Wednesday, February 23, 2011
BRUESEWITZ v. WYETH LLC
The dissent in BRUESEWITZ v. WYETH LLC is stupid. Thankfully it is a dissent.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory - New York Times
My grandfather's sister, Fanny Rosen. got her picture in the New York Times in February 21, 2011 nearly 100 years after her death in the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire of 1911. She was the last to be identified in 2010.
In Records, Portraits of Lives Cut Short
100 Years Later, the Roll of the Dead in a Factory Fire Is Complete
An update: Fanny came to the United States by herself. When she died in the fire, an insurance company paid out. The money was used by grandfather and grandmother to pay for their passage to Canada in 1912.
An update: Fanny came to the United States by herself. When she died in the fire, an insurance company paid out. The money was used by grandfather and grandmother to pay for their passage to Canada in 1912.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Finally Saw This - New York Times
Autism Fraud
New York Times Editorial
January 12, 2011
The report that first triggered scares that a vaccine to prevent measles,mumps and rubella might cause autism in children has received another devastating blow to its credibility. The British Medical Journal has declared that the research was not simply bad science, as has been known for years, but a deliberate fraud.
The study, led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was published in The Lancet in 1998. It was based on just 12 children with supposedly autismlike disorders and purported to find a link between the vaccine, the gastrointestinal problems found in many autistic children, and autism.
While parents around the world were understandably alarmed, many scientists rejected the claims, including, eventually, 10 of Dr. Wakefield’s co-authors. A high-level British medical group, after an exhaustive fitness-to-practice hearing, found Dr. Wakefield guilty of dishonesty and misconduct. The Lancet retracted the article in part, it said, because the authors had made false claims about how the study was conducted.
Now the British Medical Journal has taken the extraordinary step of publishing a lengthy report by Brian Deer, the British investigative journalist who first brought the paper’s flaws to light — and has put its own reputation on the line by endorsing his findings.
After seven years of studying medical records and interviewing parents and doctors, Mr. Deer concluded that the medical histories of all 12 children had been misrepresented to make the vaccine look culpable. Time lines, for example, were fudged to make it seem as though autismlike symptoms developed shortly after vaccination, while in some cases problems developed before vaccination and in others months after vaccination.
Dr. Wakefield has accused Mr. Deer of being a hit man. But the medical journal compared the claims with evidence compiled in the voluminous transcript of official hearings and declared that flaws in the paper were not honest mistakes but rather an “elaborate fraud.”
Some parents still consider Dr. Wakefield a hero, and others have moved on to other theories, equally unsupported by scientific evidence, as to how vaccines might cause autism.
They need to recognize that failure to vaccinate their children leaves them truly vulnerable to diseases that can cause enormous harm.
[emphasis added]
New York Times Editorial
January 12, 2011
The report that first triggered scares that a vaccine to prevent measles,mumps and rubella might cause autism in children has received another devastating blow to its credibility. The British Medical Journal has declared that the research was not simply bad science, as has been known for years, but a deliberate fraud.
The study, led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was published in The Lancet in 1998. It was based on just 12 children with supposedly autismlike disorders and purported to find a link between the vaccine, the gastrointestinal problems found in many autistic children, and autism.
While parents around the world were understandably alarmed, many scientists rejected the claims, including, eventually, 10 of Dr. Wakefield’s co-authors. A high-level British medical group, after an exhaustive fitness-to-practice hearing, found Dr. Wakefield guilty of dishonesty and misconduct. The Lancet retracted the article in part, it said, because the authors had made false claims about how the study was conducted.
Now the British Medical Journal has taken the extraordinary step of publishing a lengthy report by Brian Deer, the British investigative journalist who first brought the paper’s flaws to light — and has put its own reputation on the line by endorsing his findings.
After seven years of studying medical records and interviewing parents and doctors, Mr. Deer concluded that the medical histories of all 12 children had been misrepresented to make the vaccine look culpable. Time lines, for example, were fudged to make it seem as though autismlike symptoms developed shortly after vaccination, while in some cases problems developed before vaccination and in others months after vaccination.
Dr. Wakefield has accused Mr. Deer of being a hit man. But the medical journal compared the claims with evidence compiled in the voluminous transcript of official hearings and declared that flaws in the paper were not honest mistakes but rather an “elaborate fraud.”
Some parents still consider Dr. Wakefield a hero, and others have moved on to other theories, equally unsupported by scientific evidence, as to how vaccines might cause autism.
They need to recognize that failure to vaccinate their children leaves them truly vulnerable to diseases that can cause enormous harm.
