Remember that Cheerleader and the Flu Shot? Hoax!!

[Capt Rich Fla]

Can someone go put that link for thast video on Facebook? I want this to get around. This really makes me mad. She has put countless people in harms way. Man this ****es me off.

[bcl05]

I've said it before - people like this and the rest of the anti-vaccine kool-aid drinkers have blood on their hands. I have personally had 4 patients die from flu this year (2 H1N1, 2 typical flu). None were vaccinated. One was too young, but none of his older sibs nor his parents were vaccinated, despite my recommendations.

I'd like to see people like her and the guy that made up the autism-vaccine research held responsible for all the vaccine-preventable deaths. I hope they at least can't sleep at night and are plagued by guilt, but I doubt it.

Regarding this idiot chick's story, any MD with the slightest experience with neuromuscular diseases can look at the original footage and know that she didn't have dystonia. A hoax, and a bad one. It says much about the current anti-vaccine climate that it got the attention it did.

[ACW]

Kaos, I agree. Alternative medicine is :bsflag:

If there are scientific studies, then it ain't alternative.

And yeah, that vaccine-autism crap has been THOROUGHLY debunked.

[Capt Rich Fla]

I've said it before - people like this and the rest of the anti-vaccine kool-aid drinkers have blood on their hands. I have personally had 4 patients die from flu this year (2 H1N1, 2 typical flu). None were vaccinated. One was too young, but none of his older sibs nor his parents were vaccinated, despite my recommendations.

I'd like to see people like her and the guy that made up the autism-vaccine research held responsible for all the vaccine-preventable deaths. I hope they at least can't sleep at night and are plagued by guilt, but I doubt it.

Regarding this idiot chick's story, any MD with the slightest experience with neuromuscular diseases can look at the original footage and know that she didn't have dystonia. A hoax, and a bad one. It says much about the current anti-vaccine climate that it got the attention it did.

This is what I'm talking about. I have two girls in daycare and you know what kind of cesspools those palces are. This freaked my X out so bad she refused to let me vaccinate the kids. How many more people were duped by this freak. I wonder how many people she has killed with her hoax?

[Cowboy8467]

Her story is complete bull****. I can't believe that anyone still believes that she was doing anything other than making it all up after seeing that video.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/desiree_jennings_cured.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

[dockeryfan]

and just to put this out there - the guy that runs the website "Quackwatch" is a Quack himself

That guy is 100% crazy. He really just puts his opinion out there with very little to back it up at times.

[Special K]

Beyotch is CRAAAAZY

I always thought that was quite obvious. It's incredible how gullible som many people are that they can buy a load of horse**** like this.

Me too, and it kept me from getting it for my kids. She caused a national panic.:mad: She no different than the ballon family. She should be thrown in jail. I can't believe how stupid she alloed herself to look with all the jerking around. What an idiot.

You've got to be kidding me. This single "story" convinced you to NOT get yourself and your children vaccinated???

I've said it before - people like this and the rest of the anti-vaccine kool-aid drinkers have blood on their hands.

Very much agree with you here. The anti-vaccination hysteria is extremely frustrating to deal with in public health.

I even had a member of my extended family, who is pregnant with a boy, refuse to get the shot because she's afraid of the side-effects. Even after I pulled up the CDC stats with pregnant women regarding H1N1, she still wouldn't listen to me, or her OB/GYN. Oh well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as alternative medicine, I do think there are some remedies that have not been approved by insurance companies, FDA, etc. that actually CAN work. Acupuncture is one that comes to mind. However, people need to be extremely careful because the industry is loaded with quacks. But I'm not willing to completely dismiss some aspects of alternative medicine.

[Capt Rich Fla]

Keast, I have been begging my X to get them vaccinated. She gave me some BS about it all being blown out of proportion and she doesn't believe any of it. What am I supposed to do? Then something like 100,000 shots that were administered down here in Palm Beach were not even strong enough to help. She was all over that. It is going to have another run as soon as the waether changes. I'm just trying to keep them as clean as possible.

[Special K]

Keast, I have been begging my X to get them vaccinated. She gave me some BS about it all being blown out of proportion and she doesn't believe any of it. What am I supposed to do? Then something like 100,000 shots that were administered down here in Palm Beach were not even strong enough to help. She was all over that. It is going to have another run as soon as the waether changes. I'm just trying to keep them as clean as possible.

