Did Andrew Wakefield Perpetrate an "Elaborate Fraud"?

[catbirdsteed]

http://www.naturalnews.com/028406_Coca-Cola_health.html

(NaturalNews) The American Academy of Family Physicians has come under fire for a controversial decision to partner with the Coca-Cola Company in a new public outreach campaign about the health risks of soda consumption.

"Coca-Cola, like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout, and cavities," said Walter Willett of Harvard University. "[The academy] should be a loud critic of these products and practices, but by signing with Coke their voice has almost surely been muzzled."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028406_Coca- ... z1AV932b5u

It's damned easy these days to get in bed with the wrong fellows, isn't it?

[barracuda]

It's damned easy these days to get in bed with the wrong fellows, isn't it?

I'd say you're right about that:

£500,000 payout for autistic boy left fighting for life after being used as an MMR guinea pig

An autistic boy has won a £500,000 payout after a hospital at the centre of an MMR scandal carried out an operation that was "not clinically justified".

Jack Piper, then five, was left battling for life after the procedure, which his parents claim was carried out to establish links between his condition and bowel problems.

His bowel was perforated in more than 12 places during surgery at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, North London.

At the time, the hospital was at the centre of a controversy after employee Dr Andrew Wakefield claimed that the triple measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab was linked to autism and bowel problems.

High Court papers alleged the colonoscopy procedure performed on Jack in 1998 was "not clinically indicated or justified".

They also claimed the "principal reason" for the surgery was to further research into links between autism and bowel conditions rather than Jack's clinical needs.

The documents also claimed that Jack's parents were not warned of the risks of the procedure or the "controversial and uncertain" link between autism and bowel conditions.

This meant the surgery was performed "without lawful consent" and was an "assault" on Jack.

The Royal Free Hospital insists that staff had gone through all the pros and cons with Jack's parents.

The colonoscopy was suggested by Professor Simon Murch.

He is being investigated by the General Medical Council over allegations that he carried out invasive tests including colonoscopies on 11 other children contrary to their best clinical interests.

Prof Murch, now professor of paediatrics and child health at Warwick Medical School, denies the charges.

If he is found guilty of serious professional misconduct, he could be struck off.

High Court judge David Mitchell last week approved a £482,300 cash settlement made to Jack by the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.

The hospital admitted the operation itself was negligent and gave Jack and his family a public apology.

Claims by his parents that they could not give proper consent for the operation, and that the procedure amounted to assault, were not tested in court.

The NHS hospital could end up with a bill for a further £1million, depending on Jack's future care needs.

Jack, who lived in Hertfordshire before his family moved to York, had the operation, which went "catastrophically wrong", in November 1998.

He then spent two weeks in intensive care at Great Ormond Street Hospital in Central London.

He suffered multiple organ failure, including kidney and liver problems, a swollen brain and neurological problems. He has also developed epilepsy and suffered stomach ulcers.

The botched operation "significantly increased" his dependence on others.

Now aged 14, Jack needs round-the-clock care.

But I hope you're not equating sugar water with murderous cults.

[catbirdsteed]

Coca Cola is not a murderous cult? huh.

[barracuda]

No, soft drinks aren't cults, and neither are fried chicken, ice cream, my momma's dumplings, or any of thousands of other foodstuffs which may make you unhealthy if you eat or drink too much of them. So for the purposes of this discussion, a friendly reminder: please avoid the use of Scientology materials to promote its principles. However, feel free to use Coca-Cola materials for whatever puropses seem fitting.

[catbirdsteed]

I was not referring to the soft drink itself, but to the manufacturer and distributor of such. Is that a category error there, Mr b? It is fairly obvious that most major medicine and biotech is run top down by the Ford/Rockefeller nexus and the Knights of Malta, but you don't hear me bitching about it every time this subject comes up. You may, however.

[barracuda]

That looks to be enormously fun, I must say. But at the moment, we have no posting guidelines in specific prohibition regarding affirmations of the principles of the Knights of Malta beyond the overriding "anti-fascism" rules.

[slimmouse]

That looks to be enormously fun, I must say. But at the moment, we have no posting guidelines in specific prohibition regarding affirmations of the principles of the Knights of Malta beyond the overriding "anti-fascism" rules.

Indeed we don't. All we have when it comes to suggestions such as this, are supposedly intelligent people to all intents and purposes sniggering at the very idea of a few inbred fucks pulling the collective chains of the proles.

