMC who are dealing with Wakefield, Murch and Walker-Smith's case to let them know that I am supporting them as well.


Many of you may wish to lend your support to Dr Wakefield and the two other doctors who are appearing before the General Medical Council (GMC) in London. Perhaps you could consider writing or typing a letter to the GMC as soon as possible. (Not an email please, a letter). Please give your reasons why you object to the Hearing taking place and state your support for the three doctors. The following information and history may assist you in compiling your letter.
Many thanks,
Bill Welsh
Autism Treatment Trust
Edinburgh. UK.

Dr Andrew Wakefield, Prof Walker-Smith and Prof Simon Murch were called before the General Medical Council (GMC) on 16th July 2007. The GMC has brought the case itself claiming that it is in the public interest.

There has been a concerted witchhunt particularly against Dr Wakefield because it is not politically prudent to call into question the Department of Health's vaccination programme. The GMC leaders know this. The charges levelled are all vigorously denied by the three doctors and we know they welcome the opportunity to clear their names.

No parent of a child has complained. No child has been injured. The parents of children we have spoken to who have been treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London have nothing but praise for the way their children were cared for and treated by the three doctors.

The only reason these doctors are being brought before the GMC is because the Lancet report published in February 1998 referred to the combined measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccines given to the 12 children mentioned within the report. Eight of the twelve children's parents blamed the vaccine for their child's condition. If MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the report there would have been no criticism of the report and no GMC hearing would be pending for these three doctors.

This is really about: the cover up of the Department of Health's negligent handling of the MMR vaccine damage issue; the freedom of a medical professional to listen to parents about their children's disease and to investigate appropriately; to undertake scientific research and have it peer reviewed independently without fear, prejudice or censorship.

The implications of the GMC finding against the three doctors are:

The investigation of the role of MMR in autism and associated enterocolitis would end in the UK.
Doctors and scientists in the UK would be effectively gagged and put off doing further research that questioned the safety of MMR or other vaccines.
Parents would have only the biased safety claims of manufacturers and government to rely on.
Autistic children exhibiting symptoms of the bowel disease that Dr Wakefield researched would no longer receive treatment.

The hearing is scheduled for 14 - 18 weeks and if a steady stream/torrent of letters arrived daily at the GMC it could have a great impact. The letter can be as long or as short as you wish. The important part is that it has your address, signature and is posted as a letter rather than an email.

Please ask the GMC to acknowledge safe receipt of your letter. Please address to:

Claire Henesy
Case Presentation Team
General Medical Council,
Regentís Place,
350 Euston Road,
London
NW1 3JN



john Posted - 08/08/2007 : 06:02:26
quote:
Originally posted by Joan

I wonder is there any way we can let her know that we support her and if Wakefields solicitors know of this further injustice to another good doctor who has put her job on the line.



http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/ jaynelmdonegan@yahoo.com

should be OK, if not I have another e mail

"Vaccination is a very controversial subject, and it would probably be better for all ( except those who are injured by vaccines) if it was not discussed."

!! Satan would agree
Joan Posted - 08/08/2007 : 00:07:05
I wonder is there any way we can let her know that we support her and if Wakefields solicitors know of this further injustice to another good doctor who has put her job on the line.
barefoot1 Posted - 08/07/2007 : 17:49:10
I too would like to add my admiration for Dr Jayne, one the few Doctors in the world to put truth, reality and concerns for children and babies before her career.

Dr Jayne can hold her head high and know she is on the side of honesty, truth and justice while the ones who call her work "junk" are on the side of illusion, cover ups and deception which is highly satanic.
Take your pick :)
john Posted - 08/07/2007 : 11:30:17
Notice how they hold this one in Manchester even though she lives in London.

Just another persecuted heretic like Wakefield and Blakemore-Brown.

She is the only anti-vaccine MD/MB in the UK that I know of, so a real thorn in their side.



"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good."---Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine Control Officer and research virologist, US FDA
GUS THE FUSS Posted - 08/07/2007 : 10:05:58
God Bless her and along with the other doctors who have morals and represented the Sick children honestly,unlike others who go under the heading "more than my jobs worth"?
Richard L Posted - 08/06/2007 : 23:44:13
Jayne's hearing began yesterday in Manchester.

Dr Jayne Lavinia Mary DONEGAN
From : 7 August 2007 To : 10 August 2007

Category : Fitness to Practise Hearings

Info :

Fitness to Practise Panel
Planned dates: 7- 24 August 2007
General Medical Council, St Jamesís Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ

This case will be considered by a Fitness to Practise Panel applying the General Medical Councilís Preliminary Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988.

The Fitness to Practise Panel will meet at St Jamesís Building, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ to consider a new case of conduct.

Dr Jayne Lavinia Mary DONEGAN
Reference Number: 2826367

Area of practice: North West London

The Panel will inquire into allegations that Jayne Lavinia Mary Donegan, a general practitioner, acted in a way which was misleading, in direct contravention of her duty as an expert witness, unprofessional, and likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

It is alleged that, in relation to two reports she produced for the Family Division of the High Court, Dr Donegan gave false and/or misleading impressions of the research which she relied upon, allowed her deeply held views on the subject of immunisation to overrule her duty to the court and to the litigants, and failed to present an objective, independent and unbiased view.



Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05