| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
 Posted - 02/13/2012 : 13:15:04
|
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/02/the-appeal-of-prof-john-walker-smith-against-the-united-kingdom-general-medical-council-wakefield-ca.html
Age of Autism
The Appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith Against the United Kingdom General Medical Council (Wakefield Case)
On Monday the appeal begins of Prof John Walker-Smith against the decisions of the GMC as one of the three doctors in the Wakefield case. It should be stressed that Prof Walker-Smith’s appeal is purely on his own behalf and that Andrew Wakefield was forced to withdraw from the appeal due to cost. A third doctor, Prof Simon Murch, was permitted by the GMC to return to work on the basis that he was only Prof Walker-Smith’s junior at the time.
A key issue at the GMC hearing was the prosecution claim that the Wakefield 1998 Lancet paper was in reality a study that had been commissioned by the UK Legal Aid Board relating to pending litigation over the MMR. The three doctors, on the other hand, contended that the projected LAB study was never performed, and that Lancet paper was “an early report” of cases seen on the basis of clinical need, as indeed it had stated. Paradoxically, the GMC panel also found the doctors to be guilty of breaching the terms of the LAB protocol in virtually every respect, instead of accepting the plausible evidence of the doctors that it was simply not the same paper. The panel found:
“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.”
However, the panel never elaborated on what evidence it was they were citing, and another problem was that the panel mis-described ‘Project 162-95’ which was not a project at all but the ethical permission granted to Prof Walker-Smith to retain biopsy samples taken in the course of clinical routine for further scientific investigation, when he brought his clinic to the Royal Free Hospital in autumn 1995. Indeed, parents of the Lancet paper children had signed this ethical permission in the course of their children’s routine clinical investigation. Of course, if the panel had stated this openly before the assembled media in January 2010 they would certainly have had some further explaining to do, which may have been avoided by the ruse of calling 162-95 a “project”.
A fundamental problem with the GMC findings is that they are supposed to be to the highest standard of legal proof which in the UK is “beyond reasonable doubt”. However, in finding as they did they simply set aside the oral evidence of Prof Walker-Smith and the other two doctors about the clinical condition and history of the patients (amongst other matters). The panel never found Prof Walker-Smith to be guilty of dishonesty, but nevertheless his evidence was systematically ignored. This was despite the fact that Prof Walker-Smith is an acknowledged world expert on pediatric gastroenterology – the main pioneer in the field with Prof Allan Walker of Harvard - and far more qualified to speak about it than anyone else present at the hearing apart from Prof Murch (and certainly the panel).
It is an interesting feature that neither the prosecution or the defence called the parents as witnesses (of course none had ever complained). The prosecution might have found it harder to maintain that patients were not sick and the procedures inappropriate if they had called them, while the defence no doubt took the view that it was not for them to prove anything, and in a normal hearing they might have been right.
It is difficult to believe that the British establishment will allow a single chink of light to be shed on these matters. Ken Clarke, who was Health Secretary in 1988 when GSK’s Pluserix MMR indemnity was signed, is now head of judiciary (Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor), and when he ran as leader of the Conservative Party in 2005 it was with Sir Christopher Gent, chairman of GSK, as his principal backer. Against this the presiding judge, Sir John Mitting has a long history frustrating the government bureaucracy in his decision-making and is not obviously conflicted. But in January 2010 an Oxford journal was already calling the result of the GMC. We note the date of publication of David Galton’s parody ‘Kafka’s trial revisited’ ten days ahead of the GMC panel’s findings on fact. We are about to discover what – if anything – has changed in two years. |
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 18:13:13
|
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mmr-jab-doctor-appeals-uk-medical-councils-ruling-539696.html
MMR jab doctor appeals UK medical council's ruling
13/02/2012 - 14:50:50
One of the doctors struck off over the MMR jab controversy in the UK asked the High Court today to rule his treatment “unfair and unjust”.
Professor John Walker-Smith is appealing against the British General Medical Council’s (GMC) determination that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct.