I mean, the very idea that those who consider themselves appointees of God himself , for the best part of 2000 years, could through a number of not so secret societies such as the Knights of Malta, Pilgrims Society, Bilderburgers, Council of Foreign Relations, and any other number of such non democratic institutions control a global populus by giving them some sense of self governance via a system of "democracy" ?

How fukn stupid is that ?

Or that over and above that, these same inbreds, through their lackeys and proxies arent into population control and governance by controlling your food, your medicine, your economy and indeed your very identity.

That kind of nonsense isnt what RI is all about, is it ?

[catbirdsteed]

Admittedly, the comparison is not altogether fair, but I would venture to state that Coca Cola is responsible for numerous premature deaths in the world. Still they are gives some serious leverage in the medical industry, not just with the AAofP

http://cjonline.com/news/state/2009-11- ... _coke_deal

"The American Academy of Family Physicians has prompted outcry and lost members over its new six-figure alliance with the Coca-Cola Co. The deal will fund educational materials about soft drinks for the academy's consumer health and wellness Web site, http://www.FamilyDoctor.org.
...
"Coca-Cola, like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout, and cavities," Harvard University nutrition expert Dr. Walter Willett said in an e-mail."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola

"Bottling plant murders
Guatemala

In the 1970s, a Coca-Cola franchised bottling plant in Guatemala suffered a spate of mysterious murders of union-affiliated employees leading to the non-renewal of the bottling plant's license in 1981. "Coca-Cola found a new owner, and following repair work and construction on the plant, work resumed at the Guatemala bottling plant on March 1, 1985." [39] The Company's decisions were made after pressure from several groups, including a shareholder resolution filed in 1979.[39] The Company argued that "it had no right to interfere in labor disputes between independent parties and asserting that such an intrusion would be improper."[39]

On February 25, 2010, a new lawsuit was launched on behalf of 8 plaintiffs against The Coca-Cola Co. and Coke processing and bottling plants in Gautemala, with charges of murder, rape, and torture of union leaders and their families.[40] The plaintiffs were victims of employees associated with Industria de Café SA, or Incasa, which operates an instant coffee and Coca-Cola bottling plant in Guatemala City. The plaintiffs said Incasa “is or was previously owned by Coca-Cola.” [41]
[edit] Colombia

Panamerican Beverages (Panamco), Coca-Cola's main bottler in Latin America, has been criticized for its relationship with unions. In Colombia, it has been alleged that the bottling company hired paramilitary mercenaries to assassinate union leaders. These charges have resulted in several court cases and boycott actions against The Coca-Cola Company.

In July 2001, the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund filed suit in US court against Coca-Cola and some bottlers in Colombia on behalf of their workers.[42] This lawsuit was titled Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola. According to the plaintiffs, the companies "hired, contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces". The companies denied the charges. In April 2003 District Judge Jose E Martinez in Miami excluded The Coca-Cola Company and its Colombian unit because its bottling agreement did not give it "explicit control" over labor issues in Colombia.

In January 2004, a New York City-based fact-finding delegation, a self-initiated group that included some city officials in a personal capacity,[43] confirmed the workers' allegations. They found:

To date, there have been a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola's workers, including 9 murders. Family members of union activists have been abducted and tortured. Union members have been fired for attending union meetings. The company has pressured workers to resign their union membership and contractual rights, and fired workers who refused to do so.

Most troubling to the delegation were the persistent allegations that paramilitary violence against workers was done with the knowledge of and likely under the direction of company managers. The physical access that paramilitaries have had to Coca-Cola bottling plants is impossible without company knowledge and/or tacit approval....

The bottler and The Coca-Cola Company deny these allegations. Specifically, The Coca-Cola Company stated in its 2004 proxy[44]

Two different independent inquiries in Colombia —a judicial inquiry by a Colombian Court, and an inquiry by the Colombian Attorney General's office— examined the specific issue of whether managers at a bottling plant were complicit in the murder of a trade unionist. They found no evidence to support the allegation. Further, based on internal investigations conducted by our Company and by our bottling partners, we are confident that allegations the bottlers engaged paramilitaries to intimidate trade unionists are false.