[emphasis added]
Krigsman 2010 and Constipation
Krigsman’s 2010 paper
Krigsman’s 2010 paper Clinical presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in children with Autistic spectrum Disorder and chronic Gastrointestinal symptom reported on “143 consecutive patients with ASD/developmental disorder, undergoing ileocolonoscopy and biopsy as part of routine investigations of persistent GI symptoms.”
Considering that the paper doesn’t even mention the phrases inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s or Ulcerative Colitis, it seems likely that Krigsman did in New York State with 143 chldren (and elsewhere to total 275?) what Wakefield, Walker-Smith and others did with many children at the Royal Free hospital in London --- perform colonoscopies that were not clinically indicated.
Krigsman. a gastroenterologist, is a follower of Wakefield’s discredited theory. He worked with Wakefield at Thoughtful House in Austin, Texas until February 2010, when both he and Wakefield left. Until February 2010, he and Wakefield and Professor Stephen Walker were on the editorial board of Autism Insights where Krigsman’s paper was published. Krigsman and Lenox Hill hospital, where the colonoscopies were performed, parted company over concerns that these colonoscopies were done as an unapproved research project. For details read results from this search query site:www.briandeer.com krigsman
Krigsman’s 2010 paper Clinical presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in children with Autistic spectrum Disorder and chronic Gastrointestinal symptom reported on “143 consecutive patients with ASD/developmental disorder, undergoing ileocolonoscopy and biopsy as part of routine investigations of persistent GI symptoms.”
Considering that the paper doesn’t even mention the phrases inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s or Ulcerative Colitis, it seems likely that Krigsman did in New York State with 143 chldren (and elsewhere to total 275?) what Wakefield, Walker-Smith and others did with many children at the Royal Free hospital in London --- perform colonoscopies that were not clinically indicated.
Krigsman. a gastroenterologist, is a follower of Wakefield’s discredited theory. He worked with Wakefield at Thoughtful House in Austin, Texas until February 2010, when both he and Wakefield left. Until February 2010, he and Wakefield and Professor Stephen Walker were on the editorial board of Autism Insights where Krigsman’s paper was published. Krigsman and Lenox Hill hospital, where the colonoscopies were performed, parted company over concerns that these colonoscopies were done as an unapproved research project. For details read results from this search query site:www.briandeer.com krigsman
Transcripts for Wakefield Hearing Online
update- the transcripts zip file has been fixed
Transcripts and GMC decisions
Gathered here are links to the GMC transcripts, the Fact Finding Decision of January 2010, the Good Medical Practice Guidelines, and the three Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanctions of May 2010
Transcripts
The transcripts can be downloaded as a single zip file of 10 mb
The transcripts of the GMC hearing against Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch
make great reading. They make nonsense of all the claims by Wakefield
supporters against the process.It took me a bit of trouble to get my own copies of the transcripts of the GMC hearing against Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch. I had to exchange a few emails and call Manchester, UK. And I had a lot of trouble downloading the files
At the time, I promised to agree to any privacy requirements, but I wasn't asked to make any promises. Having seen the transcripts, I understand why. The children are referred to only by number. And other identifying information has been left out. There no longer is a privacy concern.
Probably because I've been referring to the transcripts so much, someone emailed me a link to them at Google documents.
The transcripts can be downloaded as a zip file of 10 megabytes.
Software
The transcripts are in .doc or Microsoft Word. If you don't have Word, download the free OpenOffice. Because there are over 150 files, a text searching tool is a great help. I recommend File Locator Lite, also known as Agent Ransack. It is also free. When using it, I turn on Word Wrap
GMC Fact Finding Decision January 28, 2010
Good Medical Practice
The obligations of the doctors are set out, very broadly, in the Good Medical Practices guidance booklets. They were discussed on day 217, in the Determination of Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanctions.From the GMC web site Good Medical Practice (1995) "This guidance was withdrawn in July 1998 and is no longer in effect." The birthday party used the 1998 guidance. Good Medical Practice (1998) "This guidance was withdrawn in September 2001 and is no longer in effect."
Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanctions May 2010
Wakefield
Wakefield had his name erased,filed an appeal, but abandoned it in December 2010. His name has been erased from the GMC register.
Walker-Smith
Walker-Smith had his name erased, but filed an appeal. As of February 2011, it is not in force.
Murch
In these circumstances it was therefore not necessary to consider a sanction and Professor Murch is free to continue unrestricted medical practice.
The Panel concluded Professor Murch acted in good faith albeit it has found he was in error. His actions, although comparable to professional misconduct in respect of undertaking procedures which were not clinically indicated, were mitigated by the fact that he was under a false impression that they were clinically indicated and this could not reach the threshold of serious professional misconduct...