He is being supported by the parents of many children with autism and bowel disease seen by him at the Royal Free Hospital, north London, up to his retirement in 2001.
In a hearing expected to take 10 days, his lawyers are asking Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at London’s High Court, to rule that he was denied a fair trial.
In May 2010, Prof Walker-Smith lost his license to practice along with Dr Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who triggered a global scare about the MMR vaccine.
A GMC fitness to practise panel found both guilty of misconduct over the way the research was conducted.
The panel’s verdict followed 217 days of deliberation, making it the longest disciplinary case in the GMC’s 152-year history.
It came 12 years after a 1998 paper in the Lancet suggested a link between the vaccine, bowel disease and autism – resulting in a plunge in the number of children having the vaccination.
In 2004, the Lancet announced a partial retraction, and 10 of the 13 authors disowned it.
Dr Wakefield was the paper’s chief author and Professor Walker-Smith the then head of the department of paediatric gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in north London, where the research was carried out.
Professor Walker-Smith’s clinical role focussed on treatment related to sick children, while his academic work included collaborating in research with Dr Wakefield.
Aged 73 when struck off, Professor Walker-Smith had by then been retired for a decade.
But the panel said it had – “with regret” – decided that removing his name from the register was the “only appropriate sanction” for his “extensive failures”, “non-compliance with ethical research requirements” and “irresponsible and misleading” reporting of the research findings.
A third doctor, Professor Simon Murch, who was a junior consultant in the department at the time, was cleared of serious professional misconduct because, although he had committed “errors of judgment” he had acted in good faith.
Grounds of appeal relied on by Professor Walker-Smith include assertions that the disciplinary proceedings were “unfair and produced an unjust result”.
Stephen Miller QC, appearing for the professor, told the judge the “heart-breaking thing” about the Lancet paper – “whatever the reference made to MMR” – was that it was thought to be writing up “possibly exciting findings” with regard to bowel disease.
Mr Miller said it had been important that the disciplinary panel “separate out research from the clinical medicine – but that was a task that appeared to be beyond them”.
The judge asked Mr Miller whether the alleged link between autism and the vaccine “has now been utterly disproved” in the opinion of “respectable medical opinion”.
Mr Miller said that was “exactly” the position.
Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Mr Miller said: “There are still doubters and believers on that.”
A campaign support group, Cryshame, said before today’s hearing: “We are confident that Professor Walker-Smith will be found innocent of the findings the GMC has determined against him.
“The measure of British justice is tested by the way it treats a man of Professor Walker-Smith’s stature following his distinguished and unblemished career.”
Cryshame is a group of parents who say they saw their children regress into autism in their second year and ask why this happened, observing that there is currently no scientific explanation.
The parents say one consequence of the British GMC’s decision against the professor is that they now face serious difficulties in finding NHS treatment for autistic children with bowel disease.
|
 |
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 18:30:43
|
http://www.cryshame.com/
PARENTS OF SICK CHILDREN TREATED BY PROFESSOR WALKER-SMITH EXPRESS GRATITUDE AND SUPPORT IN HIS APPEAL AGAINST THE GMC
13 2 2012
Today Professor John Walker-Smith begins his appeal against the General Medical Council's (GMC's) determination that he is guilty of serious professional misconduct and that he should lose his license to practice. The case is heard by Justice Mitting in Court 19 at the Royal Courts of Justice Court, London (see Notes).
Parents of the many children with autism and bowel disease seen by Professor Walker-Smith at the Royal Free Hospital, North London up to his retirement in 2001 express their immense gratitude for his kind, considerate and innovative treatment of their children. Without treatment these children would have remained in considerable pain and their condition would have worsened.
During a long and distinguished career Professor Walker-Smith led new directions in treatment and research in paediatric gastroenterology. In particular he established the existence of bowel disease in autistic children that had been unrecognised until its discovery in 1998. He has been described as the "father of paediatric gastroenterology" and his contribution to medicine rewarded with international recognition. His books and journal articles are read by many clinicians and researchers throughout the world who have learnt from his pioneering work.
