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: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=3573#ixzz0Wjl0c8d1

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 The British MMR programme had been introduced using vaccines that had already been withdrawn in Canada for safety reasons because they caused meningitis.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


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: