Monthly Archives: July 2019

Susceptibility, Is it important?

One of the most overlooked observations in homoeopathy is the relationship between infection and the ability to be infected. We colloquially refer to this as ‘the soil’ ie the susceptibility of the patient. Not every patient will get infected with a passing disease infection if their immunity prevents it.

Humanity tends to be susceptible to pandemic diseases given the fact that immunity has not built up due to the lack of exposure to similar diseases. However there is another factor involved, and that is the Miasmatic (single disease infection line).

It has been my observation, that a person with a family disease condition going back centuries or from a single infection, for example, tuberculosis, (very prevalent here in Spain from the last century) will contract disease infections that fit the tubercular picture. I have seen in patients a history of DIFFERENT disease expressions that have a root in the tubercular base.

In studying the Tubercular picture, What will be seen is many diseases that on the face of it have nothing to do with Tuberculosis, yet exist solely because of the weakness of the tubercular strain upon the system.

For example, a patient presents with ringworm. Remedies like Sepia often take care of it, yet for the resistant ringworm, or indeed the susceptibility to fungal infections, a few doses of Bacillinum will remove permanently. Not only that, I have seen patients with deep internal fungal infections resolve with Bacillinum. What does this tell us? Two things, Ringworm occurs solely on tubercular patients and secondly, the susceptibility is singularly tubercular.

So how does this work? There is the allopathic approach that kills the infection and the disease is cured, and yet homoeopathy separates the miasm (infection) with the resulting miasmatic disease (disease process).  Disease processes like Meningitis, Alopecia, types of toothache, eczema of eyelids and many more disorders are found in the tubercular picture.

It has been my experience, and now conviction that susceptibility is as important as infection. Lessen or cure the susceptibility, make the host resistant to infection and the cure takes place. Let the body deal with the dis-ease with the help of medicines that aid the immune system to facilitate the task.

I have seen this process work to such a degree that Bacillinum has cured Body Lice where external lotions have failed.

How do I use Bacillinum or the varietals of Tuberculinum? First, a close study of the different SX recorded in the provings to determine which remedy fits the picture, and then I usually give a single dose in water of 200c. I will repeat a week later and by then usually, some reaction is noted. In the case of ringworm, the reaction is quite quick. For fungal infections, it can take a few weeks to show. The fact that it cant be observed visually does not mean that it is not working… I usually repeat the remedy sporadically over a year to be sure.

I am now utilising the LM potencies to compare action and results. (GW. IHM July 2019)

Your comments are welcome.

Advertisements

International and Organized Skeptic Movement Against Homeopathy

International and Organized Skeptic Movement Against Homeopathy

By the ANH Communication Working Group.

HOMEOPATHOSIS, THE ORGANIZED PSEUDO-SCEPTIC MOVEMENT.

No one will be surprised at this point the certainty that there is an international crusade against homeopathy . Spontaneous? No, obviously not. It is not possible for the same modus operandi, the same media and institutional communication actions, as well as the same messages to be repeated over and over again and repeated in different parts of the globe for infused science.

No. Obviously it is no accident. The pseudo-skeptical movement, which embraces scientism as a new orthodox religion where everything that does not sound like a protocolized drug is considered blasphemy, has expanded as surprisingly as unnaturally.

The skeptical (or pseudo-skeptical) movement is an international, consolidated and well-financed network present in 54 countries worldwide. Its strong point is the English-speaking countries but they have found in Spain their own laboratory to try again and again different ways to approach, discredit and end complementary and / or unconventional therapies, especially with homeopathy. Until they have found the password and exported it.

But why homeopathy? Why invest so many resources, effort and money to end a therapy that does not reach 0.7% of the worldwide expenditure of OTC medicines and that is the equivalent to the pharmaceutical industry what Linux to operating systems?