We are confident that Professor Walker-Smith will be found innocent of the findings the GMC has determined against him. The measure of British justice is tested by the way it treats a man of Professor Walker-Smith's stature following his distinguished and unblemished career.
One consequence of the GMC's decision against Professor Walker-Smith are the serious difficulties parents now face in finding NHS treatment for autistic children with bowel disease.
CryShame
Cryshame is a group of parents who saw their children regress into autism in their second year and ask why this happened. No scientific explanation is available to explain why children regress following normal development. Cryshame wholeheartedly supports Professor John Walker-Smith, an expert of world class renown.
|
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 20:17:45
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/13/doctor-struck-off-mmr-appeals?newsfeed=true
The Guardian
13/2/021012
Doctor struck off over MMR controversy appeals against ruling
Prof John Walker-Smith tells high court he was denied a fair hearing before he was struck off by the General Medical Council
One of the doctors struck off over the MMR jab controversy has asked the high court to rule that his treatment was "unfair and unjust".
Prof John Walker-Smith is appealing against the General Medical Council's (GMC) determination that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct.
He is being supported by the parents of many children with autism and bowel disease seen by him at the Royal Free hospital, north London, up to his retirement in 2001.
In a hearing expected to take 10 days, his lawyers are asking Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at London's high court, to rule that he was denied a fair trial.
In May 2010, Walker-Smith lost his licence to practise along with Dr Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who triggered a global scare about the MMR vaccine.
A GMC fitness-to-practise panel found both guilty of misconduct over the way the research was conducted.
The panel's verdict followed 217 days of deliberation, making it the longest disciplinary case in the GMC's 152-year history.
It came 12 years after a 1998 paper in the Lancet suggested a link between the vaccine, bowel disease and autism – resulting in a plunge in the number of children having the vaccination.
In 2004, the Lancet announced a partial retraction, and 10 of the 13 authors disowned it.
Wakefield was the paper's chief author and Walker-Smith the then head of the department of paediatric gastroenterology at the Royal Free hospital in north London, where the research was carried out.
Walker-Smith's clinical role focused on treatment related to sick children, while his academic work included collaborating in research with Wakefield.
Aged 73 when struck off, Walker-Smith had by then been retired for a decade.
But the panel said it had – "with regret" – decided that removing his name from the register was the "only appropriate sanction" for his "extensive failures", "non-compliance with ethical research requirements" and "irresponsible and misleading" reporting of the research findings.
A third doctor, Prof Simon Murch, who was a junior consultant in the department at the time, was cleared of serious professional misconduct because, although he had committed "errors of judgment", he had acted in good faith.
Grounds of appeal relied on by Walker-Smith include assertions that the disciplinary proceedings were "unfair and produced an unjust result".
Stephen Miller QC, appearing for the professor, told the judge the "heart-breaking thing" about the Lancet paper – "whatever the reference made to MMR" – was that it was thought to be writing up "possibly exciting findings" with regard to bowel disease.
Miller said it had been important that the disciplinary panel "separate out research from the clinical medicine – but that was a task that appeared to be beyond them".
The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine "has now been utterly disproved" in the opinion of "respectable medical opinion".
Miller said that was "exactly" the position.
Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Miller said: "There are still doubters and believers on that."
A campaign support group, Cryshame, said before Monday's hearing: "We are confident that Professor Walker-Smith will be found innocent of the findings the GMC has determined against him.
"The measure of British justice is tested by the way it treats a man of Professor Walker-Smith's stature following his distinguished and unblemished career."
Cryshame is a group of parents who say they saw their children regress into autism in their second year and ask why this happened.
The parents say one consequence of the GMC's decision against the professor is that they now face serious difficulties in finding NHS treatment for autistic children with bowel disease. |
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 15:45:37
|
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/mmr_doctor_seeks_court_ruling_1_2115147
Scotsman
14/2/2012
MMR doctor seeks court ruling
One of the doctors struck off over the MMR jab controversy asked the High Court yesterday to rule his treatment “unfair and unjust”.