Taking all of the above into account, the Panel concluded that Professor Murch demonstrated errors of judgement but had acted in good faith and that any professional misconduct on his part, such as his failing in duties of research governance and performing colonoscopies that were not clinically indicated, could not reach the threshold of serious professional misconduct because of the circumstances in which he found himself.
Accordingly the Panel found that Professor Murch is not guilty of serious professional misconduct.
In these circumstances it was therefore not necessary to consider a sanction and Professor Murch is free to continue unrestricted medical practice.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Free 2 step verification with Google -Get it
Google is now offering free two step verification for its products.
One step verification
username: john
password: password
or
password:12345
This is pretty weak as it can be defeated by a hack of passwords elsewhere and you use the same username and password OR if someone can use a dictionary attack and guess your password
Two step verification
username:john
password: password
Please enter verification code
It works like this. You sign up for 2 step verification after logging in normally through the gear symbol to account settings. You supply google a phone number (can be a mobile or landline) to call with a verification code. They call, you enter the verification code. They supply a list of 10 backup codes,which you print off and put in your wallet or purse. You supply a backup phone number. You log back in and google calls you. You enter the code and tick the box that asks them to verify from this computer every 30 days.
If you're calling from a different computer, google will call and you enter the code. If you don't have your phones, you use the backup codes you've kept in your wallet or purse.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Brian Deer Toronto Feb 16, 2011
Brian Deer came to Toronto to take part in a public forum at Innis College at U of T. I missed that. But I wondered if he was going to be speaking elsewhere. He was.
So I and 200 journalism students filled the Eaton lecture hall at Ryerson. His talk concentrated on the history of his involvement with MMR and was similar to this podcast.
I got someone to take a picture of me and Brian Deer. It isn't one of my better ones.
So I and 200 journalism students filled the Eaton lecture hall at Ryerson. His talk concentrated on the history of his involvement with MMR and was similar to this podcast.
I got someone to take a picture of me and Brian Deer. It isn't one of my better ones.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The Moderator is the Problem
A major update for Write it Moderate it at Huffington-Post
This is a strange story. The moderation on a blog entry on homeopathy is a stark change from that for months and months. Kwombles thought that Dana Ullman was to blame. He wasn't. I thought that Dr. Larry Malerba was to blame. He wasn't. The moderation by Huffington-Post has changed. Whether or not that change is in accordance with Huffington-Post policy is a matter of opinion.
There are a number of regular who comment on homeopathy at Huffington-Post in response to blog entries by Dana Ullman. For the last few months, there haven't been problems with moderation. Even better, comments accusing those who disagree with Dana Ullman of being shills for Big Pharma don't appear, although Dana snuck one through by spelling shill as schill.
But with the blog entry by Dr. Larry Malerba, February 8, 2011 Homeopathy College: Now You Can Get a Doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine that's changed drastically. A lot of the regulars have complained. Comments complaining about the moderation either never appeared or were removed.
Let me emphasize: The problem arose with this blog entry and this set of comments and at least six regulars have written complaining comments.
Kwombles wrote in her own blog Ullman Calls Me a Conspiracy Nut There are screen prints and an exchange with Dana Ullman where he proclaims (accurately) his innocence.
When I learned that authors were allowed to moderate their blog entries, I wrote comments blaming the change in moderation on Doctor Malerba. The rules allow one to be as rude and insulting as one likes to homeopathy --- but prohibits insults directed against Dr. Malerba. I assumed that Dr. Malerba was equating some comments regarding homeopathy as if they were comments against him. After all, the level of moderation had stayed the same for months --- all that changed was Doctor Malerba.
I had an email exchange with Huffington-Post. It turns out that Doctor Malerba had done some moderating, but it was pretty minor and I accept that it was appropriate. So it wasn't Dr. Malerba.
The moderation/censorship had been done by a Huffington-Post staff moderator.
With an email, the Huffington-Post staffer suggested that I apologize to Dr. Malerba. I wrote a comment and posted it. It did not appear. But I really didn't have anything to apologize for, as my comments regarding Dr. Malerba's moderation did not appear.
In our email exchange, the Huffington-Post staffer suggested that I let others know, so they could submit details to Huffington-Post. I wrote a comment. But it did not appear.
At that point, I gave up. But, surprisingly, there were two comments that appeared complaining of the moderation. I thought that I would now be permitted to explain the issues with moderation for this blog entry. I thought to include the full email from Huffington-Post explaining their findings --- including the suggestion that I apologize to Dr. Malerba. When I went to post the comment, it was rejected because I was replying to a deleted comment.
