February 11, 2010

In England there have been cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they wear the Kirpan, a ceremonial dagger. “I wear my Kirpan and I’ve always worn it for the last 35 to 40 years, even when I was sitting in court or visiting public buildings, including Buckingham Palace”. “Not allowing someone who is baptized to wear a Kirpan is not right” according to Sir Mota Singh a retired barrister. Does Sir Mota believe that baptized Christians should also be allowed to carry concealed daggers? But what would be the consequences the first time that a Sikh uses his Kirpan? If men are allowed to carry concealed weapons shouldn’t women have the same right?


spinal taps

February 11, 2010

The English General Medical Council has found Andrew Wakefield guilty of a long list of charges, including ordering inappropriate tests on a group of children. Things could get much worse for Wakefield. Indeed, it’s surprising that he hasn’t been arrested. Perhaps that’s yet to come.
But there’s an oddity in the charges that Wakefield was found guilty of. The GMC reckoned that Child 2(the son of the unemployed business executive who concocted the nonsensical MMR-Guts-Autism theory) had an inappropriate spinal tap. But later, six test cases(including Child 2) were flown across the Atlantic to have spinal taps because no hospital in England would do such an unethical job. But those spinal taps were on the order of the mad bad Justice Bell and were carried out with the knowledge of dozens of lawyers. This raises a number of questions:
Where did Child 2 receive his first spinal tap, the Royal Free Hospital? So why was the Royal Free not prepared to do spinal taps for the second group of children?
Why was not a single hospital in England prepared to do spinal taps for the second group of children? That question is especially pertinent as the second group were to be tested on the order of a judge, unlike the first group.
How was it that the second group received spinal taps without the dozens of lawyers involved protecting the children from that abuse?
Note: every hospital in England had refused to carry out the second batch of spinal taps so it would have been obvious to the lawyers and the Legal Services Commission that something very wrong was taking place. So who paid for the children to be flown across the Atlantic to get spinal taps? Was it the Legal Services Commission?

crooked lawyers

February 4, 2010

Richard Barr may have the most spectacular history of profiting from failure of any English lawyer. He claims to have qualified as a lawyer in the USA then got control of the Dawbarns firm because his father had been Senior. Barr and his old school pal barrister Augustus Ullstein got funded by a property developer to continue an action that had failed. Then Barr saw his chance of profit from the MMR vaccine that in 1992 was withdrawn because it damaged British children; that vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada before being introduced in Britain. Kirsten Limb walked into his office after working on a sugar beet farm. Barr lost interest in his wife and later Limb became Mrs Barr. In the meantime, Barr promoted the unqualified Limb as a medical expert. The British government and the pharmaceutical industry were keen to have the truth about MMR vaccines suppressed and who better to do it than Richard Barr, so he got the Group Action contract. And then he got the Gulf War contract and the Sheep Dip contract. All three cases involved the Government imposing unsafe products of the pharmaceutical industry on British citizens, and thus being liable. Barr and Augustus Ullstein QC got together with Kirsten limb and all three actions were directed away from the Government and towards destruction. They purported to represent claimants but in fact worked directly against their interests. Barr’s deceptions could cost be very damaging to Dawbarns and in 1998 Barr took the contracts to the London firm, Hodge Jones and Allen. By 1999 Barr, Ullstein and Limb had wrecked the Gulf War and Sheep Dip contracts and had set the MMR contract on a course that would make millions for the lawyers while ensuring that the damaged children would get nothing. Barr was summoned to a disciplinary hearing but instead, he took the MMR contract and his team to law firm Alexander Harris that was setting up a new office in London. Barr continued to profit from MMR litigation until 2004 when legal aid funding was stopped. By that time Alexander Harris knew that it faced negligence claims from clients and recovery of funds by the Legal Aid Board. Barr was booted out and Alexander Harris’ insurers were warned of the situation. Barr then joined the Clinical Negligence specialists, Gadsby Wicks, but when questions were asked of his activities he was shown the door. Barr returned to Dawbarns. In fact he’d never left Norfolk. He and Kirsten Limb had been working from a cottage there. Dawbarns accepted him as a sort of tenant; he was to develop a no-win-no-fee business that was supposed to be self-financing. But Barr couldn’t function without vast waste of public funds and he was ejected, again. He continues to live in Norfolk while being a sort of tenant of the London law firm, SCOMO.