The allegations made against us in Colombia are not merely false; they are repugnant to all of us at The Coca-Cola Company. We agree with the proponents that our Company must clearly demonstrate that we and our bottling partners support human and labor rights and oppose all forms of violence. Our desire is for Coca-Cola to be seen as part of the solution to some of the business issues in Colombia today. We are convinced our current approach will allow for that outcome.

Critics argue that, whatever their source, these assassinations seem to have been helpful to Coca-Cola in eliminating agitators from their bottling plants.

The Coca-Cola Case is a feature-length documentary by the National Film Board of Canada about the acquisations.[45]
[edit]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... in-america

Dr. William Walker, public health officer for Contra Costa County near San Francisco, likened the alliance with ads decades ago in which physicians said mild cigarettes are safe,?"

I think the real place Coca Cola become patently cult like is in their marketing. If this general notion needs explaining here, than I really AM on the wrong site.

http://www.inquisitr.com/22277/new-coca ... eps-japan/

As reprehensible as Scientology is, they are in all likelihood responsible for the destruction of fewer lives and livelihoods (And aquifers) than Coca Cola has to date. Well see what the future brings. As son as Scientology has co-opted any alternative healing venues of any value, we will only have the WHO/FDA/USDA/AMA/Cargill/Monsanto//Pfizer/GlaxoSmithKlien model to work with. Won't that be a swell world.(?)

I am looking further into the Knights of Malta/Rockefeller foundations of orthodox medicine, and the accompanying enslavement and murderous campaigns to destroy the health of all who it can touch. Oh, to complete the picture, we need at least a glimpse of how well meaning folks such as ourselves actually give these folks credit for saving lives by their complicated maneuvers of toxic medicine, which can grant a lucky few a brief reprieve from the metabolic degradations that the denatured food stream and poisoned environment have brought upon us. Caio.

[barracuda]

While I will gladly stipulate to the hateful qualities of global capitalism, I have to say I find your post above, as an attempt to somehow mitigate or obfuscate the central questions of this thread regarding the charges against Andrew Wakefield, to be nearly equal parts of both sad and ridiculous. Any further equivocation of Scientology with Coca Cola by you will remain as unnecessary to the discussion as it is revealing. Please feel free to begin a new thread on the matter, if you must.

I'd request that while on this thread you at least attempt to stay on topic, though I understand why you might rather wander off into the territory of corporate criminal activity by a sugar-water company than to actually look the realities in the face here.

Andrew Wakefield performed unethical surgical experiments upon children. Can you grasp that?

From the Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanction of Wakefield by the GMC (pdf):

With regard to nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 5,12 and 8 ) considered by the Panel, it determined that Dr Wakefield caused research to be undertaken on them without Ethics Committee approval and thus without the ethical constraints that safeguard research. Ethical constraints are there for the protection both of research subjects and for the reassurance of the public and are crucial to public trust in research medicine. It was in the context of this research project that the Panel found that Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated. This action was contrary to his representation to the Ethics Committee that all the procedures were clinically indicated. In nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 9, 5,12, 8 and 7) the Panel has found that Dr Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of each child. The Panel is profoundly concerned that Dr Wakefield repeatedly breached fundamental principles of research medicine. It concluded that his actions in this area alone were sufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct.

When presented with these charges (among numerous others):

On behalf of Dr Wakefield, no evidence has been adduced and no arguments or pleas in mitigation have been addressed to the Panel at this stage of the proceedings. In fact Mr Coonan specifically submitted:

“......we call no evidence and we make no substantive submissions on behalf of Dr Wakefield at this stage.” “...I am instructed to make no further observations in this case”.

No winesses, no defense offered. Why didn't he at least summon the children's parents who were so devoted to him and his fine work?

The Panel made findings of transgressions in many aspects of Dr Wakefield’s research. It made findings of dishonesty in regard to his writing of a scientific paper that had major implications for public health, and with regard to his subsequent representations to a scientific body and to colleagues. He was dishonest in respect of the LAB funds secured for research as well as being misleading. Furthermore he was in breach of his duty to manage finances as well as to account for funds that he did not need to the donor of those funds. In causing blood samples to be taken from children at a birthday party, he callously disregarded the pain and distress young children might suffer and behaved in a way which brought the profession into disrepute.

Honestly. Who here is defending this man?

Any serious-minded advocate against the use if vaccines for safety reasons should have distanced themselves from this individual long ago, if they wished to be considered at all. And any advocate for the ethical treatment of children should stand against the apologists for, or equivocators of, this man and his behavior.

