Archive for November, 2009

November 27, 2009

I’m happy to post material from any source that is prepared to stand behind its claims. Dick
From DB 25th November 2009
The MMR/MR litigation collapsed in September 2003 when the Legal Services Commission (LSC) withdrew funding following the statement by three QCs that as things stood they could not show a causal link between MMR /MR vaccines and autism. The three QCs – Augustus Ullstein, Simeon Maskrey and Jeremy Stuart-Smith had been appointed by the lawyers chosen by the LSC to represent the claimants.
The initial contracts for the litigation had been drawn up in the mid-90s and over £15m of public funding was spent supporting research to bolster the claim that MMR/MR caused autism/IBD, only to have the legal team advise that they could not make a case. Parental anger at the collapse of the children’s cases should have directed at obtaining an answer to the question of why after years of scientific research by experts, years in court and millions in public funding, the case had collapsed.
The law firm that had overseen the research then suggested that in order to have been accepted the research should have been carried out by independent scientists and should have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. One must ask why that law firm had not fulfilled its own requirements. Wakefield was not an independent scientist. He, and others involved, were deeply conflicted, not only by the money they received from the lawyers. But if that conflict invalidated the research on which the litigation was based, the whole of the public funding was wasted from the outset, and the QCs should have known it, as should the Legal Aid Board.
The waste of public money bothered Lord McColl of Dulwich when in 2008, he asked the English House of Lords to consider whether it was “an appropriate use of public money” and if there were any plans to investigate “the decision making process” whereby the MMR/MR litigation had been funded by the Legal Aid Board. He further asked the House to consider whether the over £1.5m paid to the three QC’s , Augustus Ullstein QC, Simeon Maskrey QC and Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC was an “appropriate use of public money”.
(Lord McColl of Dulwich asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they have any plans to investigate the decision-making process by which the measles, mumps and rubella and measles and rubella vaccines litigation received legal aid funding; and [HL975]
Whether the legal aid funding of the measles, mumps and rubella and measles and rubella vaccines litigation was an appropriate use of public money; and [HL977]
Whether the payment of legal aid fees in excess of £1 million in connection with the measles, mumps and rubella and measles and rubella vaccines litigation to Augustus Ullstein QC, Simeon Maskey QC and Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC was an appropriate use of public money. [HL978])
Lord McColl’s thinking on the entire matter, became clear when he asked what plans had been made to recover fees paid for the research funded by Legal Aid. He was told that there were no such plans.
Five years earlier, 1st October 2003 the LSC had issued a Press Release advising that the Funding Review Body had upheld their decision to remove the funding. In the same Press Release, Claire Dodgson, Chief Executive of the Legal Aid Board(later renamed the Legal Services Commission) said “All the research paid for by the LSC will be sent to the Medical Research Council who are investigating the causes of autism”. Lord McColl asked whether the research had been sent to the MRC and was told that despite the assurances of the Legal Services Commission this had not happened.
Lord McColl of Dulwich asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the Legal Services Commission, in accordance with its press statement of 1 October 2003, has sent to the Medical Research Council research paid for by legal aid in connection with the measles, mumps and rubella and measles and rubella vaccines litigation. [HL976]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Legal Services Commission has not sent the research in the MMR/MR vaccines litigation to the Medical Research Council (MRC). It was proposed to release the research to the MRC. However this can only be disclosed with the consent of the clients, or the solicitors acting on their behalf. I understand that such consent has not so far been forthcoming.
The explanation of why the research, paid for out of the public purse, has not been transferred to the MRC for archiving is that consent is required from either the clients in the case or their lawyers and no such consent had been received. But there is no evidence that the claimants in the action were ever asked to consent to the research to be released.
The Scottish Sunday Post of 23rd August 2009 ran a story of how the mother of one of the claimant children in the MMR litigation had struggled to obtain a copy of the 1999 report by Dr Wakefield that had been the basis for the entire litigation. She found that not only was the Medical Research Council denied access to the report but so were claimants in the litigation! Despite this, the Legal Services Commission had sent a copy of the report to the General Medical Council without the consent of the claimants or their solicitors.
The Medical Research Council is not permitted access to the research without the consent of the claimants. But the claimants themselves are not permitted access to the research! The MRC does not seem to be pressing for access to the research, perhaps because of the obvious – that the research which had cost over £15m was worthless. That is why the public and the claimants are not allowed access to that material – it would reveal the giant swindle that had been perpetrated on the public and the damaged children.
From MW, November 27 2009
Erasmus refers to “a lawyer and his girlfriend” – that would be Richard Barr and Kirsten Limb. Barr had a wife when Kirsten Limb joined his firm, Dawbarns. He divorced his wife and married Limb. But Erasmus should note that lots of lawyers were involved in the MMR litigation. Dawbarns shared the Legal Aid Board contract with Freeth Cartwright, where Paul Balen was in charge, although he seemed not to know what was going on.
