Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I mentioned this in another thread, but I've been reading the trial transcripts and it is a very important case.<br><br><a href="http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/</a><br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">August 24 2007 - Statement from Dr Jayne L M Donegan, who was today cleared of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council.<br><br>
" I have always maintained that the court evidence I gave was based on objective, independent and unbiased research and I'm pleased that this has been recognised by today's verdict."</td>
</tr></table></div>
<a href="http:/vaccine/donegan3.html" target="_blank">http://www.*********/vaccine/donegan3.html</a><br><br>
for all the trial transcripts--the day information is not helpful--if you want to read just the summing up start on day 9.<br><br>
There is a lot of good info throughout the transcripts and it is very interesting to see how the attack on this doctor was organized and why it failed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
This is part of the summing up (day 9) presented by Ian Stern, QC. He is talking about the expert used by the GMC to put together their case against Dr. Donegan.<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">The point is that one cannot help but resist this conclusion that Dr Elliman holds such deeply held views on vaccination that one is not allowed to criticise or even suggest a point that maybe there is something not quite right with vaccinations. For those of us who are new to the debate, it does seem a somewhat immature approach.</td>
</tr></table></div>
In other words, Dr. Donegan was threatened with the loss of her license to practice because she presented an unpopular view of vaccines and vaccination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Also from the summing up, and an example of how unfair the GMC was in setting up the case. There were three expert reports. Two favored vaccines and between the two of them had only ONE reference. The third, was critical of vaccines and had a large number of references, all to the regular medical literature (not anti-vaccine material). So the doctor who is writing the expert report on why Dr. Donegan, and only Donegan should be threatened with the loss of her license, keeps complaining about articles she SHOULD have cited, but didn't. Only the other two doctors didn't cite these articles either...<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">There is also, in relation to this particular part, that Dr Elliman criticises Dr Donegan for not mentioning this Nilson research. This is one of a number of criticisms – I cannot remember how many there are, but maybe on three or four occasions – where he complains that she has not referred to particular papers, which he says is a larger study, a better study or a more helpful study or whatever. If she had the study and deliberately did not include it, one could understand the point, but the very nature of preparing these reports, especially in the absence of the Internet and e-mail, is that you are likely to be obtaining the research from the papers you have got and other material that you read, the BMJ and various other articles.<br><br>
The point is in any event not a good one, in my submission, because, again not mentioned by Dr Elliman, none of the papers he says should have been referred to by Dr Donegan were referred to by Dr Conway or Professor Kroll. The test, if one wants to look at the test, is this: if the assertion was that no reasonable expert could have failed to have pointed to those particular pieces of research, then that would be a fair point if Dr Conway or Professor Kroll said, “This particular study is so well known I cannot imagine how it is that Dr Donegan has failed to mention it.” It is a poor point, because all three of the individuals, Conway, Kroll and Donegan do not refer to it, so it is not a reasonable or a fair point to make, in my submission.</td>
</tr></table></div>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,794 Posts
Wow ??<br><br>
scary !!<br>
thanks for posting
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Great result! There has been very little media coverage here about it though unfortunately. There was lots of coverage about her "junk science" though<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:<br><br>
Wasn't MT working with her on her case? I think she said she was.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
Yes, MT was. It does surprise me how little attention has been paid to the outcome. Sucks when they decide that the 'junk science' story is worth their time but the actual truth is not!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>lokidoki</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/9092815"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Yes, MT was. It does surprise me how little attention has been paid to the outcome. Sucks when they decide that the 'junk science' story is worth their time but the actual truth is not!</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
Yeah it sucks. The amount of "pro-vaccine" stuff in the press here recently has been unbelievable ...you know 'cause the UK is in the middle of "the worst measles epidemic in a decade"<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="rolleyes"> Yeah right. Wouldn't surprise me if they have old vaccine stock that is going out of date soon...like our last threatened "epidemic".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
bumping because I mentioned this case in another thread.<br><br>
Honestly guys, the trial transcripts make fascinating reading...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,622 Posts
Here's another link about this, it's quite interesting!<br><br><a href="http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/08/trial-of-dr-jayne-donegan.html" target="_blank">http://scientific-misconduct.blogspo...e-donegan.html</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
An English doctor who practices homeopathy and alternative medicine. She was asked to provide testimony for two children whose non-custodial fathers were insisting that they must be vaxed and whose mothers hadn't vaxed and didn't want them vaxed. She did the research (all in regular medical journal articles and reference books), wrote it all up and submitted it to the court. She also testified. Then the GMC (which I think is the group that handles medical licenses in UK) threatened to remove her right to practice, claiming that she misrepresented the science. She won the case AND made the GMC doc look like an idiot.<br><br>