Well for that. Because it is Linux and because pharmacoepidemiological studies such as EPI3, in France, conclude that patients treated by homeopathic doctors take 71% less psychotropic drugs, 46% less anti-inflammatory drugs and 57% less antibiotics, than those who only resort to conventional medicine . And all this with similar clinical results and without greater risk of complications (without loss of opportunity for the patient). Yes, they will tell us that precisely France is not a good example because the HAS has just concluded that homeopathy has not proved effective enough to justify its reimbursementbut we bring it here just because of that, because to obviate such clear and forceful results as these are proof not only of the bias of the evaluation but of the effect of the media controversy, in the words of France’s own minister of health , more typical of ‘ The Great Carnival ‘by Billy Wilder de Larra.

THE SPANISH INCUBATOR: THE FORMULA OF SUCCESS

Spain may be where the pseudo-skeptical movement has had the most activity, not only because of the variety of actions they have carried out but also because of the time they have invested.

In Spain, the reference group for the skeptical (pseudo) movement was created in the late 80s (1986) as a cultural and scientific association, whose headquarters are located in the Pamplona Planetarium. What began as a movement that sought to dismantle the UFO phenomenon, has evolved into a pressure group, with members as illustrious as the Spanish Minister of Science himself, Pedro Duque, who defend transgenics – where Monsanto , from Bayer, is king – while attacking homeopathy … paradoxical? We leave it to your assessment.

According to their statutes, their financial resources come from: membership fees, results of their activities, private donations (both private and institutional) and also accept public subsidies.

This movement logically has its spokespersons that share the functions among different associations: the Society for the Advancement of Critical Thinking (ARP), the RedUne Association (Network for Sectarian Prevention and Weakness Abuse) and APETP. Among the four associations (including Skeptics), the media and institutional cake is distributed.

As revealed by the digital platform BlastingNews in the news “ The success of the antihomeopathy movement that leads Spain ”, this organized movement has a busy media and institutional agenda that has allowed them, among other things, to influence public opinion as well as important organizations like the WTO and the Government of Pedro Sánchez itself. In this sense, in 2017, the WTO created the Observatory against Pseudoscience, having among its drivers, according to the document published by the WTO, the APETP, the ARP-SAPC and the Skeptic Circle. Just the same associations that appear as institutions that have advised the government in the Plan presented by the Ministries of Science and Health, in November 2018. Chance? No, causality.

However, the “guerrilla plan” and methodology of the pseudo-skeptical movement to corner homeopathy begins in academia . In Spain, for example, in five years, this movement has achieved that no public or private university offers training courses in this therapy. The procedure they have followed is simple:

STEP 1 . Make public and institutional pressure (something similar tried in France with the University of Lille, which suspended a training course in homeopathy but without success , since the Conference of Deans of the Faculties of Medicine and the Conference of Deans of Pharmacy wrote a statement joint in favor of training in homeopathy with an “objective approach” ).

STEP 2. Take the next leap, to professional institutions and societies. The method is the same as the previous one but, in addition, public opinion and the media come into play here. An example of this is the open letter to Maria Luisa Carcedo, current minister of health in functions, promoted by the four “skeptical” associations mentioned above and signed by some 400 health professionals against pseudotherapies and which erroneously included Homeopathy

We insist that “they erroneously included homeopathy as pseudotherapy” because this therapy is a medical , legal, social and scientific reality , which is also not in the list of 73 pseudotherapies presented by the Government in February 2019. And again we insist wrong to label pseudotherapy homeopathy, because after that open letter came another signed by 600 health professionals who claimed their right to prescribe or recommend homeopathic medicines in freedom and without pressure .

STEP 3. Once enough media controversy has been generated, the assault on the respective governments – local, regional and national – is a piece of cake.

Three simple steps that have been repeated in France : first the University of Lille, then a rostrum against complementary therapies signed by 124 doctors in a national media, then a similar report from the Scientific Council of the Academies of European Sciences (EASAC) against homeopathy, more media pressure , the French minister asking for a report from the HAS and the subsequent decision of the Commission with dyes of little rigor and impartiality .