This is just bizarre. As I read the rules, polite and honest discussion of moderation issues is allowed when it forces itself into comments for a specific blog entry.
I think everyone would just like the level of moderation to return to what is has been before this last blog on homeopathy. You know, Dana Ullman writes a blog entry and preemptively insults those he knows are going to disagree with him. And Dana will make additional comments that certainly are ad hominem by Huffington-Post standards. And he gets criticized for them.
There are few insult or ad hominem comments directed at Dana or other homeopathic supporters. One reason, is that we are afraid of having them not appear. A second reason is that there is just no reason to insult Dana to make the argument. Homeopathy is ridiculous enough on its own.
This is a strange story. The moderation on a blog entry on homeopathy is a stark change from that for months and months. Kwombles thought that Dana Ullman was to blame. He wasn't. I thought that Dr. Larry Malerba was to blame. He wasn't. The moderation by Huffington-Post has changed. Whether or not that change is in accordance with Huffington-Post policy is a matter of opinion.
There are a number of regular who comment on homeopathy at Huffington-Post in response to blog entries by Dana Ullman. For the last few months, there haven't been problems with moderation. Even better, comments accusing those who disagree with Dana Ullman of being shills for Big Pharma don't appear, although Dana snuck one through by spelling shill as schill.
But with the blog entry by Dr. Larry Malerba, February 8, 2011 Homeopathy College: Now You Can Get a Doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine that's changed drastically. A lot of the regulars have complained. Comments complaining about the moderation either never appeared or were removed.
Let me emphasize: The problem arose with this blog entry and this set of comments and at least six regulars have written complaining comments.
Kwombles wrote in her own blog Ullman Calls Me a Conspiracy Nut There are screen prints and an exchange with Dana Ullman where he proclaims (accurately) his innocence.
When I learned that authors were allowed to moderate their blog entries, I wrote comments blaming the change in moderation on Doctor Malerba. The rules allow one to be as rude and insulting as one likes to homeopathy --- but prohibits insults directed against Dr. Malerba. I assumed that Dr. Malerba was equating some comments regarding homeopathy as if they were comments against him. After all, the level of moderation had stayed the same for months --- all that changed was Doctor Malerba.
I had an email exchange with Huffington-Post. It turns out that Doctor Malerba had done some moderating, but it was pretty minor and I accept that it was appropriate. So it wasn't Dr. Malerba.
The moderation/censorship had been done by a Huffington-Post staff moderator.
With an email, the Huffington-Post staffer suggested that I apologize to Dr. Malerba. I wrote a comment and posted it. It did not appear. But I really didn't have anything to apologize for, as my comments regarding Dr. Malerba's moderation did not appear.
In our email exchange, the Huffington-Post staffer suggested that I let others know, so they could submit details to Huffington-Post. I wrote a comment. But it did not appear.
At that point, I gave up. But, surprisingly, there were two comments that appeared complaining of the moderation. I thought that I would now be permitted to explain the issues with moderation for this blog entry. I thought to include the full email from Huffington-Post explaining their findings --- including the suggestion that I apologize to Dr. Malerba. When I went to post the comment, it was rejected because I was replying to a deleted comment.
This is just bizarre. As I read the rules, polite and honest discussion of moderation issues is allowed when it forces itself into comments for a specific blog entry.
I think everyone would just like the level of moderation to return to what is has been before this last blog on homeopathy. You know, Dana Ullman writes a blog entry and preemptively insults those he knows are going to disagree with him. And Dana will make additional comments that certainly are ad hominem by Huffington-Post standards. And he gets criticized for them.
There are few insult or ad hominem comments directed at Dana or other homeopathic supporters. One reason, is that we are afraid of having them not appear. A second reason is that there is just no reason to insult Dana to make the argument. Homeopathy is ridiculous enough on its own.
Friday, February 11, 2011
And the Moral of the Story i
Apparently, we get pleasure out of moral certainty. Bill O'Reilley gets pleasure out of being sure that he is right and everyone else gets pleasure out of knowing he is wrong.
The program explains the inquisition in terms of moral certainty.
A great show to listen to is from CBC Ideas from September 2010. And the moral of the story is. I've put the audio file up on my google docs. The url is very long, so I've shortened it. The link is http://preview.tinyurl.com/andthemoralis . The preview links to the tiny url website and shows that the link is actually to google docs.
Really, really worthwhile listening. It is morally certain that is useful to understanding vaccination opponents.
The program explains the inquisition in terms of moral certainty.