CRF, I'm so sorry to hear about the quandry you are in. It's certainly something I don't think a lot about: ex's determining the medical procedures of their children and what they do when their views are not compatible.

All I can say is that I'm really sorry In all likelihood, your kids will be just fine, but it's nice to vaccinate when possible just to have that extra assurance that they're probably better protected. Good luck with everything! And yes, making sure the kiddos wash their hands regularly...and aren't putting dirty fingers in their eyes or mouth...or a gazillion other things they do goes a long way in preventing possible infection.

[Capt Rich Fla]

The other day in the grocery store I turned around and my little one had her mouth on the handle. My legs got weak and I almost passed out. I made her take a swig of mouthwash out of the cart right away. You've seen that 20/20 episode about what chemicals are found on those handles.

[Mickalino]

:no:

um, try :yes:

http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article060.htm

Court Orders Quackbusters Barrett and Polevoy to Post $433,715.93 Bond...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Thursday, May 2nd, 2007

The "quackbuster" organization is learning a very HARD lesson about the reality of the US legal system. And, I'm very pleased.

They're learning, in the most humiliating, and financially devastating way, that US Courts don't want the system abused to harass those that the "quackbusters" don't like.

In the Barrett v. Clark case, today, an order was issued for Plaintiffs Terry Polevoy MD, and Stephen Barrett MD, to come up with a grand total of $433,715.93 in bonds - $264,311.68 for Polevoy alone, and $169,404.25 from Barret and Polevoy - within thirty days. Barrett runs the questionable website "quackwatch.com." Polevoy is kind of the Canadian low-budget copy of Barrett, with garish colors.

There are three important parts to what happened:

(1) This is not the kind of bond where some two-bit crook runs down to a bondsman and plops down ten percent of the bond, and gets someone to put up the rest of the money with his Mom's house as collateral. This is a "full bond" where Barrett and Polevoy will have to walk into the courtroom with cash, CDs, stock certificates, Trust Deeds, etc. I don't see either Polevoy or Barrett doing this. Barrett hasn't actually worked as an MD since 1993, and Polevoy runs a "pimple clinic" in a small town in Canada.

(2) The motion for this ruling was "not contested." Yup, that's right - "not contested." Now, I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the attorney in this matter for Barrett and Polevoy, one Christopher Grell, probably, at this point, has had about all he can take from those two, since, I'd guess, this case has just about cost him his career, his net worth, his office, his reputation, etc. - and he has to know that Barrett is trying to make his own deal without Grell. And, by now, he has to have figured out that Polevoy is at the bottom of the fish tank. morally and ethically.

(3) The Plaintiffs, unless the judgment specifically notes otherwise (and it doesn't) are jointly, and severally liable for the costs. Which means that, for instance, if Polevoy could manage to avoid his portion of the debt (being in Canada), Barrett and Grell would have to cough up his share of the money. And I'd bet that Polevoy will try and do just that.

The "quackbusters" have been trying, desperately, to raise money for the court actions they're involved in - both for offense and defense - and they don't seem to be doing well. One of their supporters, a magician who calls himself "The Amazing Randi," has vowed to raise money for them - but doesn't seem to be successful. In short, the "quackbusters'" pleas for money are falling on deaf ears.

Below is the Order from the Court - in it's entirety. Go ahead and laugh when you read it.

Frankly, the "quackbusters" are going to pay through the nose for this FAKE attack, abusing the US Court System. They were warned, early on, but in their sheer arrogance, and disdain for the forces of good, they elected to persist, apparently trying to grind down the Defendants with sheer nastiness, and oppressive behavior.

So why is this happening, and what does it mean?

In essence, and this may be an over-simplification, but... The threesome described above sued a bunch of people in Oakland, California, including me, Tim Bolen, in a case that, so poorly written, is hard to understand. The theory of the case, after you wend your way through the rhetoric, seemed to be that world-renowned author/scientist Hilda Regehr Clark PhD hired me, Tim Bolen, to "defame" the threesome in some strange, poorly explained, way. Allegedly, other people "Conspired to defame" these three, blah, blah, blah... Why? Click here for more info.