OTHER EUROPEAN EXAMPLES

And history repeats itself … Now it’s Germany . Since it is fashionable, the president of the association that brings together doctors from Germany’s public health care (KBV), Andreas Gassen, has told the media that medical insurance should not cover homeopathic services to his patients. Strange question now brought to the debate when a little over half a year ago the president of the German WTO, Dr. Frank Ulrich Montgomery said that homeopathy is a complementary medicine that helps many people .

It seems that there is always someone who insists on igniting and maintaining a non-existent debate. It would be funny if it were not because it endangers the health and well-being of patients as well as their free right to choose the best treatment that suits their needs. The German case is paradigmatic since German insurers reimburse the cost of homeopathic medicine not because it is mandatory but because patients so demand it.

In Sweden , in 2011, several scientists and a nationally renowned astronaut (does that sound like it?) Contributed to the media controversy by carrying out sanitary irresponsibility as a public suicide with an overdose of a homeopathic medicine. This resource has also been used in Spain by several representatives of pseudo-skepticism, especially in social networks, with the sole objective of getting an audience.

Switzerland , on the other hand, is the most representative case in the lost art of doing things right. As in the previous examples, in 2011, the controversy led the Swiss Government to commission an exhaustive report on homeopathy that, today, represents the most complete evaluation of Homeopathic Medicine that a Government has published to date.

The Swiss Report concludes that homeopathic treatment is effective, safe and cost-effective, and that it should be included in that country’s national health program. In addition, approximately half of the population of Switzerland uses complementary and alternative medicine treatments and values ​​them positively. At older, approximately half of Swiss doctors consider complementary and alternative treatments effective. Although perhaps the most outstanding fact is that 85% of the Swiss population prefers therapies of this type and also choose that they are part of their national health program. At present, homeopathy is included in the Swiss national health system by popular referendum. In this case, fortunately RIGOR and OBJECTIVITY were imposed  The interests of the pseudo-skeptics and their plan of harassment of homeopathy were frog.

However, Europe is not its only objective. Since the skeptical lobby is international, it is not surprising that similar requests have landed, and almost simultaneously, in letter format, in the respective ministries of health of Peru and Mexico .

History repeats itself. And sadly everything presumes that it will be repeated in other American and European countries: talking about homeopathy is in fashion, and it seems that going against it even more: it makes you look fun among colleagues, it leads you to be trending topic on the Internet, it gets you a lot of likes and retuits. The medicine was never so frivolous. He never trivialized so much with the health of the patients. The professionals have never been so cynical; those who a few years ago were trained in therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy, today are dedicated to give talks and participate in debates attacking furiously these same therapies.

There is no doubt that the consequence of all this is the erosion, erosion and unreal transformation of what is homeopathy among public opinion. We suffer from “homeopatosis”. And against this, the antidote is simple: professionalism and truthful information without prejudice. An example of a trusted health website to be recommended by everyone is Suma Homeopathy .

In short, defending homeopathy today has become, purely and simply, a matter of freedom. Because like homeopathy, in health we all add up, and that is why both professionals and patients should unite for a More Human Medicine.

New Register member.

helmuthTrained with Dr Guillermo Zamora, and added knowledge of Hahnemannian techniques using the logic of boenninghausen to his skill set.

Welcome.

https://instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.wordpress.com/helmuth-harold-medina-bolano/

Germany makes measles vaccination compulsory for children

 

news@thelocal.de
@thelocalgermany

17 July 2019
12:55 CEST+02:0

 

Photo: DPA

Germany’s federal cabinet has passed a new law for a compulsory measles vaccination, which could see parents fined if they violate it.

From March 2020, parents will have to prove that their children have been vaccinated before they can be admitted to a kita or school.

The vaccination obligation also applies to childminders and staff in day-care centers, schools, medical facilities, and communal facilities such as refugee shelters.

Children will only be admitted to kindergarten or school if they have had the jabs and violations can result in fines of up to €2,500.

“We want to protect as many children as possible from measles infection,” said Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) on Wednesday. He added he is aiming for a 95 percent vaccination rate.