Isn't that a fundamental part of what we do here?

[lupercal]

In causing blood samples to be taken from children at a birthday party, he callously disregarded the pain and distress young children might suffer and behaved in a way which brought the profession into disrepute.

This and some alleged failure of financial hyper-vigilance is being represented as "elaborate fraud"? How inane is that? Whatever the shortcomings of Wakefield's research they clearly don't merit the treatment he's getting, and it's not like we don't regularly see this kind of b.s. in Congress (Charlie Rangel's stationery, Tip O'Neill's stamps, or was that Tom Foley, the list of overhyped Dem infractions is endless).

Anyway Wakefield is a distraction, as is Scientology, ditto Knights of Malta (hey barracuda you didn't mention the Knights, what are you hiding), (j/k) and the real issue is much more boring, namely the frikkin' Thimerisol that's been a known neurological toxin since Eli Lilly rolled it out (with falsely represented research) in frikkin' 1931 and have been lying about, now with Merck and the rest, ever since. Now that's evil.

p.s. read it and weep, skip the notes or read 'em later:
http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/Th ... lFINAL.PDF

[barracuda]

This and some alleged failure of financial hyper-vigilance is being represented as "elaborate fraud"? How inane is that? Whatever the shortcomings of Wakefield's research they clearly don't merit the treatment he's getting, and it's not like we don't regularly see this kind of b.s. in Congress (Charlie Rangel's stationery, Tip O'Neill's stamps, or was that Tom Foley, the list of overhyped Dem infractions is endless).

Well at least I have the answer to one of my questions above. You've just equated Charlie Rangel's stationary with giving frivolous spinal taps to children. Maybe you'll harken back to that the next time you get a colonoscopy. Enjoy.

The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need, without ethical approval.

Anyway Wakefield is a distraction...

Not on this particular thread he's not, even as much as it seems some people here would rather not discuss his actions.

[lupercal]

^ Well if you want to get technical, the discussion of whether Wakefield got all his permission slips signed is also a distraction from the thread topic, which is whether or not he committed fraud. The fact that he's being raked over the coals for issues irrelevant to the findings of his research is telling.

But the larger issue, which I notice you've had a word or two to say about yourself, is whether vaccines cause autism, and yes, Wakefield and his stationery are without doubt a distraction from the fact that Eli Lilly and other pharma criminals have been knowingly poisoning infants with mercury since 1931.

[barracuda]

I think it's safe to say I won't be attending any birthday parties at your house, dude. But Wakefield's unethical treatment of children is only part of what the GMC determined and for which he offered no defense. The most violently offensive part to me, to be sure, but not the only part.

The results of the research project were written up as an early report in the
Lancet in February 1998. Dr Wakefield as a senior author undertook the
drafting of the Lancet paper and wrote its final version. The reporting in that
paper of a temporal link between gastrointestinal disease, developmental
regression and the MMR vaccination had major public health implications and
Dr Wakefield admitted that he knew it would attract intense public and media
interest. The potential implications were therefore clear to him, as
demonstrated in his correspondence with the Chief Medical Officer of Health
and reports which had already appeared in the medical press. In the
circumstances, Dr Wakefield had a clear and compelling duty to ensure that
the factual information contained in the paper was true and accurate and he
failed in this duty.

[lupercal]

Peut-être. I haven't looked at Wakefield's article in a couple of years, I'm not going to tonight, but the last time I did it struck me that the nits being picked were manufactured. Basically you can always find a reason to flunk somebody you don't like.

It strikes me now that the reason Wakefield was singled out for crucifixion is not that his findings are damaging, but that they aren't, i.e., they make an easy target that has the additional benefit of being another red herring.

p.s. puet-etre means maybe

[catbirdsteed]

http://www.healingnews.com/autism_mmr3_ ... 42010.html
This is the widely distributed letter from most of the Lancet parents, and as i recall none of them had anything to do with the original charges, subsequent charges or the GMC finding. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Certainly, you can find this letter displayed on some websites that some or any of you might actually find reputable. I do not know why Wakefield did not call these folks to the stand. Perhaps it makes-him-look bad to not have. It could be that the undersigned do appreciate not having been called by the defense. They certainly were not called by the prosecution.