One of those people who allegedly "Conspired to defame" was Ilena Rosenthal, the head of the anti-silicone-breast-implant "Humantics Foundation." Ilena decided to take them on and hired the attorney, Mark Goldowitz, who originally wrote California's anti-SLAPP law (explained below) to get her out of the case, correctly. When the Judge agreed to the anti-SLAPP Motion filed, and awarded over $33,000 in attorney fees, the threesome filed an Appeal. The Appeal went all the way to the California Supreme Court where the threesome got legally horsewhipped.

Now, simply said, the threesome owes Ilena Rosenthal all of her attorney fees for the Superior Court action, the Appeal and the California Supreme Court action. And, now, that's a big pile of cash they owe her - and, of course, she wants it.

So, what is now happening is that "the threesome" will probably try to Appeal the judgment for attorney fees, hoping to try to drag the case out for three more years. Ilena's legal team asked the Court to force them to put up a bond to continue the legal fight, as the costs will continue to increase, and it is likely that one or more will file bankruptcy over this. The Court agreed. If the threesome wants to continue they're going to have to put up hard assets, right here, and right now.

California takes a dim view of SLAPP violators...

California's anti-SLAPP law, designed for just this sort of situation, worked just like it was designed. The anti-SLAPP legislation, whose full title is "anti Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation," was designed to stop Plaintiffs from filing scurrilous lawsuits against Defendants just to shut them up on a public issue, by overpowering them with litigation they cannot afford. The law provides for the Defendants, by allowing them to collect their attorney fees from the Plaintiff almost immediately upon winning a Motion to Dismiss. Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell lost their attempt to crush Defendant Rosenthal - and now they don't, or can't, pay her attorney fees as the law requires. The trio were able to forestall that original payment only because they appealed the original Judge's decision to the California Appeals Court, then to the California Supreme Court - where they were soundly, and publicly, horse-whipped.

You can read about what actually happened by clicking on the story - "Quackbusters CRUSHED by California Supreme Court..."

Rosenthal, and her attorney team, are pressing, every moment for collection - as well they should.

The case has become very personal - with Polevoy, apparently trying to frighten, and harass, Rosenthal into giving up. Polevoy, who is known to "stalk" his victims, has apparently hired private detectives to find Rosenthal's living quarters, and her business interests - and then tells Rosenthal what he now knows about her. Polevoy used this same scare tactic to destroy the radio career of Canadian radio personality Christine McFee. Polevoy, according to Rosenthal, adopted the internet identity "Vera Teasdale," and others, to harass Rosenthal - bashing her on chat rooms, etc. pretending to be a woman.

All of which just makes Rosenthal, and her legal team, even more eager to collect their money.

So, what about this "stalking" thing Polevoy does?

How do you deal with a "stalker," like Polevoy? It depends on your personality. I, personally, have legally, and publicly, notified Polevoy that his attentions in this matter are not wanted, and I've notified law enforcement of my concerns. So, if he shows up, following me, or any family member of mine around, I have every right, under California Penal Code Section (CPC) 837, to perform what is called a "Citizen's Arrest." CPC 837 reads:

837. A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

California Penal Code Section 839, 844, and 845 say:

839. Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be,after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.

845. Any person who has lawfully entered a house for the purpose of making an arrest, may break open the door or window thereof if detained therein, when necessary for the purpose of liberating himself, and an officer may do the same, when necessary for the purpose of liberating a person who, acting in his aid, lawfully entered for the purpose of making an arrest, and is detained therein.

So what does all this "Citizen's Arrest" law mean? It means that if I catch Polevoy stalking me, or any of my family, I keep a ball bat (Louisville Slugger) handy, and I'll use as much force, to restrain him, or contain him, for arrest, as I, as a reasonable man, feel is necessary, at the time.

Stay tuned...

Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate

or this

http://www.quackpo****ch.org/opinionpieces/obfuscator.htm

BARRETT THE OBFUSCATOR - BARRETT THE EXTORTIONIST(?)...

November 14, 2000

Opinion by Tim Bolen

Stephen Barrett, a de-licensed MD, operating out of his basement in Allentown, PA, took issue with my opinion piece titled “The Last Days of The Quackbusters.”

Well, sort of...