A great show to listen to is from CBC Ideas from September 2010. And the moral of the story is. I've put the audio file up on my google docs. The url is very long, so I've shortened it. The link is http://preview.tinyurl.com/andthemoralis . The preview links to the tiny url website and shows that the link is actually to google docs.
Really, really worthwhile listening. It is morally certain that is useful to understanding vaccination opponents.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Write it Moderate it at Huffington-Post
There's been a lot of censorship on a blog entry on homeopathy by Dr. Larry Malerba at Huffington-Post
Homeopathy College: Now You Can Get a Doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine
Homeopathy College: Now You Can Get a Doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine
The moderation was bizarre, because thecomments weren't rude to Dr. Malerba, but rude to homeopathy. I couldn't understand it. Then I saw the community moderator 1 badge and put two and two together and got four. So I wrote a few comments accusing Dr. Malerba of censorship. And I wrote Huff-Po.
I got back an answer that at first blush clears Dr. Larry. I even wrote an apology comment. But the response isn't as clear as it should be --- it clears Dr. Malerba as a community moderator. It doesn't clear him as an author. So I don't know.
I admit I'm astonished. I didn't think that authors had special moderation privileges over what they wrote.
Here is the response which I'm free to pass on, the email address for responses is community-support@huffingtonpost.com
That comment was sent to me for investigation.
Let me first address your accusations against docmalerba. I have checked his account, and although he has a CM1 badge, he has not flagged a comment in over 6 months, so your accusation is unfounded.
Next, there are several misconceptions you have about the privileges assigned to our Community Moderators. CMs can only take action on comments that have already been through the moderation process and have been published. They have nothing to do with the pre-moderation of comments. CM1s only have the ability to flag comments, although their flags assure that a staff moderator will review a comment they have flagged. Staff Moderators still review all flagged comments and either clear the flags or remove the comment, based on whether it meets our guidelines or not.
Blog articles - those appearing in the leftmost column of the site, and authored by one of our bloggers, as opposed to a staff writer or editor, are always fully moderated by our Staff Moderators.
Bloggers can, if they choose, moderate comments on THEIR OWN articles, but otherwise carry the same privileges as normal users. I am not aware if Ullman moderates his own comments or not, but that is his prerogative, and we usually defer to our bloggers, unless there is a compelling reason not to. A quick check of a few deleted comments on his latest article show no deletions by him - only our Staff Moderators.
I do not have the time or the resources to do a full review of every comment on the article(s) in question, but if you can provide some general information - article URL, approximate time/date the comment was submitted, text of the comment, etc. I would be more than happy to investigate. Please pass along this offer to other users that may be having problems as well.
In the meantime, I will visit the issue of moderation of homeopathy articles with our Comments Ombudsman, and see if we can get a more consistent result with comment approvals on those articles. [emphasis added, slight change to formatting]
Monday, February 7, 2011
What Murch's lawyers wrote in 2004
At the disciplinary hearings held by the UK GMC, Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch never admitted they did anything wrong.
But in the fall of 2004, it sure looks like Murch's lawyers were trying to get a deal where he would admit to some wrongdoing but it wouldn't be important to require him to face a disciplinary hearing.
For whatever reason, this never was carried through. Surprisingly, the letter was made part of the case against Murch at the GMC. Perhaps the solicitors for Murch didn't specify that the letter was without prejudice or perhaps specifying without prejudice doesn't prevent the use of a letter at a GMC disciplinary hearing.
But it sure is fascinating.
From the transcript for day 117 of the hearing starting at page 32.
Q [Ms. Smith] Ultimately, I think it is right that in August 2004 – 27 August 2004 – you did indeed receive a letter from the General Medical Council indicating that they were inquiring into the matter?
A [Professor Murch] Yes. I could not be precise about the date, but around that time, yes....
But in the fall of 2004, it sure looks like Murch's lawyers were trying to get a deal where he would admit to some wrongdoing but it wouldn't be important to require him to face a disciplinary hearing.
For whatever reason, this never was carried through. Surprisingly, the letter was made part of the case against Murch at the GMC. Perhaps the solicitors for Murch didn't specify that the letter was without prejudice or perhaps specifying without prejudice doesn't prevent the use of a letter at a GMC disciplinary hearing.
But it sure is fascinating.
From the transcript for day 117 of the hearing starting at page 32.
Q [Ms. Smith] Ultimately, I think it is right that in August 2004 – 27 August 2004 – you did indeed receive a letter from the General Medical Council indicating that they were inquiring into the matter?
A [Professor Murch] Yes. I could not be precise about the date, but around that time, yes....
Q Solicitors
were instructed in the normal way on your behalf and I think it is
right that they responded to the allegations that were being made in
a letter which in fact I can tell you, and I think there will not be
any dispute about, was dated 6 October 2004.
