PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Wakefield Comments After the GMC Recants



Serpo
12th March 2012, 05:09 PM
The General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom has cleared the medical flack surrounding one of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s medical colleagues, Professor John Walker-Smith, and recanted their censure against him. In a press release dated March 7, 2012, GMC cleared Walker-Smith by overturning its decision of “guilty of serious professional misconduct.” Even the judge ruled that the hearings were a farce—wow!
In view of that happening, I asked Dr. Wakefield, “What’s the difference between medical practice and medical research AND whether procedures performed on children were clinically necessary?” Dr. Wakefield answered, “Medical (clinical) practice is for the benefit of the individual patient whereas research is conducted to improve knowledge and hopefully provide future benefits to sufferers generally. The procedures performed on the Lancet children were deemed clinically necessary by the clinical team caring for those children.”
Doctor’s answer prompted me to ask, “Why is that seemingly so important to the GMC?” to which Dr. Wakefield said, “What appears to have been important to the GMC was obtaining convictions in spite of the evidence.” After considering that, I could not help but ask, “Isn’t it within a medical doctor’s jurisdiction to perform tests needed to determine cause?” Doctor’s reply was absolutely brilliant and something the GMC probably doesn’t want to consider, “Yes, and it could be considered clinical malpractice not to have done so.”
Embellishing upon Doctor’s last comment, I found myself asking, “What’s exploratory surgery about? It’s done often in the USA when physicians are stumped. Should they be punished for doing it?” Consider his candid remark, “I interpret this term as meaning, for example, a diagnostic laparotomy to explore the abdomen when other tests have failed to find the source of a patient’s symptoms. As long as the obvious tests have been done and are negative or do not provide an adequate explanation, then it is appropriate.”
Normally I would have asked if that were applicable in the issue that got him struck from the register, but since he’s brought a lawsuit regarding the issue, I felt it best not to go there. But I was inquisitive enough to ask, “Do you know the status of Dr. Simon Murch?” And his answer just about floored me, “I believe he is working as an academic pediatric gastroenterologist in the UK.” Oh! Say I, hmmm. If Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch seem to be back in the good graces of the GMC, why not Dr. Wakefield, I thought.
So I asked, “Why do you think the GMC reinstated Dr. Walker-Smith? The fact that he is retired, does that have anything to do with it, e.g., he won’t be practicing because of his age even though he’s cleared to do so?” Dr. Wakefield then said, “The GMC had no choice but to reinstate him in view of the fact that Judge Mitting quashed their deeply flawed decision.” Now, I wish I knew more about the British legal system and the GMC, in particular, because if what Dr. Wakefield says is the real reason—and I have no reason to doubt it—then the next logical step would be to reinstate Dr. Wakefield. Something smells rather fishy about this entire Wakefield saga, in my opinion, and I wish the GMC would make right its apparent position regarding all physicians it struck from the register during this most disturbing of medical fiascos, in my opinion.
In spite of what I may think, I had to ask, “What can you say to MDs and researchers who feel you were on the right track regarding the MMR vaccine/autism/gut link, but don’t know what to do about following through to publication that may end in sanctions against them?” His answer was “typical golden Wakefield,” “Decide why you chose the profession you did, do your job without compromise in the best interests of the patients, or pack up and get out.” Gulp! And swallow hard, but that’s what a dedicated professional should do. There’s a saying that goes something like this, “Lay down the cheese and see how many mice will come.” In medical research the cheese often is money or grants, while the mice are the ever-anxious-to-please researchers.
As a result of what may be regarded as having to remove some stale “egg on its face” as a result of striking from the register eminent physicians, I understand that the GMC is planning some significant reforms to its fitness practice review. So, I asked Dr. Wakefield what reform suggestions he would give GMC after having been through its bullying mill. His answer could not have been more succinct: “This is a very big question. They need to operate entirely free from government pressures and conflicts of interest,” to which I only could add, applause, applause, and applause.