Professor John Walker-Smith is appealing against the General Medical Council’s determination that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct. He lost his license to practice along with Dr Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who triggered the global MMR vaccine scare.
He is being supported by the parents of many children with autism and bowel disease who were seen by him at the Royal Free Hospital, north London, up to his retirement in 2001.
The hearing is expected to take ten days. |
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 15:48:24
|
http://topnews.us/content/246249-father-paediatric-gastroenterology-appealing-high-court-justice
14/2/2012
‘Father of Paediatric Gastroenterology’ Appealing To High Court for Justice
It has been informed that Professor John Walker-Smith, who was recently fired from his post over a controversial case of MMR, has appealed to High Court against unfair treatment. Professor John Walker-Smith is being supported by a number of parents, whose children have been seeking autism treatment at the Royal Free Hospital.
The concerned parents have expressed their gratitude towards the care and treatment provided by the Professor to their kids suffering from autism and bowel diseases. The parents echoed that without the help of the Professor, the kids would have been living in pain throughout their life.
Professor John Walker-Smith is regarded as "father of paediatric gastroenterology" as he added new dimensions to it by discovering bowel diseases among the autistic patients. There are a number of clinicians all over the world who relies heavily on the journal written by Professor John Walker-Smith.
As the General Medical Council's (GMC) declared him of being guilty for various cases of professional misconduct, there are a number of autistic patients who doesn't have any reliable way of getting treatment. In short, the decision by the GMA has begun to affect the life of autistic patients.
A group of parents called Cryshame asked the authorities to provide the reasons behind the worsening cases of autistic patients. But no scientific reason has been provided yet. A majority of the parents are of the view that the decision by the GMC against Professor John Walker-Smith has affected the health of the autistic patients.
The GMC confiscated the license of Professor John Walker-Smith in 2010 for causing a global scare about the MMR vaccine. Dr. Andrew Wakefield's license was also confiscated by the authorities as he was also involved in spreading a wrong message about the MMR vaccine. |
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 10:56:17
|
http://news.uk.msn.com/health/mmr-jab-doctor-contests-gmc-ruling-15
14/2/2012
MMR jab doctor contests GMC ruling
One of the doctors struck off over the MMR jab controversy has asked the High Court to rule his treatment "unfair and unjust".
Professor John Walker-Smith is appealing against the General Medical Council's (GMC) determination that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct.
He is being supported by the parents of many children with autism and bowel disease seen by him at the Royal Free Hospital, north London, up to his retirement in 2001.
In a hearing expected to take 10 days, his lawyers are asking Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at London's High Court, to rule that he was denied a fair trial.
In May 2010, Prof Walker-Smith lost his license to practice along with Dr Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who triggered a global scare about the MMR vaccine.
A GMC fitness to practise panel found both guilty of misconduct over the way the research was conducted. The panel's verdict followed 217 days of deliberation, making it the longest disciplinary case in the GMC's 152-year history.
It came 12 years after a 1998 paper in the Lancet suggested a link between the vaccine, bowel disease and autism - resulting in a plunge in the number of children having the vaccination.
In 2004, the Lancet announced a partial retraction, and 10 of the 13 authors disowned it.
Dr Wakefield was the paper's chief author and Professor Walker-Smith the then head of the department of paediatric gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in north London, where the research was carried out.
Grounds of appeal relied on by Professor Walker-Smith include assertions that the disciplinary proceedings were "unfair and produced an unjust result". |
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2012 : 11:02:32
|
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1103.short?rss=1&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+bmj/recent+(Latest+from+BMJ)
BMJ
NEWS
GMC case against Wakefield’s colleague was “superficial,” says appeal
BMJ 2012; 344 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1103 (Published 14 February 2012)
Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e1103
Clare Dyer
Author Affiliations
The General Medical Council panel that found Andrew Wakefield’s colleague John Walker-Smith guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck him off the medical register in 2010 was dealing with a task that was “beyond it,” his barrister told the High Court in London this week.