A Surely.
I know that a response was sent at some very early stage in the
matter.
Q That was as a result of the
instructions that you had given them, that that letter was sent?
A Yes. I was told that a response was
necessary and we drafted one, yes. Whether that is my instructions I
think is difficult to say.
Q They said in this letter:
“We
strongly submit that Dr Murch participated at the periphery of the
research leading to the publication of the 1998 article. Dr Murch
acknowledges with the benefit of hindsight that his conduct was naïve
and ill-advised. However, we submit that it cannot be said that Dr
Murch’s behaviour throughout the period of research, publication of
the article or indeed to this day raises even a question of serious
professional misconduct.”
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Am I to be censored for writing about censorship?
Over at Age of Autism we find
So I write a comment.
and we shall see what we see.
No surprise, I'm censored. If I wasn't censored, my comment would have appeared between these two.
So I write a comment.
No surprise, I'm censored. If I wasn't censored, my comment would have appeared between these two.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Wakefield's own Words - Didn't have Informed Consent
Using Wakefield's own words, he doesn't qualify for the Wakefield loyalty oath.
Over 3000 names are 'signatories' to th Wakefield loyalty oath at http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com It begins,
We declare that:
1. Dr. Wakefield is a man of honesty, integrity, courage, and proven commitment to children and the public health.
Wakefield's own evidence has him disagreeing. Because his own words demonstrate that he didn't have what he recognized he needed to have blood taken from children at a birthday party: informed consent. That's ignoring the issue of proceeding without permission he would never have gotten.
Q You have already accepted – and I do not propose to rehearse it – the Panel will remember right at the beginning of your evidence you accepted that you were completely wrong in thinking that ethics committee approval was not required.
A That is correct. As I now know, it was required.
Day 67 page 17
Source for this quote and others: Transcripts retrieved electronically from a secure directory of the GMC computer in Manchester, UKThat's an admission of error. But let us go farther. The previous Q and A is:
Q Did not that difficulty, which, as I say, appears to have been encountered by researchers other than yourself, indicate to you that there were ethical considerations about undertaking this procedure on normal children?
A Yes. The ethical considerations that I considered were clearly that there was full informed parental and child consent. As I have said, my understanding at that time was that ethics committees existed for the protection of NHS patientsIn the real world, Wakefield knew that he needed advance ethic committee approval. He also knew that he would not get such approval. Taking of blood from healthy children for research purposes is of zero benefit to the children. That makes is non-therapeutic research. Getting ethics approval for taking blood from healthy children for non-therapeutic research is extremely difficult if at all possible.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Transcripts are coming, the Transcripts are coming
The transcripts are coming, the transcripts are coming
Wakefield and those of his supporters who know the facts have a big problem: the transcripts are coming. Until now, they've been able to make up lies and get away with them. The classic is that no parents were allowed to testify at the GMC hearings. And reasons could be thought up to reject anything to the contrary and especially anything by evil Brian Deer.
And even though the BMJ articles were based on the transcripts and vetted using the transcripts, creative excuses and arguments could be used against them.
But now the actual transcripts are becoming available directly from the GMC. The transcripts can be compared with Brian Deer's writing and the BMJ articles. The transcripts can be compared with Martin Walker's fantasies. The transcripts can be compared with the lies of Andrew Wakefield. The transcripts can be compared with the lies of those pushing the vaccines are evil agenda.
You can see that Mrs. 12 did testify at the GMC. She put into evidence a document sent to her, before her son goes to the Royal Free hospital for a week of tests. by the lawyer Mr.Barr that is the document given the number 172-96 by the ethics committee.
MS SMITH: The tests that are referred to in that document, Mrs 12, the tests and investigations on pages 256 and 257, and the plan on 259 for admission for those investigations, do you recognise those as something that ultimately bear any resemblance to what your son was treated for at the Royal Free?
A Yes. day 28 page 19
Wakefield's defense is that research project 172-96 or very close to it never was carried out. The transcripts make that logically untenable. But it won't have much effect on Wakefield's true believers.
Mrs. 12 Proved that the Lancet Study was indeed 172-96
According to Martin Walker, the editors and censors at Age of Autism and the parents of the Lancet children, parents were not allowed to testify at the GMC disciplinary hearing against the three doctors.
That's not true.The mother of child 12 was called to testify by Sally Smith, QC prosecutor for the GMC. Like all of the parents, with the exception of the father of child 11, at the time of the GMC hearing, she had no problems with the doctors or the procedures her son underwent.