It has now been revealed through the GMC hearing into the activities of the crooked Doctor, Andrew Wakefield, that children who were the clients of Richard Barr were inappropriately subjected to invasive procedures. This will lead to Wakefield being struck off. But what is to happen to Barr, the man who set up the scam? The children might have expected protection from the lawyer who had been appointed to represent them by the Legal Services Commission. But Barr and the Legal Services Commission intended nothing but a swindle of those unfortunates.

Kirsten Limb
Kirsten Limb has roamed around various law firms with swindler Richard Barr. After working at a sugar beet farm she turned up at Richard Barr’s law firm, Dawbarns, where she became a secretary and in due course got into the boss’s pants. Barr’s wife left his bed and Limb took her place. Barr started to promote Limb and described her as having an encyclopedic knowledge of science and medicine. Limb may have had a basic degree but had no medical qualification. Barr used the fraudulent claims over Limb’s qualifications as a way of making money. Limb, with no legal or medical qualification, turned up in the Royal Courts of Justice alongside the inept Dawbarns junior, Laura Tresize. In April 1998 Barr and Limb moved their operation to crooked firm, Hodge Jones and Allen. The unqualified Limb was then titled “Medical Director” and Hodge Jones and Allen charged the Legal Services Commission £198 per hour for her time. Limb is qualified for no more than £10 per hour. When Barr moved to Alexander Harris, Limb went with him and they used Andrew Wakefield to wreck the MMR litigation while swindling millions in Legal Aid. They were running the usual English lawyers’ scam – turning clients’ entitlements into lawyers’ ill-gotten gains. But the Wakefield scam was to be massive. Limb was now appearing on Alexander Harris notepaper as “Associate”, as if she was a solicitor, but at the same time she was involved in Wakefield’s phoniness and purporting to be qualified there too. When the money ran out at Alexander Harris Barr was thrown out and he joined another firm, Gadsby-Wicks. Limb co-authored with phonies Andrew Wakefield and Carol Stott an article published in Medical Veritas(sic). Wakefield had been booted out of the hospital and university where he’d worked. Stott had been booted out of university and professional body. The article purported to link measles virus from vaccines to autism, which was the basis of the massive fraud Barr and Limb had been running through court with the aid of Wakefield and Stott. The article claimed that Limb was employed by Visceral, Wakefield’s phony charity. But Visceral Chairman, Nick Lander, declined to confirm that she was employed by Visceral and would not reveal her qualifications. Limb had already written on Visceral notepaper to parents of children asking permission to retain and store the children’s medical records and test samples, including samples that had been collected without proper Ethics Committee approval. Lander and Limb’s involvement with Visceral was soon terminated. Limb was questioned about the way she’d used children in the Autism fraud but had become too ill to answer questions! She and Barr are now running a little property empire in Norfolk. See the Richard Barr entry.

Joanne Masters, aka Jo Masters, trained as a barrister but switched to being a solicitor at Dawbarns where she worked with the dodgy duo Richard Barr and Kirsten Limb on Group Actions including Sheep Dip, Gulf War and MMR. In 1998 she was a member of the team that left Dawbarns, taking the lucrative contracts to Hodge Jones and Allen. By mid-1999 Barr faced disciplinary action and the team moved the MMR contract to another firm, Alexander Harris, where the MMR Group Action that had been misdirected in a way that made it highly lucrative to the lawyers and disastrous to the damaged children. Jo Masters then disappeared and is not listed by the Bar Council or the Law Society. She may have changed her name.


