 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Immunology Forum » Wakefield Responds to Sunday Times' False... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter Parry... |
 Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:39:33 -0000, "JOHN" <john at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
[quote:5f19b93c31]Not only are these more inaccurate stories with laughable claims, but
seemingly illegally quoting out-of-context confidential information from
Court disclosed medical records of injured children. In England such action
is a potential contempt of Court, punishable by fines and imprisonment.
[/quote:5f19b93c31]
Wakefield has fought for years to suppress information used in the
failed MMR Autism case in the UK such as the fact that measles virus
almost certainly wasn't found in the children investigated but was
purely a result of poor laboratory procedure by Unigenetics.
Much of the information he was trying to hide only came into the
public arena when Dr Bustin gave evidence in the US omnibus hearings
[quote:5f19b93c31]Sources
[/quote:5f19b93c31]
Ah, the famous Wakefield "sources", usually goes by the name of his
employee Stott doesn't it?
[quote:5f19b93c31]A professional journalist's impartiality is paramount. The job is reporting
news made by others, and not creating it. This Sunday Times' freelancer in
contrast made the complaints to the UK General Medical Council against
these doctors which have lead to unprecedented marathon hearings starting
with investigations the freelance was responsible for lodging over 4 years
ago in 2004.
[/quote:5f19b93c31]
So if a journalist sees a murder he mustn't, in the interests of
impartiality, report what he saw to the police?
[quote:5f19b93c31]Whilst
Andrew Wakefield was forced by the pressure of dealing with the
unprecedented lengthy marathon UK GMC proceedings to withdraw libel actions
against The Sunday Times, it is notable the other allegations have not been
published then or since.
[/quote:5f19b93c31]
Forced?
This was the case in which the Judge, Mr Justice Eady, refusing
Wakefield yet another of the many delays he introduced to muzzle
critics without ever having to face a court said:-
"The claim form was issued on 31st March but only served on 22nd June
2005. Thereafter, it seems, the particulars of claim were served with
some reluctance, following prompting by the Defendants and an order of
Master Rose on 27th July of this year. They eventually appeared on
10th August. There has thus apparently been a rather relaxed and
dilatory approach towards litigation of a kind which is supposed to
achieve vindication of reputation."
" there was a consistent pattern of using the existence of libel
proceedings, albeit stayed, as a tool for stifling further criticism
or debate."
"Again, one sees the same pattern. The Claimant wishes to use the
proceedings for tactical or public relations advantage without
revealing that they have been put on the back burner."
"There was even an attempt on the Claimant’s behalf to restrict the
Department of Health from supplying the public with such information
as it thought appropriate"
"[Wakefield] wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the
existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to
give the defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims."
" It is, after all, their client who chose to issue these proceedings
and to use them, as I have described above, as a weapon in his
attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public
issue."
Hardly the behaviour of a seeker after the truth was it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:57 am
|
|