The testimony and documents of Mrs. 12 proved that the research project 172-96 was carried out on her child before ethical committee approval and that The Lancet paper was 172-96.
Ms. Smith opening submissions Day3 Page 3
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
TWIV Read my Letter on Virus Like Particles
The nice and very smart folks at This Week in Virology www.twiv.tv read my letter on episode 118, starting at 1 hour and six minutes in.
Here's what I asked.
Hi:
Although they aren't viruses, could you please explain how virus like
particles are created and used in vaccines like Gardasil and Cervarix?
And that are being developed for flu vaccines as explained here
http://news.discovery.com/human/vaccine-virus-particles.html
It seems somehow magical that you can build something that is
structurally a virus on the outside, but is essentially an empty
shell. And that VLPs may be better than inactivated vaccines because
you get the all of the outside of the virus rather than perhaps just
broken parts (split virion flu vaccine) or selected parts (sub unit
flu vaccine).
Thanks
Sheldon
Toronto
I liked how the answer begins. You put it perfectly
Here's what I asked.
Hi:
Although they aren't viruses, could you please explain how virus like
particles are created and used in vaccines like Gardasil and Cervarix?
And that are being developed for flu vaccines as explained here
http://news.discovery.com/human/vaccine-virus-particles.html
It seems somehow magical that you can build something that is
structurally a virus on the outside, but is essentially an empty
shell. And that VLPs may be better than inactivated vaccines because
you get the all of the outside of the virus rather than perhaps just
broken parts (split virion flu vaccine) or selected parts (sub unit
flu vaccine).
Thanks
Sheldon
Toronto
I liked how the answer begins. You put it perfectly
Wakefield and a Tissue of Lies
Tissue paper is very weak and rips and tears easily. Wakefield's story and the believability of those running the Andy Wakefield is wonderful machine have a minor problem.
They lie. They lie. They lie and lie and lie. And they allow lies to stand, even whey they aren't central to the story.
They've had the advantage of the records not being available. That's changed with the transcripts of the GMC hearing.
Except for the father of child 11 (which we just learned about) the parents have supported the procedures their kids underwent and are very satisfied with Wakefield. Ok. But they go on to say over and over and over again that they wanted to testify on behalf of their child, on behalf of Wakefield, at the GMC disciplinary hearings and that the parents were not allowed to do so. This is a minor detail.
Wakefield, or his lawyers, could have told them, that it wasn't good for Wakefield if they testified That if they did, the clever lawyers for the other side would twist their words. Probably Wakefield or the lawyers did tell them that they were not being called.. It isn't a big deal that they didn't testify.
But stating or allowing others to state that the parents were not allowed to testify is a huge problem. Because, they so obviously could have testified.
As many know, at Age of Autism, comments are moderated (censored) for content. Landscaping Wakefield's Grave by Martin Walker, MA is dated January 11, 2011. For years, including 'reporting' at the hearing, Walker has said the parent were not allowed to testify. The January 11, 2011 is just very recent.
Read the sentence again: Although the entire persecution/prosecution was based on multiple lies, the fact that the parents themselves were not permitted to testify is a statement in itself.
That's untrue. AutismGrandma might not have known it was a lie, but Martin Walker knows it is untrue. And the motley crew of big time vaccination opponents including Stagliano,Blaxhill, Handley, Kirby, Jacob Crosby and John Stone know it is a lie. And have known it is a lie for years.
Of course, Brian Deer knew it was a lie. In 2007, when the hearing started, he wrote in Families duped by sad smearmaster of MMR fabrication and hatred
To repeat, having none or only one of the parents testify at the hearing isn't that important. That the leadership of the we love Andy Wakefield movement allowed the lie to stand is huge. On a minor point, they've allowed a lie to their followers to stand. If they can betray the trust of their followers on a minor point, they may and can be lying to their followers on important issues.
Thanks to the GMC transcripts, there is public proof of the lie.
First, in the opening submissions of Sally Smith, QC, for the GMC on day 3 at page 3:
There's good reason for the lawyers not calling any of the parents to testify and for only the lawyer for Professor Walker-Smith to ask questions. Mrs.12, by herself provides lots and lots of evidence proving the allegations against the doctors.
They lie. They lie. They lie and lie and lie. And they allow lies to stand, even whey they aren't central to the story.
They've had the advantage of the records not being available. That's changed with the transcripts of the GMC hearing.
Except for the father of child 11 (which we just learned about) the parents have supported the procedures their kids underwent and are very satisfied with Wakefield. Ok. But they go on to say over and over and over again that they wanted to testify on behalf of their child, on behalf of Wakefield, at the GMC disciplinary hearings and that the parents were not allowed to do so. This is a minor detail.