January 22, 2010


Henry Hodge, founder of Hodge Jones & Allen 180 North Gower Street London, NW1 2NB

This firm is on the Legal Services Commission Multi-Party Action Panel and should be regarded as a Government stooge.

Why has the Law Society so helpful to crooked solicitors?  Henry Hodge was a Vice-President.    Thank God, he has been returned to Hell.   Hodge set up his firm, HJA, with Jones and Allen at a meeting in the Freemasons Arms!   He was a pal of Derry Irvine who went on to become Britain’s worst-ever Lord Chancellor.   When Tony Blair and Cherie Booth joined Derry Irvine’s chambers HJA gave them briefs to get them started.   Hodge and Patrick Allen were key promoters of the Blairs and invited them to settle in Islington where they met in each others’ homes designing the corrupt New Labour project.   When Labour came to power it needed funds to pay off the huge debts it had run up.  Blair made the corrupt deal with Bernie Ecclestone.   There was also embarrassment over the way people had been exposed to unsafe pharmaceuticals so Blair made a deal with Big Pharma that is described in “Labour of Love” by Janet Jones, wife of Ivor Richard, a book dealing with Ivor Richard’s period as Lord Privy Seal in the Blair Government. 16 November 1997 “…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.   

Blair needed a corrupt law firm to protect Big Pharma and needed to pay off his old Henry Hodge, Deputy Chairman of the Legal Aid Board.   The Board gave the contracts for the three embarrassing Group Actions to Hodge’s firm, Hodge Jones and Allen, despite the fact that HJA had never tendered for the contracts.   Lawyers complained and this led to an investigation by Hugh Glancy QC, but the Legal Aid Board denied that there had been an inquiry even though HJA admitted publicly that there had been an inquiry.   Glancy’s report and the minutes of the meeting were kept a secret and HJA kept the contracts and was allowed to vastly overclaim eg £198 per hour for unqualified staff.   Most of that money went into the pockets of the partners – Hodge and Allen.  It was straightforward bribery, pay-back for Hodge, a member of Labour’s “1,000 Club” of leading party donors.   Derry Irvine had made it clear that favoured lawyers would get be expected to make financial contributions to the Party.  But how was Hodge’s conflicted position to be resolved?  Derry Irvine made Hodge a judge!  And this arch-swindler of legal aid sat on the Lord Chancellor’s advisory committee on legal aid.   Hodge was then given another opportunity to help the Labour Party.   He was made President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, where he was able to enforce the secret Labour plan to enhance its electoral position by manipulating immigration.    But before Hodge became a judge, HJA set up the giant MMR-Autism scam by applying for funding from the Legal Aid Board to pursue the phony Wakefield theory.   That sent the litigation up a blind alley, ensuring that damaged children would not be compensated, that Big Pharma and the Government would be protected while corrupt lawyers would profit.    A similar job was done on the other two contracts that had been corruptly awarded to HJA, Gulf War and Sheep Dip.   It’s ironic that Blair concocted Gulf War II while Blair’s corrupt pals ensured that the victims of Gulf War I were swindled out of compensation for their injuries.   

Hodge’s links to a corrupt Government were enhanced by his wife – Margaret Hodge, who became a Labour Government Minister.  Margaret Hodge was one of the Islington mob and she became Chair of the Council but denied resources to social workers, which led to resignations.  Margaret Hodge got a job with Price Waterhouse.   But when evidence emerged of child abuse in Islington children’s homes Margaret Hodge issued denials and slandered a victim, for which she was forced to apologise.   She went on to become Children’s Minister in the Blair Government! 

Patrick Allen set up his firm with Hodge and Jones at a meeting in the Freemasons Arms!  He too played a key role in setting up the corrupt New Labour project with the Blairs.