Children and staff who are already in a nursery, school or community centres when the law comes into force next March must prove that they have been vaccinated by July 31st, 2021 at the latest.

The ‘Kinderuntersuchungsheft’, or a special booklet to show if a child has received a vaccination. Photo: DPA

The proof can can come from a vaccination certificate, a ‘Kinderuntersuchungsheft’, a special booklet parents fill out documenting their child’s vaccines, or by a medical certificate that shows that the child has already had measles.

 

Growing numbers

The compulsory vaccination is being introduced in Germany in response to a worldwide increase in measles disease. In Europe alone, cases were up by 350 percent last year.

In Germany last year, 543 cases were reported. In the first months of this year, already more than 400 cases have been reported.

Last year, 350,000 cases of measles were reported worldwide, more than double the number for 2017.

And they increased fourfold globally in the first quarter of 2019 compared to the same period last year, according to WHO.

A heated topic

In Germany and abroad, the topic of vaccination has become increasingly controversial in recent years.

Germany’s paediatricians’ association has long demanded mandatory childhood vaccinations against measles and a range of other diseases.

The resurgence of the disease in some countries has been blamed on the so-called “anti-vax” movement, which is largely based on a 1998 publication linking the measles vaccine and autism that has since been debunked.

In response, the German government drafted the law making measles vaccination compulsory for all children.

After the cabinet, the Bundestag still has to give its approval. According to the Ministry of Health, no approval is required in the Bundesrat, the upper house of German Parliament.

The new legislation received widespead support, although was criticized by the Greens, who felt the vaccines should be encouraged but not mandatory.

The Real Story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and MMR (by Mary Holland, JD)

The Real Story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and MMR (by Mary Holland, JD)

A Thorough Analysis of the Case Against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by Mary Holland, JD

Mary Holland is a research scholar at NYU School of Law. She has written and edited books and articles on human rights and law. She has clerked for a federal judge, worked at the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and at prominent U.S. law firms. She graduated from Harvard College and holds graduate degrees from Columbia University. She is a co-founder and board member of the Center for Personal Rights.

Introduction

If you’ve heard Dr. Wakefield’s name — and you probably have — you’ve heard two tales. You’ve heard that Dr. Wakefield is a charlatan, an unethical researcher, and a huckster who was “erased” from the British medical registry and whose 1998 article on autism and gastrointestinal disease was “retracted” by a leading medical journal. You’ve also heard a very different story, that Dr. Wakefield is a brilliant and courageous scientist, a compassionate physician beloved by his patients, and a champion for families with autism and vaccine injury. What’s the truth?

Who is Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

Dr. Wakefield graduated from St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School of the University of London in 1981; he was one in the fourth generation of his family to study medicine at that teaching hospital. He pursued a career in gastrointestinal surgery with a specialty in inflammatory bowel disease. He became a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1985 and was accepted into the Royal College of Pathologists in 2001. He held academic positions at the Royal Free Hospital and has published over 140 original scientific articles, book chapters, and invited scientific commentaries.

Background on The Controversy

In the early 1990s, Dr. Wakefield began to study a possible link between the measles virus and bowel disease. He published a 1993 study, “Evidence of persistent measles virus infection in Crohn’s disease” and co-authored a 1995 article published in The Lancet, “Is measles vaccine a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease?” At roughly the same time, Dr. Wakefield wrote an unpublished 250-page manuscript reviewing the available scientific literature on the safety of measles vaccines. He was rapidly emerging as one of the world’s experts on measles vaccination.

In 1996, an attorney, Solicitor Barr of the law firm Dawbarns, contacted Dr. Wakefield to ask if he would serve as an expert in a legal case on behalf of children injured by vaccines containing the measles virus. The lawyer was bringing the suit on behalf of parents who alleged that vaccines had caused their children’s disabilities, including autism. Six months before this, and independent of the litigation effort, parents of children with autism and severe gastrointestinal symptoms began contacting Dr. Wakefield because of his publications on the measles vaccine, asking for help for their children’s pain and suffering, which they believed was vaccine-induced. Dr. Wakefield made two major, but separate, decisions at about this time — to try to help the families dealing with autism and gastrointestinal problems, and to become an expert in the legal case regarding vaccines and autism.