Barrett didn’t challenge ME over the piece, he challenged, and threatened, OTHERS that circulated it. I suspect Barrett is well aware he has no legal case against me, and I don’t get intimidated by the neighborhood bully. So far, Barrett has made seven (7) EXTORTION attempts of people on the internet. He has demanded from $500 to $10,000, or in his words “I will flatten you.”

If he has done this to you, contact me immediately. I am in contact with the Allentown, Pennsylvania Police Department, and the Lehigh County (Pennsylvania) District Attorney’s office (where Barrett lives). We are gathering data at this time.

Besides the money demand, Barrett is ordering the extortion victims to put a link from their website to his. Barrett wrote what he calls a “response” and has set up a place on his website for everyone to read it. I want you to read it. I’ll tell you where to look in a minute.

BUT FIRST...

To me, Barrett is the epitome of a streetcorner bully, an internet thug, who with his threats and intimidation techniques, has convinced the neighborhood that he’s invincible - or, at least, one very tough guy.

Barrett’s problem now, is that his “invincibility” is in question. Some guy named Tim Bolen (me) has, figuratively speaking, “walked up to him on his corner, in full view of the neighborhood, with a left jab, and a right cross, knocked him on his butt. The blood from his nose is getting on his shirt.”

The last thing a streetcorner bully can allow is to get “his nose bloodied in public.” For, after that, fewer, and fewer people are afraid of him. Barrett, to operate, needs to instill fear in people.

Barrett has the option to sue me in a court of law if he thinks I’ve libeled him. HE HAS NOT DONE THAT. Neither he, nor an attorney representing him, has even sent me a letter...

Instead, they send letters to other people, those they think they can intimidate, those people in the neighborhood who saw him “knocked on his butt.”

Barrett is bluffing. He knows that if he goes into the court system with me, It’ll be the end of him. Barrett is afraid of me - and rightfully so.

Rightfully so? Yes. Because I’m making people THINK about what Barrett, and company, are ACTUALLY DOING to the American public. I’m asking hard questions - questions whose time have come. Barrett, and his band of bullies, don’t want those questions asked, nor repeated.

The BIG question that I believe Barrett, and his minions fear, goes like this: “Have Americans suffered and/or died because of the “Quackbusters’” actions?”

Barrett does not want this question asked....

Ask yourself the question above. Has what Barrett, and company, done adversely affected Americans? Do the alternative treatments he, and his cronies denigrate, work? If Barrett discourages, or in some case stops, Americans from using “Alternatives” are those Americans being denied adequate health care?

The BIGGER question is this - “The alternative treatments for life threatening diseases, like cancer, have good success rates - therefore, is Barrett and company, by disparaging those treatments, causing the unnecessary deaths of Americans?"

But the BIGGEST question is “If the answer to the questions above is YES - now what do we do?"

Janet Reno, where are you?

Personally, I’m not competent to offer an opinion, or make a decision about whether Barrett, and company, are doing something illegal - but Janet Reno is. It is my job (and yours), as an American, to bring to the attention of competent authority (like Reno) what I (we?), as a reasonable man, view as a significant problem.

BARRETT THE OBFUSCATOR...

Four important points to consider when reading Barrett’s so-called “response”...

(1) In Barrett’s communications with those he threatens, he uses his title as “Board Chairman of Quackwatch.com, Inc." - not himself “Stephen Barrett,” an individual. Since my opinions were about “Stephen Barrett,” not about Quackwatch, why would he use that method?

Barrett used this non-profit vehicle to call me a liar.

I suspect he used that method to limit his personal liability should he be sued by me. Quackwatch.com is a non-profit corporation, which I suspect, has little or no assets for me to take upon winning in court (which I would). Barrett, writing, allegedly on behalf of Quackwatch.com, Inc is then writing as their agent, not as an individual. I suspect also, that Quackwatch has an insurance policy which would defend it in case of a lawsuit - at no personal cost to Stephen Barrett.

Barrett never claims, in his communications, or his “response,” that “Quackwatch.com” was harmed - only, he suggests, that he, “Stephen Barrett, the individual,” was somehow harmed.

I’m not going to sue an entity that has no assets.

(2) Barrett’s so-called “The facts” section disputes VERY LITTLE of the overall opinion piece. Consequently, since this is the sum total of Barrett’s “response” it must be assumed that Barrett admits to the validity of, and AGREES with my opinion in all other parts of the article.