December 4, 2009

Visceral, charity number 1081514, was set up in 2000 when Andrew Wakefield, of the Royal Free Hospital, was already in the pay of lawyers to prove that MMR vaccines caused autism. While Wakefield attacked the reputation of MMR vaccines he was “Chief Medical Scientist” for Visceral and from 2005 its “Honorary Chief Medical Scientist” having “resigned from employment” in the charity. Wakefield’s activities, partly-funded by Visceral, led to a lengthy charge sheet against him that has been the subject of a prolonged hearing by the General Medical Council Fitness to Practice Panel. That hearing will soon be concluded. The GMC’s hearing has not considered the dubious use of charities in the attack on MMR vaccines.

In 2004 the investigative journalist Brian Deer revealed Wakefield’s conflicts of interest. Following his revelations he received a stream of abusive and vulgar emails that were traced back to Carol Stott at the University of Cambridge. Stott was Wakefield’s collaborator in the attempt at showing MMR vaccines as causing autism. Stott’s bizarre conduct caused her to lose her job at the University of Cambridge and she was thrown out of her professional body. So outrageous was her behaviour that it beggars belief that she was ever employed by such a prestigious institution. Her behaviour also raises question over her suitability for work with vulnerable disturbed children. See

But Stott was subsequently funded by the Wakefield charity, Visceral. Details of the charity’s activities, beneficiaries, accounts etc can be viewed at The Charity Commission’s website –

Visceral’s most recent set of accounts, received in October 2009 for the financial year ending 31st July 2008 show a grant of £33,149 to “Carol Stott, University of Cambridge”. She had received £19,098 in 2007 and £19,145 in 2005. So after being thrown out of Cambridge University Stott was funded by the Wakefield charity, Visceral. But how was she listed as Carol Stott of the “University of Cambridge” four years after being ejected from that institution?

In addition to her funding from Visceral, Stott was employed as Senior Research Associate to Wakefield at Thoughtful House, Austin, Texas. Stott was announced as being employed at Thoughtful House as recently as October 2009 ( That makes her funding at the University of Cambridge very mysterious. How could Visceral be unaware of Stott’s employment at Thoughtful House when Wakefield, Visceral’s Honorary Chief Scientist, was also employed at Thoughtful House? Perhaps revealing Visceral funds going to Thoughtful House would have been problematic.

Visceral was receiving funds from the charity, Allergy Induced Autism, whose Chief Executive Mrs R Kessick is listed as an “advisor” to Thoughtful House, see . In a further twist, the Visceral annual report for the year ending 31st July 2007 lists Mrs Kessick as a Trustee!

So, in 2009 Andrew Wakefield is Chief Executive of Thoughtful House in Texas. Carol Stott is Senior Research Associate to Dr Wakefield and Mrs Kessick is an advisor to Thoughtful House. Mrs Kessick was CEO of Allergy Induced Autism, which funded Visceral (where Dr Wakefield is Honorary Chief Scientist and Mrs Kessick is Trustee). Visceral funded Stott “of University of Cambridge”, who is no longer there, but is in Texas at Thoughtful House!

AIA could have funded Stott directly, with Mrs Kessick “advisor” at Thoughtful House and CEO of AIA. Why did the money have to be laundered through Visceral? And why was money still being passed from Allergy Induced Autism to Visceral in 2008 when the returns of AIA (year ended 31st May 2004) recorded that the executive committee in February 2005 had decided to “discontinue the activities of the Charity”. At the same meeting it was decided that the “majority of activities and residual assets” will be taken over by “Visceral”, which was described as a charity “working the medical field closely related to the objectives of Allergy Induced Autism”. Let’s examine just how similar the objectives of the two charities really were.

The objectives for Allergy Induced Autism as listed on the Charities Register are:


The objectives of the two charities are incompatible.

Despite the decision in February 2005 to discontinue the activities of AIA it didn’t relinquish its charitable status until four years later when it was removed from the Charities Register on 27th April 2009. Even now at the end of 2009 there are sites listing AIA as a charity, eg states “AIA (Allergy Induced Autism) is a charity working with the medical aspects of autism.” and states that AIA is a “Medical research charity and support group for autistic spectrum disorders”.

