Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 News and Comment
 URGENT for FORMER UK MMR LITIGANTS
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

jabsadmin

1379 Posts

Posted - 06/27/2007 :  23:17:32  Show Profile  Visit jabsadmin's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Here is a reminder of the direct link to the judicial complaints form:

http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/docs/complaints_form.doc

When filling out the complaints form the general information is as follows

Mr Justice Davis

The Queen on the application of W (Claimant)
Versus
The Legal Services Commission (Defendant)

In the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division
The Administrative Court

Case no
CO/6911/2003
and held on
Friday 27th February 2004
Go to Top of Page

grahamhopkins57

United Kingdom
1 Posts

Posted - 06/28/2007 :  12:28:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This was passed to me by a friend. Original author unknown other than JWock for the article (although I'm trying to find out and get the PDFs). It gives some more detail in places to what is already on this site and brings a new name or two onto the seen.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Conflict of Interests in the Wakefield Conflict of Interest Case

As I have mentioned before, I have not focused on the Andrew Wakefield/MMR controversy because Chandler never got the MMR and so that research is on the back burner for me. This article was just to much for me to pass up posting though.

The Wakefield Case is a carnival of conflict of interests with his accusers breaches vastly eclipsing those that they accuse Dr. Wakefield of. The irony would be hilarious were it not destroying a good man who has gone above and beyond for our kids, and holding at bay progress that would be made in understanding our children's illnesses.

I have heard Dr. Wakefield present three times, and have been impressed. He is a humble man, he backs up what he says with research, he is reticent to make claims about topics that are not fully explored yet, and most importantly, he presents case after case of successfully treated autistic children who came to Thoughtful House with horrible bowel issues and who became healthier and more functional when they were able to resolve those issues.

If we could afford it I would be in Texas getting Chandler scoped.

Good thing that these kind of secret hearings and dual relationships shenanigans don't exist here in the US .

GMC Challenged On MMR Inquiry Chief's Vaccine Firm Links

London , England & Scotland/29 May 2007/JWock/
The Chairman of the General Medical Council's inquiry into MMR vaccine doctor Andrew Wakefield, Professor Dennis McDevitt, is being challenged over undisclosed personal interests. On 11th July this year an unprecedented 14 week GMC hearing chaired by Professor McDevitt was due to commence into charges against Dr Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital relating to the controversial vaccine. However, previously secret government minutes reveal Professor McDevitt was himself a member of a 1988 government safety panel which approved Pluserix MMR as safe for vaccine manufacturer Smith Kline & French Laboratories (see first .pdf attached). Pluserix MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine was introduced in 1988 but the Government was forced to withdraw it in November 1992 after large numbers children suffered suspected adverse vaccine reactions.

This development follows the recent discovery that High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis, who in a secret hearing rejected the MMR childrens' appeals against withdrawal of legal (see second .pdf attached), failed to disclose his brother was main board director of the MMR vaccine manufacturer's parent company GlaxoSmithKline (more below).

The GMC hearing against Dr Wakefield relates to events in 1998, seven years after legal investigations into the MMR childrens' ailments first started. Dr Wakefield angered MMR vaccination proponents and created a furore in 1998, when he suggested offering single vaccines alongside MMR - albeit that is current official Conservative party policy.

Nearly 2000 children alleged to be suffering from autism, deafness, bowel disorders and other serious injuries caused by the vaccine filed legal claims against manufacturer Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. Investigations into the claims started in 1991 when applications for legal aid were first being filed. The vaccine was given to 85% of MMR vaccinated children between 1988 and 1992. Labour MP Jack Ashley said at the time of the 1992 withdrawal that correspondence with Minister Virginia Bottomley MP confirmed government knew of the problems in March 1991, some 18 months earlier.

The GMC's inquiry into Dr Wakefield is said to include conflicts of interest alleged by the Sunday Times in 2004. Dr Wakefield was retained as an expert witness in the legal claims. It was alleged Dr Wakefield failed to disclose payments made by lawyers to the Royal Free when his team published a paper in the Lancet medical journal concerning medical investigations into the children's illnesses. Final charges have yet to be published. GMC hearings are often less than a day and usually no more than two or three days.

Other safety panel members who approved the vaccine included controversial paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Government vaccination supremo Dr David Salisbury, Dr Elizabeth Miller of the Health Protection Agency, and Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation member and Chairman Professor Sir David Hull.