Stephen Miller QC told Mr Justice Mitting at the start of a two week appeal hearing that the panel ignored evidence that paediatric gastroenterologists at the Royal Free Hospital in London, headed by Professor Walker-Smith, were carrying out investigations that were clinically indicated and undertaken for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment and not for a research project.
Professor Walker-Smith, who retired in 2000, was one of …
Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment
|
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2012 : 21:01:52
|
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5guevAa-8Iisywi8hPQ9axFGJ_jUg?docId=B18608781329494495A000
Court defers judgment on MMR appeal
(UKPA) – 4 hours ago
The High Court has reserved judgment on whether the decision to strike off an eminent north London doctor over the MMR jab controversy is lawful.
A judge said the complex case of Professor John Walker-Smith, who was found guilty of serious professional misconduct, had "greatly troubled" him.
In May 2010, the professor lost his licence to practise along with Dr Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who triggered a global scare about the MMR vaccine.
The striking-off order was made subject to appeal, and over the last five days lawyers for the professor have argued at the High Court in London that he did not receive a fair hearing.
A GMC fitness to practise panel found that he had subjected children to investigation as part of a research project related to autism and the MMR vaccine without seeking approval from the Ethics Committee.
If the professor wins his appeal it will mean he has cleared his name as the GMC indicated it would not ask for the case to be remitted for a fresh hearing.
Stephen Miller QC, appearing for the professor, told the court the disciplinary findings were seriously flawed and must be quashed.
He said investigations, including lumbar punctures and colonoscopies, were carried out because they were clinically indicated and were necessary for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment - not for a research project.
In court the GMC admitted that "inadequate reasons" may have been given by the disciplinary panel when explaining its findings on disputed expert evidence.
But Joanna Glynn QC, appearing for the GMC, said: "In spite of inadequate reasons it is quite clear on overwhelming evidence that the charges are made out." Ms Glynn argued the panel's decision "was just and fair - not wrong".
|
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2012 : 13:40:33
|
http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/02/the-walker-smith-appeal-the-british-media-and-the-boseley-problem.html
AGE OF AUTISM
22 February 2012
The Walker-Smith Appeal, the British Media and the Boseley Problem
By John Stone
Sarah Boseley (centre in the photo) is the senior Guardian newspaper journalist who wrote on the occasion of the UK General Medical Council’s findings against Dr Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues Prof John Walker-Smith and Prof Simon Murch in January 2010:
"Opinion is divided in the medical establishment on the wisdom of pursuing Wakefield – and particularly his colleagues who played a lesser role in the drama – at the GMC. Some say there was a clear case to answer and that the GMC had no other option but others believe that no good can come of it."
What Boseley omitted to do as a decent journalist and a competent reporter was to tell her readership what the medical establishment was worried about. And what they were worried about may be by now coming back round to haunt both the medical establishment itself and the media, although no doubt damage limitation measures are already being put in a state of readiness. The spectre came in the form of a UK Press Association report of Prof Walker-Smith’s High Court appeal misleadingly entitled ‘MMR row doctor decision was “fair”’ . However, underneath the headline the story begins to hint at the real matter:
“The decision to strike off an eminent doctor over the MMR jab controversy has been defended at the High Court as "just and fair - not wrong".
“The General Medical Council (GMC) admitted to a judge that "inadequate reasons" may have been given by a disciplinary panel that found Professor John Walker-Smith guilty of serious professional misconduct. Those reasons related to conflicts over expert evidence.
“But Joanna Glynn QC, appearing for the GMC, said: "In spite of inadequate reasons it is quite clear on overwhelming evidence that the charges are made out."
“Professor Walker-Smith is asking Mr Justice Mitting at London's High Court to rule that he was denied a fair hearing. On the fourth day of his challenge, the judge said that the case had been "complex and difficult from the start - it greatly troubles me".”