" An Open Letter

To Whom It May Concern

We are writing to you as parents of the children who, because of their symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease and associated autism, were seen at the Royal Free Hospital Paediatric Gastroenterology Unit by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Simon Murch with the involvement of Dr Andrew Wakefield on the research side of their investigations. Our children became the subjects of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998. 

We know these three doctors are being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) on the basis of allegations made to them by a freelance reporter. Among the many allegations made are the suggestions that the doctors acted inappropriately regarding our children, that Dr. Wakefield ‘solicited them for research purposes’ and that our children had not been referred in the usual way by their own GPs. It is also claimed that our children were given unnecessary and invasive investigations for the purpose of research, and not in their interest.

We know this was not so. All of our children were referred to Professor Walker-Smith in the proper way in order that their severe, long-standing and distressing gastroenterological symptoms could be fully investigated and treated by the foremost paediatric gastroenterologists in the UK. Many of us had been to several other doctors in our quest to get help for our children but not until we saw Professor Walker-Smith and his colleagues were full investigations undertaken.

We were all treated with utmost professionalism and respect by all three of these doctors. Throughout our children’s care at the Royal Free Hospital we were kept fully informed about the investigations recommended and the treatment plans which evolved. All of the investigations were carried out without distress to our children, many of whom made great improvements on treatment so that for the first time in years they were finally pain free. 

We have been following the GMC hearings with distress as we, the parents, have had no opportunity to refute these allegations. For the most part we have been excluded from giving evidence to support these doctors whom we all hold in very high regard. It is for this reason we are writing to the GMC and to all concerned to be absolutely clear that the complaint that is being brought against these three caring and compassionate physicians does not in any way reflect our perception of the treatment offered to our sick children at the Royal Free. We are appalled that these doctors have been the subject of this protracted enquiry in the absence of any complaint from any parent about any of the children who were reported in the Lancet paper.

J. Ahier,
P. Aitken,
D. Hill,
R. Hill,
R. Kessick,
R. Poulter,
R. Sleat,
I. Thomas,
I. T. Thomas"

The whole Wakefield flap is INTERFERENCE. It is adding to the pervasive subversion of any reasonable discussion of the fact that a statistically significant group of parents and caretakers (some of whom are pediatricians) see very tangible and repeatable evidence of inflammatory bowel conditions in autistic children. A smaller number of parents still will attest, and have sometimes documented, the rapid decline of their kids shortly after shots. I am one of those caretakers. I guess that is the discussion that I think needs to be had. I have tried having it elsewhere on RI with mixed results. I'm not that persistent about argument, logic and discussion. I usually do better when I live as a political organism and individual spirit with the food I eat and the medicine I take, and the way I treat the people around me. Any of you may feel somewhat similarly, and still have dramatically different beliefs and actions. So it goes.

We can discuss weather Wakefield was a hack, or if he was simply propagating the compromised-ethiced, invasive, allopathic status-quo procedures on children of complicit parents, and along the way was enticed into making a lot of money. It's debatable on either point, but he probably is a wealthier man now than when he was still DR Wakefield! In spite of the professional vilification, and the public's response to it, I suspect he is more widely liked now, both nationally (US) and globally globally.You know, book deals, speaking engagements and the like I suspect, however, that the UK may not be so keen on him...

Imagine the relief of no longer being a Doctor, and still having the adoration (and dollars) of tens of thousands of "well meaning" people (and a handfull of other, current Doctors). While his (and most ALL allopathic, orthodox) technique was questionable on numerous matters and points, both physiological and economic, I have been a general supporter of AW's findings for a while. Meeting him in person much later didn't hurt either. He is one cheerful and humorous semi-celebrity! Stickdog, sorry for ruining your thread. Thanks for starting it. Carry on, All. I'll keep watching and chime in if I can stick to the subject.

PS to barracuda. The Coca Cola thing was a brief toss aside that you did up the ante on. I was countering your suggestion that Coca Cola is not a cult. On the corporate, lifestyle and mythos levels it certainly seems to fit the bill. As a pure concept, or a substance, perhaps not, just a cult item. Not that I am admitting to advocating for Scientology, or stifling an urge to do so, but since you reminded us of this: Jeff quoted "... Therefore, advocacy for Scientology, and use of Scientology materials to promote its principles, is forbidden.", I am wondering if, non-Scientology materials Can be used to advocate for allegedly or provably Scientology-associated organizations.