Archive for April, 2010


April 23, 2010

Justice Bell played a major role in the great MMR swindle.    He was the appointed judge, but then announced that he would hand over the case to another judge.   So, knowing that he would not be responsible for the consequences, Bell corruptly made an order that would ensure that injustice was done and that none of the children damaged by any of the various MMR vaccines would be compensated.   How the Government, the pharmaceutical companies and their insurers must have laughed.  

Bell made an order that the entire action would be based on tests on eight children, an obvious fraud by Bell:

  1. Why was he making an order when he had already announced that he was leaving the action?
  2. The tests he ordered would involve the children being exposed to unethical tests, as shown by the GMC ruling on Wakefield and his fellow crooks.  So the tests should not have been carried out at all.
  3. Half of the test children were to be chosen by the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers!
  4. Bell did not specify what results would be regarded as +ive or –ive.   It was like an examination where there is no means of marking answers and no passmark. 
  5. Bell had decided that the central issue was autism, even though many of the children were not autistic and had quite different and well-evidenced damage.

Bell then departed and a story was put about that he had discovered a conflict of interest – a distant relative with autism.   That really is odd because he had pre-announced his departure, which means that he had been aware of the conflict of interest before issuing his order.   He should have stepped down the instant he became aware of the conflict of interest.  

But the story of the conflict of interest was probably a lie.   Bell’s maneuver was one that is familiar to pickpockets and judges.   Pickpockets ensure that they cannot be caught with the loot on their person by passing it to a collaborator.   The thief doesn’t have the loot and the man with the loot didn’t do the thieving.    Bell handed the action to a new judge who would run it according to Bell’s order.   Bell would not be on the scene when the action inevitably failed.   The failure would be on the watch of a different judge, one who had not issued the original order.

The new judge was Justice Keith, freshly arrived from Hong Kong and ignorant of the new Civil Procedure rules.   Keith was keen to be accepted by the corrupt English judiciary, the alternative would be to return to China where corruption is not as profitable.   Keith’s ignorance was such that he was guided by the lawyers when he should have been controlling them.  Keith should have looked at the order controlling the litigation and thrown it out but he chose to ensure injustice.    No wonder the action cost a staggering amount of money and not a single child was compensated.

At the end of the process, Keith had the impertinence to point out that some of the cases had not been allowed to present their evidence at all.     But the action had been managed by Keith so the perversion of the course of justice was by him.    Keith’s crocodile tears were most unconvincing.

But Keith hadn’t finished helping the Government, pharmaceutical corporations and their insurers.   The action over autism had failed and the autistic cases had been thrown out when Keith received an application for an order for the Dublin laboratory that had tested the samples of the autistic children, to open its doors to inspection by an expert appointed by the pharmaceutical companies.   There was no basis for Keith to agree to this request because:

1         The laboratory was in Eire and therefore outside Keith’s jurisdiction.

2         The relevant part of the litigation had ended.

Keith chose to do something quite bizarre.  He wrote to the Dublin court to request an order for the Dublin laboratory to open its doors to the defendants’ expert.  The Dublin court would have been deceived into thinking that this request was relevant to ongoing UK litigation.   The Dublin court issued the order and the expert, Professor Bustin, made his inspection and produced his 2004 report.    

Later, the true purpose of this farce was revealed.   The defendants in the US litigation applied to Keith for a copy of Bustin’s 2004 report, and Keith eagerly agreed to this request.   Now the reason for Keith’s letter to the Dublin court became apparent.   The US authorities wanted Bustin to inspect the Dublin laboratory but a request from them to the Dublin court would have been rejected as the laboratory was not used by the US defendants.   So Keith fabricated a reason for Bustin to inspect the laboratory.   That makes it clear that this had been a dirty conspiracy executed by Keith to supply the US authorities with material they could not obtain by legitimate means.



April 23, 2010

Why does Wakefield now try to shift blame onto Dr Thores?   Here’s a history of Thores’ involvement.