A few of the parents of the “Lancet” children showed up for the GMC’s decision on Professor Walker-Smith. To see a short YouTube of their remarks, please click on http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u55MNglDkos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u55MNglDkos) .
Something still bothers me. If Professor Walker-Smith has been exonerated, what’s happened with other physicians involved—since there were at least a dozen doctors at the Royal Free Hospital, not only Dr. Andrew Wakefield—who found the same results as Wakefield did. However, only three doctors were brought up on misconduct charges: Walker-Smith, Wakefield, and Dr. Simon Murch. It seems like games of professional bullying or pin the tail on some donkey transpired. Is a vaccine’s reputation more important than finding, revealing, and publicizing something new in medical research that can help or direct understanding about an apparently newly emerging health anomaly? Isn’t that what medical science is supposed to be about? Or, is it science according to Big Pharma and its minions where ever they may be: the UK or the USA?
For the record, let’s get the Wakefield story correct. Dr. Wakefield never said there was a definite link between vaccines and the MMR vaccination, only that there was a possible connection and reason for concern that ought to be investigated. Dr. Wakefield’s story reminds one of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’s tragic encounter when he suggested that physicians wash their hands after doing autopsies on women who died in child birth BEFORE going into the birthing wards and examining women in labor. Semmelweis cut childbirth fever deaths from 30 percent to about 3 percent in his wing of the hospital, yet his colleagues considered him a nut case. So, what do physicians do today, especially surgeons? Scrub and prepare for 10 to 20 minutes before surgery—isn’t that the routine? Oh the games grown men play, especially when high-stake money is involved, as with Big Pharma and its vaccines, in my opinion.
If the GMC is still holding on to its arrogant position that “There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports [Dr Wakefield’s] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked,” may I respectfully inform the GMC that a study performed by a team of doctors at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, involved 275 children that confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s findings regarding bowel disease and the measles virus. Here are the results: 70 out of 82 children tested positive for the measles virus, but just not any ordinary measles virus.
One of the Wake Forest physicians, Dr. Stephen Walker, stated that their research pointed to a vaccine measles strain that was injected into the children and not a wild, natural strain of measles virus that normally transmits from child to child. Interesting? Here’s Dr. Walker’s remark, “Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.”
Perhaps the GMC isn’t up to date on reading the medical literature, or they would be hightailing it to overturn the unwarranted decision against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. If GMC had taken the time to do their ‘homework’ they would have found that the Wake Forest University study proves that in the gastro-intestinal tract of children diagnosed with autism, the vaccine measles virus was found in their gut. How did it get there, if not by vaccination, especially with the MMR vaccine? Infants and toddlers normally don’t drink measles-laced formula.
If the Wake Forest study is not enough, how about the 2001 study by Dr. John O’Leary, Professor of Pathology, done at the St. James Hospital and Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, that came up with the same findings as Wake Forest and Dr. Wakefield. Okay, we now have three confirming studies that can no longer be consider the ‘Wakefield hypothesis’.
The article “Persistent measles virus infection of the intestine: confirmation by immunogold electron microscopy,” by Lewin, Dhillon, Sim, Mazure, Pounder, and Wakefield [1] April 1995 still appears on PubMed Central’s web site at NIH. The last line of the Abstract for that article states:
This study provides the first direct confirmation of persistent measles virus infection of the intestine.
Something does not comport, and I hope you can follow this. Why would the U.S. National Institutes of Health still have Dr. Wakefield’s findings published as part of its medical library information IF those findings were not respectable? The PDF file of the article is available at this link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382498/ .
If the above is not sufficient for the GMC to rethink Dr. Wakefield’s unwarranted striking from the register with immediate reinstatement, then how about their studying the following:


Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883)
Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. “The sequences obtained from the patients with ulcerative colitis and children with autism were consistent with being vaccine strains.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759242 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759242)

Perhaps the GMC’s significant reforms they anticipate introducing ought to include a statement of regret and an apology to all physicians affected by the apparent witch hunt or bullying tactics that transpired with regard to respectable men of medicine who were trying to move the ball farther down the court in the baffling world of childhood diseases that are emerging simultaneously with—or as a result of—the global vaccination mandates agenda.
http://vactruth.com/2012/03/11/general-medical-council-recants/?utm_source=The%20Vaccine%20Truth%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=46965aa320-09_05_2011_O%27Shea&utm_medium=email

Serpo
12th March 2012, 05:11 PM
A few weeks ago I uncovered the appalling story of how parents in India were prevented from speaking out when their baby daughter died following the pentavalent vaccine. (1) Ancy, was just 56 days old, when she died within hours of the vaccine, however, her death was immediately swept under the carpet by the authorities who silenced her parents before claiming that Ancy had died from apnea. On 25th January 2012 IBN Live (2) reported that even though the Health Department had denied the possible connection between the administration of the pentavalent vaccine and the death of the baby, the postmortem report had revealed that her death was caused by a hypersensitivity reaction.
This unusual and highly controversial move by the coroner to write that a hypersensitivity reaction was the cause of death in his report appears to confirm the parent’s belief that Ancy died as a result of the vaccine, although IBN Live continued their report by adding that:
“The postmortem certificate leaves a loophole with regard to hypersensitivity, the report being unspecific on hypersensitivity to what source. While in general usage by scientists and doctors, the term hypersensitivity refers to a very unusual allergic reaction to a vaccine. Health Secretary Rajeev Sadanandan said further studies were needed to conclusively prove as to whether it was the vaccine that triggered the allergy.”
I doubt if the coroner could safely be any more specific and given the age of the child it is highly probable that she did die as a result of the vaccination.
The pentavelent vaccine is a 5 in 1 vaccine. This means that the vaccine protects a person from five individual diseases but instead of receiving five separate vaccines the person, in this case a baby, receives only one. In Ancy’s case we know that she received a vaccine containing diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis B, Hib or meningitis.
Vaccines are made up of several different substances. To enable me to explain this in more detail I will begin by quoting Dr Viera Scheibner. (3) Dr Scheibner says that:
Vaccines contain a number of substances which can be divided into the following groups:
1. Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens.
2. Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants.
3. Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine.
A Parents Basic Guide To Synergistic Toxicity
When a baby receives a vaccine the desired immune response is the production of antibodies. Dr Scheibner says that this is enhanced by adding certain substances to the vaccines. These substances as she explains are called adjuvants. She says:
There are several types of adjuvants. Today the most common adjuvants for human use are aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate and calcium phosphate. However, there are a number of other adjuvants based on oil emulsions, products from bacteria (their synthetic derivatives as well as liposomes) or gram-negative bacteria, endotoxins, cholesterol, fatty acids, aliphatic amines, paraffinic and vegetable oils. Recently, monophosphoryl lipid A, ISCOMs with Quil-A, and Syntex adjuvant formulations (SAFs) containing the threonyl derivative or muramyl dipeptide have been under consideration for use in human vaccines.
Many professionals believe that it is a combination of these aduvants mixed together that are affecting children so adversely. This is known as synergistic toxicity and can worsen when a child receives multiple vaccines.



Think back for a moment to your chemistry lessons at school. Sometimes when you mixed two or more chemicals together in a test tube, depending on which chemicals were added together their reaction could be quite volatile. This same chemical reaction is believed by many to be similar to what can happen to a child when they receive multiple vaccines. When a child receives a vaccination they receive a mixture of micro-organisms, adjuvants and chemical substances acting as preservatives. If they receive a multi vaccination the child receives these substances en mass, these can collect together causing what is known as synergistic toxicity (a volatile chemical reaction).
Many of the ingredients used in vaccines are considered by many to be dangerous; these ingredients include thimerosal, squalene, and aluminum. As we are aware different vaccines contain different ingredients but many of us are unaware that sometimes when these ingredients are combined their effects can multiply making them potentially lethal. Donald W Miller describes this extremely well in his paper- Mercury on the Mind. (4) He says that:
“A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose ofaluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect:all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a1 percent mortality will havea 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines containaluminum.”
Boyd Hayley PhD (5) has also written on the subject and echo’s what Miller says stating that:
“A single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. Include in this the toxic effects of high levels of aluminum and formaldehyde contained in some vaccines, and the synergist toxicity could be increased to unknown levels. Further, it is very well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well. They also do not possess the renal (kidney) capacity to remove aluminum. Additionally, mercury is a well-known inhibitor of kidney function.”
By studying what these professionals are saying in more detail it soon becomes easy to understand why children are dying after vaccines, particularly when they are given many separate vaccines or multiple vaccine combinations in one day.
It is my opinion that by using all these different combinations of vaccines from an early age it is resulting in mini explosions in children’s bodies. Chemicals are building up in the body after each vaccine until children’s systems cannot cope any more. This is resulting in multiple deaths and disabilities.
This year I have reported on several possible deaths in India, a death in Vermont and a death in Belgium, all following vaccinations. In fact if you Google adverse reactions to vaccines, there are pages littered with reports of children and adults having suffered the most horrendous side effects after a vaccination or multiple vaccinations. Admittedly not everybody suffers a side effect but no one ever knows if their next vaccination or the next vaccination they give their child will be one too many.
Children are particularly susceptible to synergistic toxicity if they are premature, sick, on medication or weak and malnourished. Parents need to research the contents of the vaccines that they are allowing their children to receive and weigh up whether their child is healthy enough to receive the vaccine and if the diseases that they are vaccinating their child against are as bad as the chemical reaction that the vaccine could cause.
As far as I am concerned the pharmaceutical industries are treating our children as little more than test tubes. They are adding as many potentially lethal chemicals, toxins and poisons as they can to see which ones cause the test tubes to explode. The question I would like to ask is: Are the pharmaceutical industries doing this intentionally? If so then this could be classed as eugenics.
The majority of children are healthy enough to fight off most childhood diseases naturally and do not need to be continually jabbed with vaccines. Their body is equipped to do the job of fighting disease on its own.
http://vactruth.com/2012/02/02/vaccines-exploding-kids-immune-systems/

Twisted Titan
13th March 2012, 05:16 AM
I vaguely remember this story.

My heart bleeds for these parents. There only crime was that they believed the official position given by the authorities and because of that implicit trust ......their child is dead.

What a terrible price to pay to learn that you are to NEVER trust Authority.



My prayers for the family.......if we all learn from this painful lesson....this child death will not have been in vain