Dr Miller is also an expert witness for the Glaxo companies defending the children's claims. She has stated "there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert for the courts, because the duty to the courts overrides any other obligation, including to the person from whom the expert receives the instruction or by whom they are paid ". Dr Miller has also published in The Lancet without disclosing funding from drug companies and still without complaint from the Editor. Wakefield disclosed his status as an expert witness funded by legal aid in a letter to the Lancet in 1998 - six years earlier so this was known to The Lancet.

Barrister Robert Hantusch in a letter to the Times of 24 February 2004 said "The courts do not consider that the engagement of someone to act as an expert witness in litigation has the effect that that person is then biased. Indeed, if this were the legal position, no paid professional could ever at any time give evidence to a court."

A challenge is also being mounted against the withdrawal of the childrens' legal funding in 2004 concerning High Court Judge Sir NigelDavis failure to disclose his brother was main board director of the MMR vaccine manufacturer's parent company GlaxoSmithKline plc and Chief Executive of the Lancet medical journal. Judge Davis' brother is Sir Crispin Davis (57).

Furious parents who filed complaints with MPs and the Office for Judicial Complaints, which investigates the conduct of judges and coroners are told to expect a response this week..

Judge Davis' spokesman Peter Farr of the Judicial Communications Office said "The possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother's position did not occur to him. If he was wrong, any possible remedy must be sought from the Court of Appeal.".

Multinational drugs giant GlaxoSmith Kline appointed Sir Crispin Davis as non executive director 1 July 2003. Three months later the Legal Services Commission were due to decide on the MMR childrens' funding and made the contested decision on 4th October 2003. Five months later Judge Davis rejected appeals against the LSC's decision. The reasons remain secret. Parent Ann Hewitt claims " We have been dumped. Legal advice says Thomas has a strong case, but legal aid was mysteriously taken away." However, parent Marion Wickens, who also claims her severely injured 13-year-old daughter's legal case was strong, said in a later open court hearing that a senior LSC official admitted the decision to stop Legal Aid " came from the government" (see third .pdf attached).

Sir Crispin Davis is unlikely to be a stranger to controversy over the MMR vaccine. He is Chief Executive of the owners of the "The Lancet" medical journal. In 1998 The Lancet published the now controversial study by Dr Andrew Wakefield's Royal Free Hospital London research team into links between autism and the MMR vaccine. Wakefield sparked a furore with the government later to involve Prime Minister Tony Blair when at a March 1998 press conference he suggested single measles jabs be made available alongside MMR.

Six years after the publication of the Lancet paper, in February 2004 and only a week before Judge Nigel Davis's rejection of the childrens' funding appeal, The Lancet Editor, Richard Horton disclaimed the Royal Free paper, claiming Wakefield had failed to disclose a conflict of interest over funding by the Legal Services Commission. Premier Blair was quoted at the time " There's absolutely no evidence to support this link between MMR and autism". Horton expressed public regret for publishing the Royal Free paper and Sir Crispin Davis was knighted three months later.

Parent John Stone comments "A major unexplained mystery is why the issue of what measles vaccine was given to children should have been so political. There was, after all, a perfectly acceptable, cheaper and more effective measles vaccine then available. "

Current Conservative Shadow Health Minister Andrew Murrison says "The last time we commented on this we said that MMR would be routinely recommended (the CMO believes it to be safe) but if refused the single jab would be available. We haven't changed that position. "

Today the issue remains mired in confusion and contradictions. Parent Elaine Butler demands an inquiry "We believe the evidence shows very clearly that our children were damaged by this vaccine. If it was so important to the government, then they should have ensured the case went to trial with full funding so everyone could see the evidence in open court. The additional amount that would cost compared to all the money spent by the government and NHS on attacking Wakefield and promting MMR is trivial . And the irony is, we now learn that 2007 is the year the chance of anyone catching measles and dying became vanishingly small. People in the UK are 60 times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by measles and the official government
figures show that disparity will continue to increase over time ".

INFORMATION FOR EDITORS:

For the curious politics of MMR see - Top doctor wades into MMR debate BBC - Monday, 23 February 2004

Some of the MPs known contacted by parents include:-
Norman Baker
Stewart Jackson, Peterborough ,
Shona Robinson (SNP health minister with autistic daughter)
Sir Robert Smith, Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine
Lynne Featherstone
Alex Salmond
Chris Mullin

For in-depth analysis of the controversy see:-
"MMR - SCIENCE AND FICTION": the Richard Horton story BMJ John Stone
24 Sep 2004
"MMR - SCIENCE AND FICTION": the Richard Horton story II BMJ John
Stone 26 Sep 2004
"MMR - SCIENCE AND FICTION": the Richard Horton story III BMJ John
Stone 30 Sep 2004
"MMR - SCIENCE AND FICTION": the Richard Horton story IV BMJ John
Stone 1 Oct 2004
"MMR - SCIENCE AND FICTION": the Richard Horton story V BMJ John Stone
1 Oct 2004
"MMR - SCIENCE AND FICTION": the Richard Horton story VI BMJ John
Stone 3 Oct 2004