In 1998, after seeing a newspaper article, Thores contacted Jackie Fletcher, organizer of anti-MMR organization, JABS, to explain to her that the problems with Pluserix and Immravax MMR vaccines had been known before they were introduced and that the problems had nothing to do with the nonsense being peddled by Wakefield and Richard Barr.    But Jackie Fletcher was in thrall to Barr and with him set up an ambush for Dr Thores.   An appointment was made for Thores to meet Fletcher at Newcastle station, but instead he was met by the corrupt lawyer Richard Barr and his bedmate, Kirsten Limb.   Thores explained his background in MMR manufacturer SKB and in Health Departments in Canada and UK.   From 1988 onwards he had warned Kenneth Calman and David Salisbury over the dangers of Pluserix and the similar MMR, Immravax.   Pluserix had been sold in Canada as Trivarix and had immediately caused unacceptable meningitis problems and had been withdrawn.     

Thores was unhappy at being conned into a meeting with a lawyer when he was expecting to meet the parent of an MMR-damaged child.    He was also uneasy about Barr’s apparent determination to ignore evidence and to instead pursue a generalized attack on MMR vaccines.  

Another meeting was set up for Wakefield to attend with Barr and Limb on 28 February 1999.    Thores repeated his account of warning Salisbury and Calman over the dangerous nature of Pluserix and Immravax and explained how he had circulated published papers to members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.    Thores went on to explain how members of the JCVI had been worried over their personal liability as they were approving a product they knew to be defective.    According to Barr’s notes Thores claimed a representative of SmithKline Beecham had told him not to worry as “we are immunising the children and the Government is immunising us” and he took this to mean that there was a deal that had been struck between SmithKline Beecham and to the Government in relation to legal liability arising from the use of the Pluserix vaccine.   Thores referred to another deal – Pluserix was not licenced in the UK and committee members were told that its licensing procedure was rushed through on a “fast track” basis.

Thores was also bothered by the bonus payment scheme for doctors that the Government introduced in 1990 to incentivise GPs to reach vaccination targets. 

Thores told Barr that although he had signed the Official Secrets Act he was wiling to make a written statement confirming his claims. 

It is noticeable from Barr’s notes on the meeting that although he had been involved in the MMR issue for several years he couldn’t spell the names of MMR products or the names of key individuals involvedand that Barr failed to make the most basic checks of Thores between the two meetings.  

Jackie Fletcher was in a position to ensure that the litigation was soundly-based so it’s hard to understand why she ignored Thores’ warning as well as the others she received about the way in which Wakefield and Barr were exploiting the situation to the disadvantage of MMR-damaged children.   It’s also hard to understand why Jackie Fletcher absented herself from the meeting with Thores while tricking him into meeting with Barr.    This is one of a number of instances where Fletcher seems to have had far too close a relationship with the corrupt lawyer Richard Barr.       

Later, Thores was interviewed by parents of MMR-damaged children and confirmed what he had said at the meetings with Wakefield, Barr and Limb, but Thores revealed that he had refused to have anything further to do with Wakefield or Barr because he had noticed that they had a hidden agenda.   Thores confirmed that the MMR issue was based on the mumps component, not the measles component that Wakefield and Barr were using to make money.   Thores confirmed that although he was bound by the Official Secrets Act he was willing to go to court where a judge could clear him to give evidence.   He also revealed that he had retained key secret documents that were stored in his lawyer’s office in Edinburgh.

In view of the above it may seem remarkable that Wakefield and Barr did not use Thores’ expertise, but the sad fact is that Wakefield and Barr were interested only in exploiting the condition of MMR-damaged children and making as much money as possible from it.   Using Thores evidence would have made it easy to win cases but that would have yielded little profit for Barr and Wakefield.   


Dr Bill Long’s article “On Second looking into the Case Of Dr Andrew J. Wakefield” in the Autism File (Issue 31 2009) records how Rosemary Kessick in a phone call to Dr Wakefield of 19th May 1995 told the story of how her son had descended into autism after having the MMR vaccine. The Findings of Fact following an investigation by the Fitness to Practice Panel at the GMC into the conduct of Wakefield and two of his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital outline how nearly all the Lancet 12 children did not fit the inclusion criteria for the study because they had had the MMR vaccine, Ms Kessick’s son included.
Wakefield knew as far back as the 1995 phone call that Ms Kessick’s son had had the MMR vaccine and did not fit the criteria for in inclusion in the Lancet 12. How many of the others, found to have been wrongly included in the Lancet 12 because they had had the MMR vaccine, made that known beforehand? This is a clear demonstration of research fraud? Is this why Wakefield ensured that parents were not called as witnesses?