Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,401
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: − + + − The proceedings resulted in Walker-Smith and Wakefield being found guilty and being “struck off” the medical register, while Dr. Murch retained his status as a physician. Wakefield was then vilified by corporate media and by bloggers eager to repeat scandal and engage in industry protectionism, rather than investigate the complicated facts of the story.
new
The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
The Wikipedia article describes Dr Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist" but this is untrue. First, Dr Wakefield has said that he is not anti-vaccine. He is opposed to the MMR vaccine (a [[combination vaccine]]) but he is not opposed to the [[measles]], [[mumps]] and [[rubella]] vaccines being given in separate doses.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm</ref>
Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project.
Secondly the label "discredited" is inaccurate. Dr Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, were brought up on misconduct charges before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) because of alleged irregularities in the conduct of their research project. Walker-Smith and Wakefield were found guilty and were struck off the medical register.
Walker-Smith, who was backed by his insurance company, successfully appealed against the ruling. The judge said that the GMC's original ruling was based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion".
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}