Barr asked Dr. Wakefield to study two questions:

(1) whether measles could persist after measles infection or the receipt of the MMR vaccine; and

(2) whether the measles virus could lead to complications, such as Crohn’s disease or autism.

Due to bureaucratic delays at his hospital, however, Dr. Wakefield did not begin this litigation-related study until October 1997. By July 1997, Dr. Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, had already examined the “Lancet 12” — twelve patients with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms that were the basis for the case study in the 1998 article published in The Lancet. Dr. Wakefield and others had recommended the referral of these patients to Prof. Walker-Smith, an eminent physician described by his peers as one of the world’s leading pediatric gastroenterologists.

Prof. WalkerSmith had recently moved to St. Mary’s Hospital from a different institution and brought with him the same clinical privileges and ethical clearances that he enjoyed at his previous hospital. He, a colleague, Dr. Simon Murch, and a team of other physicians, did extensive clinical workups on these sick children that Prof. Walker-Smith deemed “clinically indicated,” while Dr. Wakefield coordinated a detailed research review of the tissues obtained at biopsy. The clinical tests included colonoscopies, MRI scans, and lumbar punctures to assess mitochondrial disorders. “Clinically indicated studies” did not require permissions from The Royal Free Hospital ethics committee because the tests were required for the benefit of the individual patients. Dr. Wakefield’s research was covered by an appropriate ethical approval.

In 1998, to announce the publication of The Lancet article coauthored by Dr. Wakefield and twelve other scientists, the dean of St. Mary’s Medical School called a press conference. While this was not standard practice, the dean presumably was seeking to enhance the school’s visibility in cutting-edge research. The article was labeled in the medical journal as an “early report,” stating that it “did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.”

At the press conference, Dr. Wakefield was asked about the safety of the MMR vaccine. In 1992, two different combination MMR vaccines had been withdrawn from the U.K. marketplace because they were unsafe, so MMR vaccination was already a hot topic before The Lancet article was published. Dr. Wakefield responded that, given the paucity of combination MMR vaccine safety research, and until further safety studies were done, the vaccines should be separated into their component parts. He had previously informed his colleagues that this was his view and that he would express it if asked.

The 1998 press conference set off a media firestorm, with large numbers of parents raising uncomfortable questions about the safety of the “triple jab” and requesting single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines. In the midst of the controversy, in August 1998, the British government took an extraordinary step. It made separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine components unavailable, thereby forcing the hand of concerned parents. At that point, measles vaccination rates among children in the United Kingdom fell significantly. Measles disease outbreaks became more prevalent and included a handful of cases of serious complications and deaths. Some sought to blame Dr. Wakefield for irresponsibly scaring parents and triggering a public health crisis. The British government had a big problem on its hands — one that would soon make its way to the United States.

The controversy surrounding Dr. Wakefield simmered. In February 2004, it reached a boiling point when Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, held a news conference to declare that the 1998 article was “fatally flawed” because Dr. Wakefield had failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest with the litigation-related study he conducted. British reporter Brian Deer published the story in the Sunday Times, detailing alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest. Immediately following publication, Mr. Deer sent a detailed letter to the British General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates the practice of medicine. The GMC then initiated proceedings against Dr. Wakefield that culminated in Dr. Wakefield’s delicensure in May 2010 and the retraction of the 1998 article from The Lancet.

The Allegations against Dr. Wakefield

The highly publicized, multi-year, multi-million dollar prosecution against Dr. Wakefield alleged that:

•Dr. Wakefield was paid 55,000 British pound sterling (about US $90,000) by litigators for the study published in The Lancet, and he failed to disclose this conflict of interest;

•He and his colleagues performed medically unnecessary tests on the children in the 1998 study and lacked appropriate ethical clearances;

•The children in the 1998 study were selected for litigation purposes (as described in the Sunday Times article) and not referred by local physicians; and

•He drew blood from children at his son’s birthday party for control samples in the 1998 study with callous disregard for the distress that this might cause children.