(3) Barrett continues to make references to health humanitarian, and scientist, Hulda Clark - even though she wasn’t mentioned in the opinion piece - and no part of the article referred to, or was about her. Apparently, Barrett can’t resist bashing Dr. Clark every chance he gets. Barrett wants to be addressed as Dr. but he can’t allow Dr. Clark that title, even though she has earned a PhD in Cellular Physiology and is entitled to be called “Dr.”

(4) MOST IMPORTANT - Barrett LIED in his “response” about a very important point. He says he never heard of Salvatore D’Onofrio (the innocent man who was arrested as a sex criminal for using ozone therapy.) I have copies of the police reports available which prominently implicate Stephen Barrett MD in the police actions, and I have a summary of the “telephone interview of Stephen Barrett MD” by the police investigator.

Now, take your anti-nausea pill, and READ THE “RESPONSE” at www.quackwatch.com/s/a.html. Then come back here for REALITY.

REALITY CHECK...

Barrett says “A conspiracy is an agreement to perform an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. None of the people who are fighting quackery are acting illegally...”

Bolen says “let’s assume Barrett’s definition of ‘conspiracy’ is a good one. I’m not qualified to give an opinion on whether something Barrett does is ‘illegal,’ I’ll leave that up to a Federal prosecutor to evaluate.

But I am qualified to give an opinion on whether something is ‘wrongful’ or ‘subversive.’ The dictionary defines ‘wrongful’ as ‘full of or characterized by wrong; unjust or unfair,’ ‘Wrong’ is defined as ‘not in accordance with what is morally right or good, not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc.’ ‘Subversive’ is the adjective form of the word subvert. ‘Subvert’ is defined as ‘to overthrow something (established or existing), to cause the downfall ruin, or destruction of, to undermine the principles of; corrupt.’ In my opinion Barrett, and his Quackbusters, are engaging in a conspiracy to perform wrongful and subversive acts against “Alternative Medicine.”

Barrett says” Our consumer-protection activities are done as a public service and not for personal gain."

Bolen says “That’s crap. As soon as Barrett sues me I’ll get his financial records in discovery, and I’ll publish the details. In fact I intend to write a book about his activities from 1969 to the present. In the meantime, considering what I already know, I’ll stand by my statement - ‘In my opinion - the conspirators are acting in the interests of, and are being paid, directly and indirectly, by...’”

Barrett goes into a long, garbled, boring (yawn) explanation of the Chiropractors vs the AMA.

Bolen says “After reading all of Barrett’s drivel - you can see (if you don’t fall asleep in the middle) that what I said up front was a clear concise statement that was pretty much what Stevie took 500(?) words to say. I said ‘The Federal Judge ordered the AMA’s covert operation shut down - and leave the Chiropractors alone.’"

There was an error - my earlier opinion piece text should have read ‘lost the court battle to the Chiropractors in Federal court IN A CASE FILED in 1976.

Barrett says “I don’t have the AMA files...”

Bolen says “Barrett bragged to too many people about where he got his files...”

Barrett says “ This passage suggests that I made a false police report, which would be a criminal offense. I never heard of Salvatore D’Onofrio...”

Bolen says “Gotcha Stevie. Got Barrett’s name on the police reports. Got a copy of an investigator’s summary of a telephone interview with Barrett.

Caught Barrett red-handed in a very BIG LIE - right here, right now.

Barrett says “ Since I graduated from an accredited medical school, blah, blah, blah.”

Bolen says “Simply speaking, Stephen Barrett is not licensed to practice medicine anywhere in the United States, and has not been since 1993. MDs, in order to keep their licenses, have to maintain certain minimum requirements - like Continuing Medical Education. Also, a governing body keeps a licensed MD accountable for the MD’s actions, using the title of “MD.” Barrett has lost the ability to “practice” as an MD. He cannot diagnose, treat, prescribe, etc., etc., etc. That “license” makes a big, big, big, big, difference...

Furthermore, Barrett holds himself out as an expert in things “Alternative” with his criticisms, without pre-qualifying himself to his readers. He doesn’t start out to say, when he writes some article on “Alternative Medicine, “I’m no longer licensed to practice medicine, and I haven’t had ANY training in this field I’m about to write about, but...”