What happened to donations to AIA received between February 2005, when the Committee had agreed to “discontinue the activities of the charity”, and 2009 when it was removed from the register? Were donors advised of the altered status of the charity and that the committee had already decided to pass funds to Visceral? Why did it take four years for AIA to be removed from the Register? Why having decided to cease the charity’s activities, on the basis of which charitable status had been obtained, were funds accepted without mentioning that it had been decided to donate the assets to Visceral? Visceral does not receive significant funds from the public. It has degenerated to the point where it seems to be little more than a slush fund receiving cash from Thoughtful House in order to pay Thoughtful House employees.
Why? Is the money paid to Stott via Thoughtful House by way of Visceral taxed anywhere? Is Visceral anything more than a tax-evasion device? What is the research Stott is engaged in? Is it different from her activities in Thoughtful House?
We know that Stott has been performing various non-research activities in England for Wakefield Inc, eg attending ARCH parents’ groups, running the black propaganda website Cryshame, and trying to coordinate the Martin J Walker and Clifford Miller deception operations.

Is Wakefield stupid enough to think that such a fraud would not be discovered? Well, he was stupid enough to think that his MMR=Autism fraud would not be noticed. Is Stott stupid enough to think that such a fraud would pass unnoticed? Well, she was stupid enough to think she could send obscene messages from Cambridge University without being identified.

This would not be the first time that Visceral has been unmasked as the home of dodgy researchers. In 2006 Medical Veritas published an article by Wakefield & Stott, both of Thoughtful House and Kirsten Limb, of Visceral, Bath. So who is Kirsten Limb? Nick Lander, then Chairman of Visceral, would answer no questions about Visceral or Limb and promptly resigned as Chair of Visceral. Kirsten Limb is the wife of Richard Barr. Barr is the lawyer who funded the Wakefield MMR=Autism nonsense. Limb had been working on that project since the early ‘90s. She and Barr ran the operations that wrecked the MMR, Gulf War and Organophosphate Group Litigations. She and Barr were right up there with Saddam Hussein as hazards to humans. She and Barr were booted out of various law firms until she had nowhere to go but Visceral, where she tried to get parents to give her the medical records and tissue samples of their children. What has happened to that material? What were her qualifications? The Medical Veritas article states that she has a BSc. But before hooking up with bent lawyer Richard Barr she had been working at a sugar beet farm. So, what exactly was her degree? Where and when was it awarded?

Take at a look at
How much does one get paid to run Thoughtful House?
It appears as though $270,000 per year.
The tax forms are online.
They paid the University of Washington $319,000. One might speculate this is payment for their research collaboration on vaccines with Dr. Gene Sackett. If so, it is odd that no money is paid to their other collaborator, the University of Pittsburgh.
There is also a payment of $119,000 to a group called Visceral in Bath, UK.
It strikes this reader a bit odd that Thoughtful House paid them $119,000, but they only show an income of £36,551. Perhaps it is a difference in fiscal years.
Nothing really that interesting. Just a lot of money being paid to a person who, as far as I can tell, is not licensed to actually treat children.
Then Mariette weighs in: “Am I missing something here? The Visceral accounts acknowledge receipt of funds from Thoughtful House in the financial year ending 31st July 2008 which were “reserved for expenditure on the research costs of Dr Carol Stott”. Isn’t she the “Senior Research Associate” to Dr Wakefield at Thoughtful House? Why are TH shifting funds round the globe to a UK charity (with Dr Wakefield as “Honorary Chief Medical Scientist”) who in turn reserve them for research costs of Carol Stott who is an employee of TH, the source of the funding in the first place? What’s wrong with TH just giving the money straight to Stott for her research? Confused…..I am!”

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,


Hello world!

October 29, 2009

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!