Richard Barr left Dawbarns , a small firm in Norfolk, in mysterious circumstances and moved his team from to Hodge Jones and Allen in London. The MMR contract moved with him even though Hodge Jones and Allen never tendered for the contract. That’s a breach of Legal Aid Board and European Union rules. Funnily enough, the Deputy Chairman of the Legal Aid Board at the time was Henry Hodge, senior partner of Hodge Jones and Allen and husband of Blair government minister Margaret Hodge. Henry Hodge’s partner at Hodge Jones and Allen was Patrick Allen. Both were close friends of Tony Blair and Cherie Booth. Their firm had given Cherie Booth her first briefs as a barrister. They had persuaded Blair and Cherie to join them in Islington and then held strategy meetings for the development of New Labour in each others homes. Hodge, Allen, Blair and Booth were also linked through the Society of Labour Lawyers and Labour Party control of Islington Borough Council. That Council was notorious for the abuse of children in its care and for the way in which Mrs Hodge diverted inquiries into that abuse. Shockingly, she went on to be Minister for Children in the Blair Government. The diversion of the MMR contract, and other lucrative items, to Hodge Jones and Allen took place just months after Labour had come to power.
There were complaints over the way in which the Legal Aid Board had handed contracts to its Deputy Chairman’s firm and these complaints led to a hearing chaired by Hugh Glancy QC. Glancy’s report has never been published and the Legal Aid Board denied there had been a report or even an inquiry. But Patrick Allen claimed publicly that Glancy’s inquiry had concluded that Hodge had done no wrong, contradicting the Legal Aid Board’s claim that there had been no inquiry! Patrick Allen’s claim was weird because the inquiry was not into Henry Hodge’s behavior but rather into the conduct of the Legal Aid Board itself, conduct that involved breaches of its own rules and those of the European Union.
A way out of the scandal was found; Henry Hodge left Hodge Jones and Allen because he was made a judge! That involved another of the circle of cronies, Lord Irvine, who went on to appoint Hodge as Chief Immigration Adjudicator, where Hodge presided over Labour’s secret policy of boosting immigration to aid the Labour Party’s electoral chances.
John Major’s Conservative Government lost power in 1997 and was replaced by Labour which Tony Blair promised to be purer than pure and white than white. But Labour showed that it had come to power with a programme of corruption already in place. Soon after coming to power Blair reneged on a manifesto promise and made a deal over Formula One advertising gaining a massive contribution to party funds in return. But there was also a deal with the pharmaceutical industry. Ivor Richard was a Labour Party grandee and his period as Lord Privy Seal in the Blair was described by his wife, Janet Jones, in her book “Labour of Love”, published by Politicos Publishing and available from the Labour Bookshop. At the top of page 138 is a section that describes events on Sunday 16th November:
………….“Ivor has a phone call from Sigismund Sternberg. A warning. Sigismund has heard that the pharmaceutical industry is in and out of Downing Street. And the industry is giving money to New Labour. Ivor has a word with Margaret Jay.
“Yes,” she says.”
Sternberg was a significant Labour donor. Journalists were apparently aware of this arrangement and believed that Nicholas Soames was the go-between in the deal. Soames has close connections with the pharmaceutical industry, particularly the manufacturers of the tablets that were implicated in Gulf War Syndrome. Soames, is a Conservative grandee and a grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, but also a pal of Blair.
The decision to appoint Henry Hodge a judge and Chief Immigration Adjudicator was made by Blair crony Derry Irvine, then Lord Chancellor. Irvine became the subject of ridicule when he compared himself to Cardinal Wolsey, a Sixteenth Century Lord Chancellor who had died while awaiting trial for treason. But “The Independent” of 21 February 2001 contained a much more serious allegation – that he had solicited donations from lawyers whose careers he could promote. The Lord Chancellor had control over the career of barrister. The Legal Services Commission also came within his ambit and the LSC controlled the torrent of money to solicitors and was able to control which cases were funded and on what basis. In the case of MMR all of the money was directed towards proof of causation of autism thus dodging the damage known to have been caused by some MMR vaccines.
Barr and Limb were apparently working at Hodge Jones and Allen in London by April 1998. In fact they didn’t leave Norfolk, they worked from a cottage there while being on HJA’s books. By 1999 they had ensured that the entire MMR litigation was based on the gut-autism theory even though many of the claimants had no gut trouble and were not autistic. The known damaging effects of MMR were to be ignored and the litigation was to be based on a theory that had no supporting evidence and which made no sense at all. The manufacturers and the Government that had introduced unsafe vaccines were delighted as Hodge Jones and Allen had ensured that the litigation would fail. All that was left was to pay the lawyers to pervert justice. The money would come from the Legal Aid Board and much of it would end up in the coffers of Hodge Jones and Allen with its close links to Blair and Irvine.
The basis for the swindle was a report written by Wakefield and submitted to the Legal Aid Board in 1999. There is no indication that Wakefield knew the nature of the swindle that was being arranged. That report and its use by Hodge Jones and Allen is a big secret. Remarkably, when claimants’ parents asked the Legal Aid Board for sight of the report it was refused. Claimants in English Group Actions are not allowed to know the basis of the litigation they are involved in!
Barr first appointed as Counsel his old school pal – Augustus Ullstein QC. Later he was joined by Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC and Simeon Maskrey QC, and later still by Robin Oppenheim. So although money was being poured into Wakefield’s nonsense, even more was being poured into the lawyers. And all along there was no evidence.
But soon after Hodge Jones and Allen had submitted the Wakefield report as a basis for future funding Patrick Allen initiated disciplinary action against Richard Barr. The upshot was that Barr took his team and the contract to Alexander Harris, an Altrincham law firm that was opening an office in London. Again the contract moved to a firm that had not tendered for it! Strangely, the LSC was content for the litigation to remain under the control of a solicitor who had escaped disciplinary action by jumping ship. Even stranger was that Hodge Jones and Allen who had clients in the action were apparently content for Barr to continue to control the litigation.
The litigation was now heading for the rocks, directed by the Legal Services Commission’s chosen swindlers.