Barrett lets the “Stephen Barrett M.D,” logo, and the bio that describes him as a “retired Psychiatrist,” do his work for him to SOUND AUTHORITATIVE on any subject. In fact, last year Barrett was dis-qualified as an “expert witness” in a case in New York when it was discovered that although he claims to have “been a Psychiatrist for 35 years” he NEVER passed the requirements to be admitted to the Board of Psychiatry, and hence was never “Board Certified.” Hmmm?....

MDs do not rate automatic “expert” status just because they are MDs. There are official steps that must be taken (like Board Certification) to be acknowledged as an expert. As far as I know, Stephen Barrett has NO educational training in any medical specialty that might be remotely labeled “Alternative Medicine” - therefore, I do not believe he is qualified to advise, criticize, or comment on it.

NEXT STEP? I’m glad that Barrett pointed out to us that the Federal Judge, in one of the Chiropractic cases, is still alive. I’ll take good information from any source. Anybody know where I can find the plaintiffs in that old case? Maybe they’d like to share in some of the information I’m gathering about Barrett, and company’s, activities.

You know the old saying - “Tell it to the Judge.”

[JeffSchmeff]

This girl is such a faker. Karma will get her.

[Hunter_R]

There were doctors who said it wasn't distonia when she first showed up, and said it was all in her head. Looks like they were right.

[MassSkinsFan]

I'm wondering where all the vaccine-bashing ESers are now? They sure did line up to take shots (sorry for the pun) at the industry back when this was first reported.

Working for a vaccine company, I trust data - not rumor and hyperbole. I'm not sure all the data are in on this case yet, but they're looking pretty poor so far in terms of being able to prove a link between the vaccine and dystonia.

Certainly the MMR/autism situation is beginning to crystallize a bit, and it turns out our anti-hero has been found to have violated Good Clinical Practice during the study on which he based his conclusions. Also, the Lancet withdrew the article in which he suggested the link. He's going to be sanctioned by the General Medical Council in the UK, and probably lose his license.

I'm doling out crow to those of you who'd like to step up... :evilg:

[ACW]

He shouldn't just lose his license, he should be jailed :mad:

[MassSkinsFan]

He shouldn't just lose his license, he should be jailed :mad:

He still might be at some point but I don't know if the GMC has the power to do that. It might need to be something like a class action suit and it could be different under UK law.

If he made a somewhat innocent mistake, that's one thing. But if he willfully falsified data or lied about his research so that he could make the claims he made, I'd consider that criminal.

Have a look at the articles on Andrew Wakefield and see for yourselves what the UK GMC found. Here's a quick summary:

• A 2007 hearing with the General Medical Council examined charges of professional misconduct against Wakefield and two colleagues involved in the Lancet paper.[47][48] The charges included:
  
  • He was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR, and failed to disclose this in his application to the Ethical Practices Sub-Committee of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.[22]
    
  • He ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications".
    
  • Acting "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in failing to disclose how patients were recruited for the study, and that some were paid to take part.
    
  • Performing colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without proper approval and contrary to the children's clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.
    
  • Conducting the study on a basis which was not approved by the hospital's ethics committee.
    
  • Purchasing blood samples - for £5 each - from children present at his son's birthday party, as described by Wakefield himself in a videotaped public conference.
    

  [*]Wakefield denied the charges. On 27 March 2008, Wakefield began his defence in the hearing.

  [*]On 28 January 2010, the GMC ruled that Wakefield "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant",[13] acted against the interests of his patients,[13] and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his controversial research.[14] Wakefield is likely to have to wait several more months to learn of any disciplinary actions to be taken by the GMC.[50] The entire text of the findings of the GMC is available online.[22]

There is also this:

• In February 2009, The Sunday Times reported that a further investigation by the newspaper had revealed that Wakefield "changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism", citing evidence obtained by the newspaper from medical records and interviews with witnesses, and supported by evidence presented to the GMC. The newspaper went on to state that the rates of inoculation fell from 92% (very slightly below measles herd immunity) to below 80% after the publication of Wakefield's study, and that confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales have risen from 56 in 1998 to 1348 in 2008, with two child fatalities, as well as others seriously ill on ventilators
  

[Special K]

I'm wondering where all the vaccine-bashing ESers are now?

Probably in their bomb shelters.