Wakefield, or his lawyers, could have told them, that it wasn't good for Wakefield if they testified That if they did, the clever lawyers for the other side would twist their words. Probably Wakefield or the lawyers did tell them that they were not being called.. It isn't a big deal that they didn't testify.
But stating or allowing others to state that the parents were not allowed to testify is a huge problem. Because, they so obviously could have testified.
As many know, at Age of Autism, comments are moderated (censored) for content. Landscaping Wakefield's Grave by Martin Walker, MA is dated January 11, 2011. For years, including 'reporting' at the hearing, Walker has said the parent were not allowed to testify. The January 11, 2011 is just very recent.
Read the sentence again: Although the entire persecution/prosecution was based on multiple lies, the fact that the parents themselves were not permitted to testify is a statement in itself.
That's untrue. AutismGrandma might not have known it was a lie, but Martin Walker knows it is untrue. And the motley crew of big time vaccination opponents including Stagliano,Blaxhill, Handley, Kirby, Jacob Crosby and John Stone know it is a lie. And have known it is a lie for years.
Of course, Brian Deer knew it was a lie. In 2007, when the hearing started, he wrote in Families duped by sad smearmaster of MMR fabrication and hatred
And yet, once again - and almost unbelievably - here was another remarkable inversion of the truth. Walker had personally interfered with a GMC witness, after she concluded giving evidence to the panel. In August 2007, one of the parents of 12 children enrolled in Wakefield's research appeared for the doctors' regulator and gave critical insights into the conduct of the Royal Free project. Explaining how she had been convinced by another mother that her child with Asperger's was vaccine damaged - four years after he was vaccinated - she gave pivotal documents to the prosecution's lawyers and oral testimony on what had transpired. But the smearmaster not only approached her immediately after she left the witness chair, but later self-published two "books" explicitly premised upon what he knew to be a lie: that parents weren't allowed to take part.But that's a story by the devil incarnate, Brian Deer. And he posted it on his website, www.briandeer.com , where many vaccination opponents refuse to visit.
To repeat, having none or only one of the parents testify at the hearing isn't that important. That the leadership of the we love Andy Wakefield movement allowed the lie to stand is huge. On a minor point, they've allowed a lie to their followers to stand. If they can betray the trust of their followers on a minor point, they may and can be lying to their followers on important issues.
Thanks to the GMC transcripts, there is public proof of the lie.
First, in the opening submissions of Sally Smith, QC, for the GMC on day 3 at page 3:
The parents in this case, with the exception of the mother of child 12, to whom I am going to be referring later as “Mrs 12”, are not going to be giving evidence, and it is not part of our case that they were anything other than content with the investigations which were carried out on their children. Indeed, as you will be hearing, some of them positively encouraged those investigations to be carried out, but in the last analysis it must never be forgotten that the patient is the child.Day 28 is taken up with the testimony of Mrs. 12. For the doctors, only the lawyer for Professor Walker-Smith questions the witness.
MRS A, Affirmed,
Examined by MS SMITH
Cross-examined by MR MILLER
Re-examined by MS SMITH
questioned by THE PANEL
There's good reason for the lawyers not calling any of the parents to testify and for only the lawyer for Professor Walker-Smith to ask questions. Mrs.12, by herself provides lots and lots of evidence proving the allegations against the doctors.
Spurious Diaherrea and Conflict of Interest.
Most of the kids in Wakefield's study had gut problems. If you have bad constipation, eventually liquid will get through and you have what appears to be very bad diarrhea (spurious diaherrea) To prep for a colonoscopy, PEG, a strong safe laxative is used. . Now sold in small amounts as Miralax etc. Adults drink 4 litres and try not to throw up.. The kids much less.
The cleanedout kid isn't constipated. That's better for everyone for a while.
Constipation isn't a reason for a colonoscopy. Suspecting IBD (Crohn's or UC) is the reason for a colonoscopy. A lot of the kids were so unsuitable that despite a world renowned GI saying the procedure was needed (Walker-Smith), another eminent GI (Booth) found that they were not clinically indicated. The panel was able to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the procedures were not clinically indicated and were against the interest of the child.
The parents had doctors and others spend a lot of time listening and talkiing to them.
*Conflict of Interest. I've had Crohn's for decades. Due to other issues, I've had a bout or two of spurious diarrhea. Prepping for a colonoscopy solved that problem.
I took part in two research studies. One was a Phase III study. I got the drug. It didn't work as well and was dropped. Researchers spent a lot of time talking to me. For the other, they wanted the gut removed during surgery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