November 23, 2009

Dick, is that your name or a description? You give links to the ChildHealthSafety site. That site is nothing more than part of the Wakefield PR machine and is run by the Wakefield lawyer, Clifford Miller. You cite Wakefield’s research on MMR. Why doesn’t he publish the results of the clinical trial of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy? Here’s what “Oriel” had to say on the leftbrainrightbrain site:
“Could these results go some way to explaining why the clinical trial “Effects of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy on Children With Autism”, with Thoughtful House listed as “Sponsors and Collaborators” and Dr Wakefield as the “Study Director”, still has “no study results posted” more than two years after the study concluded!”

Read more:

What will Thoughtful House do when the English General Medical Council removes Wakefield’s right to practice?


Thanks for that, Jude. You’re not the only contributor on this subject. The English General Medical Council could only remove Wakefield’s right to practice in England, so he could continue to practice over here. But Erasmus questions whether the MMR-Autism theory should be attributed to Wakefield. Dick

“Please note, Andrew Wakefield was a latecomer to the MMR-Autism theory. A mother, Mrs K, an out of work business executive, concocted the notion that her son’s health had declined due to food allergy. But later she concluded that the decline in her son’s health was precipitated soon after MMR was administered and that MMR was the cause of the damage(so why had she attributed his illness to food allergy?).