At stake in the hearing are essentially two issues: whether Prof Walker-Smith acted beyond his brief as a clinician in the care of the 12 children in the much disputed Lancet paper, and whether the paper had anything to do – as alleged – with the protocol (identified with Royal Free Hospital ethical approval 172-96) for a Legal Aid Board funded paper, or was just as the paper itself stated an “early report” on 12 children seen and investigated on the basis of clinical need. This problem has been perpetually hinted at but never clearly explained in the British media – we will call it for convenience “the Boseley problem” though it is very much the problem of other journalists too.
Following the allegations by journalist Brian Deer and doctor MP Evan Harris in 2004 that the Wakefield Lancet paper had been commissioned and paid for by the UK Legal Aid Board the first apparent dissent to appear was in an award winning article by Dr Ben Goldacre ‘Don't Dumb Me Down' , the son of a leading government epidemiologist and Oxford University professor, Michael J. Goldacre. Goldacre junior wrote in September 2005:
“Now, even though popular belief in the MMR scare is - perhaps - starting to fade, popular understanding of it remains minimal: people periodically come up to me and say, isn't it funny how that Wakefield MMR paper turned out to be Bad Science after all? And I say: no. The paper always was and still remains a perfectly good small case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more than that, by media that are incapable of interpreting and reporting scientific data.”
This statement refers to neither Deer or Harris, and what it does not tell you is that the issue as to whether the Lancet paper was a really a “fraud” or not hinged on if it was “a perfectly good small case series report” as stated on this occasion by Ben Goldacre or if it was based on the protocol for the Legal Aid Board commission to which it bears little or no resemblance (and which the three doctors at the GMC were later to claim was never executed) as originally argued by Deer and Harris in 2004. At the same time the possibility that medical establishment was trying to hedge its bets against the failure of a flawed GMC prosecution is opened up by the fact that Dr Harris, himself, was on the jury which gave Goldacre his Association of British Science Writer’s award for the article (note that page mistakenly attributes the article to John Gribben) .
Indeed, there was sequence of editorials around the time of that award (which took place in the summer of 2006) doubting the wisdom of prosecuting Andrew Wakefield and his forgotten colleagues, which included pieces in The Independent, the New Scientist, by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick in Spiked Online and a little later by Dr Fiona Godlee in British Medical Journal calling for the prosecution to be called off .
All this led later to particular embarrassment for Ben Goldacre, whose vacillating position on the matter was reported on Age of Autism (Can We Have it Straight?), (Goldacre Challenged on Wakefield) and who as late as November 2010 (and months after he had first welcomed the GMC verdict) was accurately telling Irish Health:
“But you have to remember this paper didn’t actually say MMR causes autism, it didn’t even speculate on that. It was accompanied by an editorial that said by the way people should be very clear that it doesn’t mean that MMR causes autism.
“Also, this was a 12 subject case series report - it was a description of only 12 children’s clinical anecdotes, and while this is not good evidence to say MMR causes autism, it is a perfectly legitimate thing to publish.”
The almost unavoidable conclusion is that large sections of the British media have always known that the “Wakefield” prosecution was based on an imposture, and have been holding their silence in contempt of fair reporting and of the public at large, and that these people are much more concerned about their own backs than they are about our children.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
|
|
|
|
Seonaid
United Kingdom
1361 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2012 : 20:20:17
|
More from John Stone -
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1244?tab=responses
"When the GMC brought in its findings on 28 January 2010 against the three doctors Sarah Boseley wrote in the Guardian [1]:
"Opinion is divided in the medical establishment on the wisdom of pursuing Wakefield – and particularly his colleagues who played a lesser role in the drama – at the GMC. Some say there was a clear case to answer and that the GMC had no other option but others believe that no good can come of it."
So, why in all these years has no journalist been prepared to tell us what exactly it was the "medical establishment" were worried about? Why have the public been kept in the dark?"
[1] Sarah Boseley, 'From the Lancet to the GMC: How Dr Andrew Wakefield fell from grace" Guardian 28 January 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-downfall
|
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 11:31:00
|
http://www.gmc-uk.org/news/12288.asp
General Medical Council response to the successful appeal of Professor John Walker-Smith
Press Release
07 Mar 2012
Responding to the ruling Niall Dickson, the Chief Executive of the General Medical Council said:
We will now study the detailed judgement carefully to see what lessons we can learn from this complex case as we continue to reform our fitness to practise work.