Based on its findings, the GMC concluded that Dr. Wakefield had engaged in “serious professional misconduct,” and “dishonest,” “misleading,” and “irresponsible” behavior, warranting the sanction of his removal from the medical profession.

Let’s examine the GMC’s charges and the evidence.

Failure to Disclose Payment from Litigators

Dr. Wakefield accepted 55,000 pounds to conduct a study for the class action suit regarding vaccines and autism. This was a research grant from which Dr. Wakefield personally received no compensation. Dr. Wakefield did not start this study until after the case series for the Lancet 12 had been submitted. Legal documents prove that Dr. Wakefield’s hospital knew about this study and knew about the amount of money he received, most of which went to pay the salary of a designated laboratory technician. Documents further demonstrate that Dr. Wakefield disclosed in a national newspaper over one year before publication of the 1998 article that he was working with the litigators. Dr. Horton, editor of The Lancet, had been informed and should have been well aware of Dr. Wakefield’s role in the vaccine-related litigation before the publication of the 1998 article.

“Medical Necessity” and Ethical Clearances

The Lancet 12 were sick. Each child was administered tests with the intent to aid that child. The hospital administration was fully aware of the tests being conducted and made no objections. Because all of the tests were “clinically indicated” and not for research purposes, no ethical clearance beyond what Prof. Walker-Smith already possessed was required. Notably, no patient, parent, or guardian has ever made accusations against Dr. Wakefield or testified against him for ethical violations or medically unnecessary procedures. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues reject the GMC’s ruling that the tests for the Lancet 12 were unnecessary.

The Lancet 12’s Referrals

The GMC charged that the children were referred through the litigation effort and not through ordinary medical channels. This is incorrect. Parents started contacting Dr. Wakefield long before the litigation started, and independently of it. Since the litigation study was not yet started by the time The Lancet study was completed and submitted to the journal, this finding is false. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues reject that claim; the families contacted them directly because of their medical expertise.

Control blood samples from a child’s birthday party

Dr. Wakefield arranged for control blood samples from healthy, typically developing children to be taken at his son’s birthday party. Most of the children’s parents were medical colleagues and friends. He did this with the children’s and parents’ fully informed consent and gave the children 5 pounds each for their trouble. The procedure was undertaken by an appropriately qualified doctor using a standard technique. The children were happy to be helpful and went on to enjoy the birthday party. While this is admittedly an unconventional method of collecting control blood samples, it hardly amounts to “serious professional misconduct” or an ethical breach warranting delicensure. The GMC’s description of this incident as an example of “callous disregard” for children’s distress seems to be a gross exaggeration. Indeed, the U.K. High Court of Justice exonerated Professor Walker-Smith in March 2012, and the Lancet journal has suggested that it is considering reversing its retraction.

The GMC failed to prove its case against Dr. Wakefield. Using Brian Deer’s reporting as evidence, the GMC appears to have purposefully conflated the Lancet 12 study and the subsequent litigation study to create the appearance of a financial conflict of interest. Similarly, the GMC appears to have wrongfully applied ethical research standards to tests that were “clinically indicated” for severely ill children. Conflating treatment and research not only grievously harmed Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues but set a threatening precedent for the practice of medicine. The government’s medical regulators (of uncertain expertise) second-guessed Prof. Walker-Smith, the world’s preeminent authority on pediatric gastroenterology, on his clinical judgment about what tests were necessary.