A lawyer and his girl-friend were already seeking to bring legal action against MMR. The girl-friend had gained her medical expertise at a sugar-beet farm. The lawyer claimed to have qualified in the USA( but where, and in what?). He already had MMR clients, now he needed money, and the British Government was happy to pay any lawyer to misdirect a legal action against a licenced pharmaceutical. That’s how the British Government provides indemnity to certain pharmaceutical firms. The lawyer also needed a barrister, because the English legal system has a job creation scheme to fund lawyers. He picked an old school pal, a barrister, a QC(Queens Counsel or Quantum Conman?).

But the lawyer had a problem. The British MMR programme had been introduced using vaccines that had already been withdrawn in Canada for safety reasons because they caused meningitis. Litigation against those MMR vaccines for damage arising from meningitis would succeed with ease and would expose the British Government and individual civil servants to ridicule. The lawyer needed to switch attention away from the known defects of MMR and to base the litigation on bogus material. He needed a medic to come up with that bogus material – enter Dr Wakefield.

Mrs K contacted Dr Wakefield and then got a referral from a Psychiatrist to see one of Wakefield’s collaborators, who saw nothing of interest in the case but later, when the lawyer’s money was flowing, decided the case was of interest. That was followed by the mysterious linking of MMR to autism. God only knows how that linkage was ever taken seriously. Just look at the requirements of that nonsensical theory:

According to the theory, measles virus from MMR/MR vaccines lodges in the gut but this doesn’t happen with single vaccines or wild virus! Why not? The virus causes damage in the gut that is recognisable as new disease(the presence of the virus in the gut is unproven and the new disease does not exist). The gut trouble causes opioid peptides to enter the bloodstream(unproven) and to cross the blood-brain barrier(unproven). But then comes the most ridiculous suggestion of all – that the peptides in the brain don’t just cause generalised brain damage but cause specifically AUTISM. Autism has no objective marker and so would be especially useful in phoney litigation. All of the medics at the Royal Free Hospital and the University of London, plus the lawyers and the Legal Aid Board should have that as nonsense. Wakefield was “forced out” of the Royal Free Hospital in 2001, so why did the General Medical Council not look at his conduct until after Brian Deer’s articles in 2004? Wakefield should have been reported to the GMC by the management of the Royal Free and the lawyers in 2001 or earlier. Erasmus 23rd Nov


The British Government Drugs Adviser, Professor David Nutt, was sacked after publicly attacking Government drugs policy. Well, Nutt has quite a history.

On 26th January 2006, he sent a letter on University of Bristol headed notepaper, to the President of the General Medical Council, Sir Graeme Catto. Accompanying the letter, was a Journal article, Nutt said was to assist with the proposed changes to the GMC Code of Practice. Advising Catto that it addressed difficulties on matters of conflict of interest, he moved on to how the document also, in his opinion, raised serious concerns about the scientific and ethical conduct of Dr David Healy. Nutt posed the question, “I wonder is this something the GMC should be worried about”?

It appears that Nutt was trying covertly to make a serious complaint against Healy, who is a respected expert on pharmaceuticals. He became the centre of controversy concerning the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medicine and academia. Healy held the view that Prozac and SSRIs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) can lead to suicide and has been critical of the amount of ghost writing in the current scientific literature. By mid-February 2006 Healey had received a letter from the GMC advising him that “information” about him received from Dr Nutt needed to be addressed. There followed an invitation to Healy to respond to the issues raised by Nutt which would then be passed back to Nutt for further comment, then returned to Healy for his further comments. The GMC sets itself up as go-between without there being a formal compliant.

But by 23rd February, the GMC, informed Nutt of their approach to Dr Healy and that the process was preliminary to a possible Fitness To Practice Hearing (FTP). Nutt immediately wrote to the Investigation Officer at the FTP panel advising that they may have “misunderstood” his “relationship with the issues”. Now saying that he did not have “any personal knowledge” of Dr Healy’s fitness to practice or his “competence as a clinician” he was at pains to alert the GMC to the “sensitivity” of the position he now found himself in. Stressing that he was not making any “personal complaints” against Dr Healy he stated that he would prefer that his name not be mentioned in any correspondence with Healy lest he “misunderstand” and assume that he, Nutt, had “set out on a vendetta against him”.