Niall Dickson, the Chief Executive of the GMC
‘Today, Mr Justice Mitting has overturned the decision to find Professor Walker-Smith guilty of serious professional misconduct. We will now study the detailed judgement carefully to see what lessons we can learn from this complex case as we continue to reform our fitness to practise work.
'The immediate effect of this decision is that Professor Walker-Smith is now a fully registered medical practitioner.
‘Today’s ruling does not however re-open the debate about the MMR vaccine and autism. As Mr Justice Mitting observed in his judgment ‘There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Dr Wakefield’s] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.’
‘Nevertheless Mr Justice Mitting has made a number of criticisms about the inadequacy of the reasons given by the panel for the decisions they made on the charges facing Professor Walker-Smith. The panel of medical and non-medical members, having heard all the evidence, were required to set out very clearly why they reached the decisions they did. They failed to do that in relation to key questions, including whether Professor Walker-Smith’s actions were undertaken for the purpose of medical practice or medical research and whether procedures performed on the children were clinically necessary. These were important points that needed to be addressed by the panel in the determination and the failure to do was the major cause of Mr Justice Mitting allowing the appeal today.
‘Over the last two years we have begun to deliver significant reforms to our fitness to practise work, including major changes in the way we adjudicate cases. A key change will be the establishment, in a few months time, of the new Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service which will take over the running and oversight of doctors' fitness to practise hearings.
‘The MPTS will be part of the GMC but it will operate as an autonomous unit separate from our other work. Late last year we announced the appointment of His Honour Judge David Pearl as the Chair of the tribunal. He will be responsible for appointing, training, appraising and mentoring panel members. He will also report directly to Parliament on an annual basis.’
Notes to Editors:
In 2011, of the 34 appeals by doctors against a Fitness to Practise panel decision only 3 doctors where wholly or partially successful.
For further information please contact the Media Relations Office on 020 7189 5454, out of hours 020 7189 5444/ 07920 461497, email press@gmc-uk.org, website www.gmc-uk.org.
The General Medical Council registers and licenses doctors to practise medicine in the UK. Our purpose is summed up in the phrase: Regulating doctors, Ensuring Good Medical Practice.
The law gives us four main functions:
keeping up-to-date registers of qualified doctors
fostering good medical practice
promoting high standards of medical education and training
dealing firmly and fairly with doctors whose fitness to practise is in doubt |
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 11:42:04
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17283751
7 March 2012 Last updated at 11:10
MMR doctor wins High Court appeal
Prof John Walker-Smith worked with Andrew Wakefield at the Royal Free Hospital
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
MMR research timeline
A doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct over the MMR controversy has won a High Court appeal against being struck off.
Prof John Walker-Smith carried out research with Dr Andrew Wakefield claiming there was a link between autism and the combined jab for measles, mumps and rubella.
The study caused a fall in vaccination rates but was later discredited.
The judge quashed a GMC finding of professional misconduct.
Mr Justice Mitting called for changes in the way General Medical Council fitness to practise panel hearings are conducted in the future saying: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again."
Prof Walker-Smith, who is now retired, said: "I am extremely pleased with the outcome of my appeal. There has been a great burden on me and my family since the allegations were first made in 2004 and throughout the hearing that ran from 2007 to 2010. I am relieved that this matter is now over."
|
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 11:54:44
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/9128147/MMR-doctor-wins-battle-against-being-struck-off.html
Telegraph
MMR doctor wins battle against being struck off
Professor John Walker-Smith, who carried out research into the MMR vaccine with Dr Andrew Wakefield, has won a court battle against being struck off the medical register.
Professor John Walker-Smith Photo: PA
By Donna Bowater11:11AM GMT 07 Mar 2012
A High Court judge quashed the finding of professional misconduct against Professor Walker-Smith, who had carried out some of the tests for the controversial paper that suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
Mr Justice Mitting also called for the reform of the General Medical Council's disciplinary hearings after the lengthy battle by Professor Walker-Smith to clear his name.