Which medical decisions will regulators second-guess next? The press, and specifically reporter Brian Deer, tried Dr. Wakefield in the court of public opinion while the GMC was prosecuting him in its regulatory court. Deer alleged that Dr. Wakefield had a pending patent application for a separate measles vaccine and hoped to “cash in” by urging parents to forego the MMR for separate measles vaccines. The evidence proves that Dr. Wakefield was not a patent holder for a separate measles vaccine. St. Mary’s Hospital held a patent for a therapeutic single measles vaccine using the beneficial immune properties of transfer factor, intended for people already infected with the measles virus. This measles vaccine was not a preventive product for people unexposed to the virus; in other words, there was no possible financial competition between the MMR vaccine and the single measles vaccine for which the hospital, and not Dr. Wakefield, held a patent.

In 2009, Deer made additional allegations that Dr. Wakefield fabricated data. The GMC never made this charge, but the media picked it up and, notably, the U.S. Department of Justice used it frequently in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In those proceedings to determine whether families could receive compensation for MMR-induced autism, the US Department of Justice went out of its way to depict Dr. Wakefield as a scientific fraud, although he was not directly relevant to the proceedings. In his 2010 book, Callous Disregard, Dr. Wakefield shows Deer’s allegations of fraud to be fabrications.

CPR finds no evidence of Dr. Wakefield’s scientific fraud. On the contrary, many scientists and laboratories around the world have confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s findings regarding severe gastrointestinal inflammation and symptoms in a high percentage of children with autism. In its February 2, 2010 retraction, The Lancet did not allege fraud. Relying solely on the GMC proceeding, it retracted the article, asserting that the authors had not referred the patients as represented and the study team had not received the hospital’s ethics committee’s approval. The GMC’s conclusions and The Lancet’s reliance on them appear unfounded.

The Meaning of The Wakefield Prosecution

What, then, was this high-profile prosecution really about? If there was no scientific fraud, no undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, no ethical breaches in performing tests on sick children, and no complaints from patients or their families, then what was the big deal? Did the international scandal and multi-million dollar prosecution proceed merely to chastise a doctor for drawing blood from children at a birthday party, with their consent and their parents’ consent? Of course not.

Dr. Wakefield was, and remains, a dissident from medical orthodoxy. The medical establishment subjected him to a modern-day medical show trial for his dissent. Dr. Wakefield’s research raised fundamental doubts about the safety of vaccines and the etiology of autism. Dr. Wakefield was punished for his temerity to caution the public about vaccine risks and to urge them to use their own judgment. Dr. Wakefield was punished for upholding vaccination choice.

The purpose of the proceeding, as in any show trial, was to communicate to other doctors and scientists, and to the public, the error of the perpetrator’s ways. A show trial offers a veneer of due process but, at its core, displays naked power. The apparent intent of the prosecution was to intimidate others from following Dr. Wakefield’s footsteps and to teach the lesson that anyone in the medical or scientific community who dares to publicly question the safety and efficacy of vaccines will be punished with utmost severity. The GMC appears to have decided that if the price of such a lesson was scientific ignorance about vaccine-autism links and the suffering of severely ill children, then so be it. Dr. Wakefield was made an example.

The GMC destroyed Dr. Wakefield’s professional reputation and livelihood, and The Lancet and other publications confiscated his professional accomplishment through retraction. The GMC colluded with The Lancet, the media, the British Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, and even with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice, to discredit Dr. Wakefield. The Center for Personal Rights is confident that the world will look back at the prosecution of Dr. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch with shame and remorse.

In due course, the world has paid tribute to human rights dissidents, as well — Nelson Mandela moved from prison in South Africa under apartheid to become its most beloved President; Andrei Sakharov left Russia’s internal exile to become its moral beacon; Vaclav Havel left a Czech prison to become its first post-communist President; and Liu Xiabo, a Chinese human rights advocate, received the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize in absentia because he remains incarcerated. In time, China will embrace Mr. Liu and look to him to help create a better future. Before long, the world will likely recognize that it was Dr. Wakefield, not his detractors, who stood up for the practice of medicine and the pursuit of science. Dr. Wakefield remains an unbowed dissident in the face of a repressive medical and scientific establishment.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Copyright © beBee is a trademark of beBee Affinity Social Network, SL..

CIF: . B84471838

Image

Ahuh.