According to Nutt, he merely sent an article to the GMC via Graeme Catto which “raised issues relating to the conduct of a clinical trial that Dr Healy had reported”! Irrespective of what Nutt was now trying to say of his intentions, two things are clear from his initial letter to Sir Graeme. Firstly, contrary to his later protestations that he had no personal knowledge of Healy’s competence as a clinician, Nutt provided Sir Graeme with his own personal take on Healy’s article and how it raised “serious concerns about the scientific and ethical conduct of Dr Healy”.

Secondly, Nutt slipped into text the fact that he made his approach to the “GMC via Sir Graeme”. His initial letter contains no indication that he wishes to make a formal application to the GMC itself.

As if to emphasise his point regarding the possible wrong doings of Dr Healy, Nutt highlights a further concern which he terms “of special note” in his original letter. There can be no mistaking his intention when he pointed to a paragraph in the Journal where it is said “that he (Healy) did not terminate study drug administration in the face of serious adverse events”. If true, that would certainly be a matter for consideration by the GMC.

But Nutt, in his u-turn now suggested that his concerns were not in respect of the conduct of Dr Healy but the fact that a journal had published such material. He argued that his approach to Sir Graeme was questioning whether or not there was scope for the involvement of the GMC where a journal has placed such material concerning the conduct of a doctor in the public domain. Did Nutt expect the journal to suppress such information? And did he expect the GMC to tackle the journal on that matter? Any such action would have been outside the GMC’s remit.

Additionally, rather than raise awareness of the fact that a Journal had placed such material in the public domain, Nutt took it on himself to provide Sir Graeme with his own interpretation of what was said in the journal. Nutt determined that the content of the Journal raises serious questions as to the conduct of Dr Healy and with only that aspect of the content of the article relayed to Catto, there can be no misinterpretation of the meaning of Nutt’s question, when he asks “I wonder is this something the GMC should be concerned about”?

In June of the previous year he had alerted Sir Graeme to an almost farcical concern as to how doctors were allowing themselves to be portrayed in the media. On this occasion and setting himself up as something of a critic and choreographer, he draws attention to a “Welsh Professor of Psychiatry” who had appeared in a recent “scientific programme”, again providing his own take on the presentation. In descriptive terms he painted the picture of the Psychiatrist “walking along the Welsh coastline looking like some modern day hero that has just risen from the sea”. It’s unclear what point Nutt was making by the over inclusion of the fact that the psychiatrist was “Welsh” and he was seen to be walking along the “Welsh” coastline. Referring to the Professor as “this particular individual” he goes on to describe how he subsequently appeared on the front of a “major broadsheet in a pose which suggested he was a physician rather than a psychiatrist with an inappropriate backdrop that served to give a less- than-evidence–based message”

Questioning whether or not the GMC had a policy to deal with doctors and the media he plays with the suggestion that one be drawn up to prevent “excesses of the sort” he had described in his letter with reference to the Welsh psychiatrist.

Whether anything came of Nutt’s concerns over the manner in which doctors are portrayed in the media is not known. But the outcome of his concern re Dr David Healy is known, however. In June 2006 Dr Healy was advised by the GMC that the results of the investigation prompted by Dr Nutt’s letter had now concluded and that the examiners had decided that no further action was required.

Copies of correspondence can be seen via this link

Deidre 23rd Nov

fresh in

November 6, 2009

These are interesting:

But there are more questions to be answered about Merck vaccines.   What, exactly, did their MMR vaccines contain and just how legal were their licenses?      If a company is found guilty of fraud should it not be broken up altogether?   What do you think?    By the same token, if civil servants allow licenses to be issued inappropriately should those civil servants not be locked up and prevented from ever working for the firms they’ve assisted?   But what about the doctors who concoct false evidence against vaccines and cause parents to panic?   Let’s hope the vaccine manufacturers sue them into bankruptcy after the General Medical Council hands down its judgment.    But perhaps the manufacturers have something to hide even though the MMR-gut-autism theory is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated in an English court.        BigPharma must have been delighted to see that nonsense being the basis for an action against them.  But why did the victims’ lawyers base the action on what was palpable nonsense?     Was it just for the money?

Let’s hear from you,