Does that help?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,852 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Deborah</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/9551577"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">An English doctor who practices homeopathy and alternative medicine. She was asked to provide testimony for two children whose non-custodial fathers were insisting that they must be vaxed and whose mothers hadn't vaxed and didn't want them vaxed. She did the research (all in regular medical journal articles and reference books), wrote it all up and submitted it to the court. She also testified. Then the GMC (which I think is the group that handles medical licenses in UK) threatened to remove her right to practice, claiming that she misrepresented the science. She won the case AND made the GMC doc look like an idiot.<br><br>
Does that help?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yep! Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
bump<br><br>
for a discussion of whether all of the scientific data supports vaccines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
I had not heard about this case (and I am living in the UK - embarassing), so thank you for the summery above.<br>
I just started reading the transcript on day 9 where Rosalind Eaton (a mom) is answering questions. I find it fantastically interesting that her initial reasoning for questioning vax is because she noticed the difference in clinical trial practices during her work (which is analyzing pharm. company shares).<br><br>
I am also bugged that they keep referring to Dr.Donagan's 'deep belief against vaxing is clouding her ability to be non-biased' - where did her belief come from in the first place?!!<br><br>
Deborah, in your last post you wanted to discuss the scientific data...can you point me to it so I can read it? or is it in the transcript? (I am only on day 9), or did you mean all vax scientific data in general?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
There is a good deal of scientific data in the transcript. They go through all of the papers she cited in her testimony with the GMC doctor explaining why he thought she misinterpreted the data and Dr. Donegan explaining why she did not. Unfortunately there is no list of citations of the actual articles with the transcript.<br><br>
If you skim through the transcript and concentrate on the parts where the doctors are being questioned, you'll get most of it. On the other hand, it is actually pretty interesting to read all the way through, if you've got the time.<br><br>
The most entertaining part is seeing the GMC doctor being creamed by a skilled solicitor who really knew his stuff.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,072 Posts
I like this tidbit (D1/14):<br><br>
Deaths continued their steady decline. This was most clearly seen in the 1970s and 80s when the vaccine coverage fell to less than 40% in 1976 because of health scares. In 1978 and 1982 there were over 65,000 notified cases of whooping cough but no concomitant rise in the number of deaths. Between 30% and 70% of children in outbreaks are vaccinated.”<br><br>
In reference to HIB: (D1/18)The reality is that the success of the Hib vaccine has caused a general fall in the prevalence of the disease, and thus a fall in the disease in older people. That arises because of what is known as herd immunity." or<br><br>
(D1/19) "Dr Elliman, for what it is worth, does agree that because of the age of the children, it was not unreasonable to advise withholding the vaccine. Of course, Dr Donegan is perfectly entitled to make that point, but, again, the way that she goes about persuading the judge was, in our submission, wrong and misleading. "<br><br>
So they aren't arguing the science, but the summaries of the researchers that she didn't put in there? I assume that they have never heard of biased research, right? You come up with the results you were looking for most of the time, whether or not the science matches. You see what you are looking for. Ask anyone who has worked in pharma that or done biological research.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,072 Posts
They also go on to discount the research she used about mumps because it was done in 1966, but to use research from 1961-63 about diptheria against her? WTF is that about?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,072 Posts
This is funny:<br><br>
"The copy they sent is not easy to read, so it has been enlarged for your benefit on the next page. Let me take you to halfway down the page – I think it has already been underlined:<br><br>
“Precautions before Use<br>
Do you have any type of infection?<br>
Do you think you may be allergic or sensitive to any of the ingredients in the vaccine which are listed above, in particular to thiomersal, which can cause kidney damage?”<br><br>
AYes, I can see that.<br><br>
QLet me ask you first of all how it is that you are not aware of that document?<br>
AI do not know why I was not aware of that document, because I made enquiries of the Department of Health. What I am slightly puzzled by – and you will understand that although you have had it for nine months we have not had it, so this is my first sight of it – this is, I think, a patient information leaflet. This is a leaflet that is put in a vaccine pack, not by the Department of Health, it is put in the pack by the manufacturers. I am slightly puzzled by the titled “Adsorbed Diphtheria Vaccine for Adults (Department of Health)”. If I had known it was a patient information leaflet, I would have gone to the manufacturers. "<br><br><b>D3/11-12</b><br><br><br>
QCan we turn to pertussis, please? Page 14 in your report it is the reference under the sub-heading “Dr Donegan's report,” and it is page 15, paragraph 4 of her report. Let us look at what Dr Donegan says. I will start off with the beginning of the paragraph, just to put it in context, so there can be no suggestion I am not:<br><br>
“It is undoubtedly the case that whooping cough became a milder disease in this country over the course of the first half of the twentieth century. The death rate had fallen by over 99% before vaccination against pertussis was introduced in the 1950s.”<br><br>
You make no criticism of that. I am assuming you agree with it?<br>
AYes.<br><br>
QAgain, you have to answer, sorry, rather than a nod.<br>
ASorry. It is a given that I believe that vaccines are not the only thing that has affected disease mortalities, certainly.<br><b>D3/22</b><br><br>
There is really too much I want to talk about. That whole section is priceless.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top