The Wakefield paper prompted a nationwide scare over the safety of the jab after the study of 12 children was published in the medical journal The Lancet.
Both Dr Andrew Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith were found guilty of professional misconduct over the way the research was conducted and were struck off the medical register in May 2010.
The GMC panel's verdict followed 217 days of deliberation, making it the longest disciplinary case in the GMC's 152-year history. In 2004, the Lancet announced a partial retraction, and 10 of the 13 authors disowned it.
RELATED ARTICLES
Lancet formally retracts Wakefield MMR research 02 Feb 2010
Andrew Wakefield - the man behind the MMR controversy 29 Jan 2010
Dr Andrew Wakefield: maverick or martyr? 29 Jan 2010
But Mr Justice Mitting rule the decision against Professor Walker-Smith "cannot stand", and quashed the findings.
Professor Walker-Smith's bid to salvage his reputation was supported by the parents of many children with autism and bowel disease seen by him at the Royal Free Hospital, north London, up to his retirement in 2001.
Calling for changes in the way GMC fitness to practise panel hearings are conducted in the future, the judge said of the flawed handling of the case: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again."
The judge said the GMC fitness to practise panel's conclusion that Prof Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed in two respects.
There had been "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion".
The decision to strike off had been defended at a recent hearing as "just and fair – not wrong" by Joanna Glynn QC, appearing for the GMC.
She said: "In spite of inadequate reasons it is quite clear on overwhelming evidence that the charges are made out."
But the judge disagreed and said the misconduct finding and the sanction of erasure – striking off – "are both quashed".
Dr Wakefield was the paper's chief author and Prof Walker-Smith the then head of the department of paediatric gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in north London, where the research was carried out.
Prof Walker-Smith's clinical role focused on treatment related to sick children, while his academic work included collaborating in research with Dr Wakefield.
Professor Walker-Smith was 73 when he was struck off and had by then been retired for a decade.
A third doctor, Prof Simon Murch, who was a junior consultant in the department at the time, was cleared of serious professional misconduct because, although he had committed "errors of judgment", he had acted in good faith.
Prof Walker-Smith left court with members of his family, saying: "I am extremely pleased with the outcome of my appeal.
"There has been a great burden on me and my family since the allegations were first made in 2004 and throughout the hearing that ran from 2007 to 2010.
"I am relieved that this matter is now over."
Thanking his friends and supporters, including his own family and many parents and former patients, he added: "I will never forget all the support I have received and I am truly grateful for it. I hope now to enjoy my retirement with my family." |
|
|
|
jabsadmin
1238 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 12:04:02
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/10131156
Guardian
MMR doctor wins High Court appeal
Press Association, Wednesday March 7 2012
Professor John Walker-Smith appealed against the General Medical Council's (GMC) determination that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct.
His fight for his reputation was supported by the parents of many children with autism and bowel disease seen by him at the Royal Free Hospital, north London, up to his retirement in 2001.
Mr Justice Mitting, sitting at London's High Court, ruled the GMC decision "cannot stand".
He quashed the finding of professional misconduct and the striking-off.
Calling for changes in the way GMC fitness to practise panel hearings are conducted in the future, the judge said of the flawed handling of Prof Walker-Smith's case: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again."
Prof Walker-Smith left court with members of his family, saying: "I am extremely pleased with the outcome of my appeal.
"There has been a great burden on me and my family since the allegations were first made in 2004 and throughout the hearing that ran from 2007 to 2010. I am relieved that this matter is now over."
Thanking his friends and supporters, including his own family and many parents and former patients, he added: "I will never forget all the support I have received and I am truly grateful for it. I hope now to enjoy my retirement with my family."
In a written ruling, the judge made it clear the judgment was the end of the case, and the GMC did not intend to appeal.
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2012, All Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
VICTORY -Prof J Walker-Smith All Charges cleared