========== Contact information
Peter Farr
Judicial Communications Office
Thomas More Bldg 11.07
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL

www.judiciary.gov.uk


Go to Top of Page

mandyb

United Kingdom
7 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2007 :  18:39:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi, sorry I have not been on forum for a while, lots going on. I have received a letter re GMC on 16 July, and although I am unable to attend this important event, I would like to join the petition.

I was unable to get the link to come up?
Anyone got the link I can go to please - many thanks. Mandy
Go to Top of Page

Seonaid

United Kingdom
1367 Posts

Posted - 07/09/2007 :  19:39:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Mandy - this should work.


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/GMC/

Click on to the above and sign the petition.

There is also a link to the video so don't forget to watch it.

PLEASE CIRCULATE TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS

Go to Top of Page

mandyb

United Kingdom
7 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2007 :  17:29:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Many thanks have done this now. Hope it helps.
Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 08/03/2007 :  21:59:19  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Just sent a request asking when they will have a decision for us..

MMR RIP

Edited by - GUS THE FUSS on 08/03/2007 22:04:24
Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2007 :  09:57:14  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote


Dear Mr xxxxx

Thank you for your enquiry. The matter is now with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice. Accordingly, a reply should be fortthcoming before too long.

I am sorry that I have not been able to keep you up to date more regularly. We have received 111 complaints on the subject and this has stretched the resources of a small office. However, as I say, the end is now in sight.

Yours sincerely

Henry Hochfelder
Office for Judicial Complaints
Tel; 020 7189 2924


Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2007 :  13:20:10  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The Times
August 7, 2007

WHERES DAVIS??

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2208414.ece


How well behaved are Britain’s judges?
Dale Simon has spent the past year investigating complaints about judgesFrances Gibb
If people thought a judge rude or ill-behaved, they used to have to write to the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Their complaint would disappear into the anonymity of the quaintly called “judicial correspondence unit”. There was no formal public complaints procedure; most people probably did not know that the unit existed.

But since last year, a new body has been charged with monitoring the judges – a kind of “Ofjudge”, called the Office for Judicial Complaints. In its first year it received more than 1,600 complaints against judges, magistrates or other judicial officeholders and it has just published what steps it took.

Dale Simon, 42, a former Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) district prosecutor, who heads the office with a staff of 21, says that 1,674 complaints in its first year is 8 per cent up on the number sent to the old judicial correspondence unit, although direct comparisons are impossible as “complaints are not defined in the same way”.

But set against the millions of cases being tried by the 43,000 judges, magistrates and others each year the figure is tiny, she says. In addition, half the complaints are rejected because they relate to a judicial decision – which is outside the remit of the office and could be challenged only through an appeal. “The percentage of complaints is a minute fraction of all the cases that are going in the courts every day. From these figures we can be confident that we have a pretty well-behaved judiciary that we can have confidence in.


Judge may be in for much more than a severe wigging
Mr Justice Peter Smith is in hot water. But could he have had more of a helping hand from the Establishment?

Related Links
Judge’s ‘chilli hot stuff’ cleaner goes free
Da Vinci judge in the dock after reprimand
“The purist would say one complaint is one too many but realistically, when you are dealing with people, there is room for the occasional deviation from the very high standards we expect from our judiciary.”

The other 817 complaints span a range of alleged unjudicial behaviour including motoring-related offences (49); general rudeness (99); inappropriate comments (66); misuse of judicial status (38); and professional misconduct (51).

How it works is that complaints are looked into by the office and then referred to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, who jointly decide if action is needed. In all, disciplinary action was taken in just 32 cases but that included 16 where the judicial office holder was removed from post. Of those, 15 were magistrates and one a tribunal chairman.

So of complaints resulting in disciplinary action, 28 involved magistrates, which was 0.09 per cent of all received; two tribunal members, or 0.03 per cent of the total; and two were mainstream judges, or 0.05 per cent of the total made. Some 38 complaints were also made about coroners but none led to disciplinary action. Three formal warnings were also issued and 13 reprimands, including two considered by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice “at the most serious end” of that scale.