Certainly the MMR/autism situation is beginning to crystallize a bit, and it turns out our anti-hero has been found to have violated Good Clinical Practice during the study on which he based his conclusions. Also, the Lancet withdrew the article in which he suggested the link. He's going to be sanctioned by the General Medical Council in the UK, and probably lose his license.

Wasn't the BMJ going to publish an editorial or study or something that would have slammed this researcher and Lancet had they not retracted the vaccine/autism link study? I thought I remember reading that somewhere. If so, I would love to see what the BMJ was going to publish, or maybe they have published it, not sure.

[Special K]

He shouldn't just lose his license, he should be jailed :mad:

Well, it would depend on the intent of the inaccurate research. If honest mistakes were made, then no, he should not be jailed. If he intentionally falsified data in an effort to mislead, then yes, maybe he should be jailed.

Or maybe he should have to pay retribution for all the people who chose not to vaccinate their children due to his research and suffered the consequences.

[ACW]

Well, it would depend on the intent of the inaccurate research. If honest mistakes were made, then no, he should not be jailed. If he intentionally falsified data in an effort to mislead, then yes, maybe he should be jailed.

Or maybe he should have to pay retribution for all the people who chose not to vaccinate their children due to his research and suffered the consequences.

Works for me. Hell, even civil suits should bankrupt this SOB.

[MassSkinsFan]

Well, it would depend on the intent of the inaccurate research. If honest mistakes were made, then no, he should not be jailed. If he intentionally falsified data in an effort to mislead, then yes, maybe he should be jailed.

Or maybe he should have to pay retribution for all the people who chose not to vaccinate their children due to his research and suffered the consequences.

Hmmm. It's a tough call.

Anyone who chose not to vaccinate, based on the available data, was swimming upstream anyway. Nothing really credible was presented during this whole debacle. The Lancet article said that there MIGHT be a link and that it should not be ruled out. However, it didn't present anything definitive. So, I guess my point is that you could decide to continue using vaccines that have been through several clinical trials, have sound data and are approved by regulatory agencies, or you could act on a possible connection that is not proven, just because you buy into the fear-mongering of a scientist with an agenda.

I think that anyone who chose not to vaccinate is also culpable and the real victims are the kids who missed out on the vaccines and became ill with M, M, and/or R.

[Predicto]

Nothing wrong with alternative medicine, but you need to apply the same sort of sceptical thinking to alternative medicine that to apply to anything else. If they won't do peer review, or the peer review is hostile, it should be a HUGE red flag for you. If they rely entirely on anecdotal stories and claim that the medical establishment knows the truth but is just lying to you, that should be TWO HUGE red flags for you.

And don't believe everything you read on blogs, either. The Internet is an amazing invention that it just as good at spreading lies and wishful thinking as it is at spreading true information.

[ACW]

Well-said.

Secrets "they" don't want you to know? My foot.

[Mickalino]

If they rely entirely on anecdotal stories and claim that the medical establishment knows the truth but is just lying to you, that should be TWO HUGE red flags for you.

This is what don't get.

Why is it, with the almost daily or weekly reports of corruption and scandal, in both the corporate and government sectors of our society, that people have such a difficult time believing that MAYBE there is corruption in our medical system, directly or indirectly ?

[Corcaigh]

This is what don't get.

Why is it, with the almost daily or weekly reports of corruption and scandal, in both the corporate and government sectors of our society, that people have such a difficult time believing that MAYBE there is corruption in our medical system, directly or indirectly ?

Corruption occurs with individuals or relatively small groups where there is someone in control. For what you say to be true it wouldn't involve one bureaucrat or department but require the entire worldwide medical profession comprised of wealthy, smart individuals, to be all hiding the truth.

[Predicto]

This is what don't get.

Why is it, with the almost daily or weekly reports of corruption and scandal, in both the corporate and government sectors of our society, that people have such a difficult time believing that MAYBE there is corruption in our medical system, directly or indirectly ?

Because there is a huge difference between a coverup involving a few people and a coverup involving thousands.

People fall into these conspiracy theories by backward reasoning. They ASSUME that there is a coverup and then they actively look for evidence to support their theory. They think they are being sceptical, but actually they are being more gullible than anyone else. If they really were sceptical, they would question the motives and methods of the anti-establishment people just as much as they question the motives and methods of the establishment.