But what were the misdemeanours? None is identified as the anonymity of the judge or magistrate is preserved under the Constitutional Reform Act, nor are anonymised case histories provided. Simon, a qualified barrister (called both to the English Bar and that of Antigua and Barbados) who worked in criminal defence and childcare law, then with the CPS where she handled complaints against the police, says it would be for Parliament to decide if, say, those removed were to be identified.

Two current complaints with her office have, however, been very publicly aired: the referral by the Lord Chief Justice of Mr Justice Peter Smith, the judge who refused to step down from a case in which he had been acrimoniously linked with a law firm involved; and two immigration judges embroiled in the “chilli hot stuff” blackmail case. On the first, a nominated Court of Appeal judge (one of three) will look at the case and advise if disciplinary action should be taken or whether a further judicial investigation is needed.

The investigation into the other judges is now proceeding after the ending of the criminal proceedings.

For the anonymous rest, the figures, Simon would argue, speak for themselves. The public can have confidence “that very few do deviate from those very high standards and that those who do are subject to a robust process that can lead to their removal”.





Edited by - GUS THE FUSS on 08/07/2007 20:53:28
Go to Top of Page

John Stone

United Kingdom
1254 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2007 :  09:02:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have received this from Mr Hochfelder of the OJC this morning:

"Dear Mr Stone

"Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that the investigation into your complaint is complete and that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice are currently considering its conclusions.

"Yours sincerely

Henry Hochfelder
Office for Judicial Complaints "





Edited by - John Stone on 08/09/2007 19:46:36
Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2007 :  19:32:43  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
And mine...

Dear Mr x Files
Thank you for your communication of 7 August, below, the contents of which are noted.

Yours sincerely

Henry Hochfelder
Office for Judicial Complaints
Tel; 020 7189 2924


-----Original Message-----
From: x Files [mailto:xfiles@btopenworld.com]
Sent: 07 August 2007 12:32
To: Hochfelder, Henry
Subject: RE: Out of Office AutoReply: JUSTICE DAVIS


Dear Mr Hochfelder
Thanks for you reply.I receive no consolation that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice oversee matters as they of late are poodles to the government various cases that have come before them they have taken the government stance,despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That is quite a number of complaints 111 bearing in mind that most litigants that lost the funding thanks to Mr Davis,will not know about the conflict of interest which Justice Keith believes that Davis should not have presided over the LSC hearing.

You would have thought that the OJC would be obligated to write to all the parents who were affected by this gross mis handling of this case by Mr Davis .This data base of all the parents involved in the MMR case is available and is held by the PHARMA lawyers(defendants Lovells ,and on it there are 989 parents..they have not kept the data base up to date with the other 700 litigants missing??.Again it all stinks to high heaven ...

Sincerely x files



Edited by - GUS THE FUSS on 08/09/2007 19:38:13
Go to Top of Page

bill2b

United Kingdom
46 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2007 :  23:18:06  Show Profile  Visit bill2b's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I have not heard from Henry for nearly 3 months now so I sent him this:

quote:
Dear Mr Hochfelder
Thank you fro your letter dated 15 June 07, I do note that you state that "you will write to me further when you are in a position to report and in any event will keep me regularly appraised!"
Has something gone wrong because I have not been appraised for nearly 3 months now ?
I look forward to my future "Regular Appraisals"

Mr Brown



Not holding my breath though
Or am I missing something, has it all happened without me knowing?
Go to Top of Page

bill2b

United Kingdom
46 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2007 :  23:44:32  Show Profile  Visit bill2b's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Struth,m that was a quick reply:

quote:
I am out of the office, returning 24 Septembery 2007. Your message has not been forwarded and I shall address it on my return. If it cannot await my return, please refer to Maurice Coyne or Jane Tweedie.



Thats a nice long holiday period these folk get eh?
Nice to see the tax payer is getting their moneys worth!
Mind you "Septembery 2007" will that ever arrive?
Go to Top of Page

John Stone

United Kingdom
1254 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2007 :  15:53:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Henry Hochfelder, who has generally been prompt at replying to my enquiries and very courteous, wrote in reply to me on 21 August mentioning that the file had gone to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice at the end of July and he did not expect that a response would be long delayed. Of course, if HH is not there it may delay it longer. I have to admit that I am less troubled about when than what. At least this does not suggest that they are finding the matter easy to dismiss.
Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2007 :  11:53:30  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Lest we forget HH is back tomorrow September the 24th …that’s the longest I’ve held my breath…ah! the world can start revolving again..

M.M.R. R.I.P.
Go to Top of Page

John Stone

United Kingdom
1254 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2007 :  11:58:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I wonder whether Straw is going to make a decision now, when he can leave it till after the election, if he is still there. But it may, of course, be pending HH's return.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05