When did it start?

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....

No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed, it
clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry out a
second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received any
legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier,
independent study.

Quoted message said:

I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated

Quoted message said:

sues his shorts off.

No rational lawyer would touch such a case: "The authors clearly state
in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association between
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'" (Did
you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone
from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a
parent's choice.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: When did it start?
From: "JG" [email hidden]
Date: 2/26/2004 4:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....

No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement.

An example of *gang* twisting.

Quoted message said:

Indeed, it
clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry out a
second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received any
legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier,
independent study.

Quoted message said:

I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated

Quoted message said:

sues his shorts off.

No rational lawyer would touch such a case: "The authors clearly state
in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association between
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'" (Did
you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone
from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a
parent's choice.

As usual, Mark is trying to deceive.

Jan

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....

No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed, it
clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry out a
second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received any
legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier,
independent study.

Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially suported by
someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering his
cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that first
study should be carefully reviewed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated

Quoted message said:

sues his shorts off.

No rational lawyer would touch such a case:

Chuckle...rational lawyers? Like the ones who brought the Ritalin class
action? The thimerosal class action? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
BWHAHAHAHAHA..if there is money to be made....

"The authors clearly state

Quoted message said:

in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association between
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'" (Did
you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone
from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a
parent's choice.

A scared parents choice...

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: When did it start?
From: "JG" [email hidden]
Date: 2/26/2004 4:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....

No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement.

An example of *gang* twisting.

Quoted message said:

Indeed, it
clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry out a
second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received any
legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier,
independent study.

Quoted message said:

I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated

Quoted message said:

sues his shorts off.

No rational lawyer would touch such a case: "The authors clearly state
in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association between
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'" (Did
you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone
from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a
parent's choice.

As usual, Mark is trying to deceive.

As usual, Jan does not comprehend...

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark

[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....

No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

independent study.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by

Quoted message said:

someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his

Quoted message said:

cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first

Quoted message said:

study should be carefully reviewed.

It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside
funding at all, but rather was initiated when Wakefield and some of his
colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting correlation
between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they
worked), so I guess you could say the RFH "funded" the study.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated

Quoted message said:

sues his shorts off.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No rational lawyer would touch such a case:

Quoted message said:

Chuckle...rational lawyers? Like the ones who brought the Ritalin

class

Quoted message said:

action? The thimerosal class action? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
BWHAHAHAHAHA..if there is money to be made....

Quoted message said:

"The authors clearly state

Quoted message said:

in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association

between

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'"

(Did

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent

anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains,

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

parent's choice.

Quoted message said:

A scared parents choice...

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark

[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

independent study.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by

Quoted message said:

someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his

Quoted message said:

cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first

Quoted message said:

study should be carefully reviewed.

It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside
funding at all, but rather was initiated when Wakefield and some of his
colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting correlation
between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they
worked), so I guess you could say the RFH "funded" the study.

I would rather see some proof at this point. I hope it comes out in the
investigation of this affair.

snip

"Mark Probert-February 27, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark

[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark

[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> > When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
> No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement.

Indeed,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

> clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he

had

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to

carry

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out a

Quoted message said:

> second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and

autism."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉

Quoted message said:

> theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?)

received

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

any

Quoted message said:

> legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,

Quoted message said:

> independent study.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by

Quoted message said:

someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now,

considering

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

his

Quoted message said:

cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first

Quoted message said:

study should be carefully reviewed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have

outside

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

funding at all, but rather was initiated when Wakefield and some of

his

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting correlation
between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term)

autism. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

worked), so I guess you could say the RFH "funded" the study.

Quoted message said:

I would rather see some proof at this point.

Yes; let's hope it, if it does exist, is forthcoming. Until such time,
there's no point in speculating (right, Jonathan? <g>😉.

I hope it comes out in the

Quoted message said:

investigation of this affair.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: When did it start?
From: "JG" [email hidden]
Date: 2/27/2004 8:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark

[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

independent study.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by

Quoted message said:

someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his

Quoted message said:

cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first

Quoted message said:

study should be carefully reviewed.

It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside
funding at all, but rather was initiated when Wakefield and some of his
colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting correlation
between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they
worked), so I guess you could say the RFH "funded" the study.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being
vaccinated
> sues his shorts off.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No rational lawyer would touch such a case:

Quoted message said:

Chuckle...rational lawyers? Like the ones who brought the Ritalin

class action?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

The thimerosal class action?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Quoted message said:

BWHAHAHAHAHA..if there is money to be made....

Coming from a failed dishonest lawyer

..>"The authors clearly state

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association

between

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'"

(Did

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent

anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains,

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

parent's choice.

Quoted message said:

A scared parents choice...

Exactly. With reason to be scared.

http://www.909shot.com/

Jan

Janny...JG post only in m.k.h and not in m.h.a. and you have been now outed
as a liar for the second time this evening.

I suspect that you saw my post, went to m.k.h. and copied and pasted...

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: When did it start?
From: "JG" [email hidden]
Date: 2/27/2004 8:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark

[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> > When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

> > According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
> No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it

Quoted message said:

> clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
> received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a

Quoted message said:

> second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
> (Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉

Quoted message said:

> theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any

Quoted message said:

> legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

> >

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

> > Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

Quoted message said:

> It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,

Quoted message said:

> independent study.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by

Quoted message said:

someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his

Quoted message said:

cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first

Quoted message said:

study should be carefully reviewed.

It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside
funding at all, but rather was initiated when Wakefield and some of his
colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting correlation
between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they
worked), so I guess you could say the RFH "funded" the study.

Quoted message said:

> > I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being
> vaccinated
> > sues his shorts off.

Quoted message said:

> No rational lawyer would touch such a case:

Quoted message said:

Chuckle...rational lawyers? Like the ones who brought the Ritalin

class action?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

The thimerosal class action?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Quoted message said:

BWHAHAHAHAHA..if there is money to be made....

Coming from a failed dishonest lawyer

.>"The authors clearly state

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association

between

Quoted message said:

> measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'"

(Did

Quoted message said:

> you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent

anyone

Quoted message said:

> from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains,

a

Quoted message said:

> parent's choice.

Quoted message said:

A scared parents choice...

Exactly. With reason to be scared.

http://www.909shot.com/

Jan

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....

No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed, it
clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry out a
second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his colleagues'😉
theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received any
legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his earlier,
independent study.

And the reason why he didn't taint his first study so he could get funds for
the second study is what?

Please answer this the same way you would if he were a pro-vaccine
researcher who got a grant to continue his work from drug companies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope that any parent of a child who was injured by NOT being

vaccinated

Quoted message said:

sues his shorts off.

No rational lawyer would touch such a case: "The authors clearly state
in the paper's discussion that 'We did not prove an association between
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'" (Did
you even read the Economist article?) Wakefield didn't prevent anyone
from being vaccinated; whether to vaccinate or not was, and remains, a
parent's choice.

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark

[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
(Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

independent study.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by

Quoted message said:

someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his

Quoted message said:

cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first

Quoted message said:

study should be carefully reviewed.

It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside
funding at all, but rather was initiated when Wakefield and some of his
colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting correlation
between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they
worked), so I guess you could say the RFH "funded" the study.

I'm still looking for the publication of the first study.

js

"Jonathan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>
wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Mark Probert-February 26, 2004" <Mark

[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> > When did Wakefield start his campaign of scaremongering?

Quoted message said:

> > According to this article 1998, after money changed hands....
> No, Mark; the Economist article makes no such statement. Indeed,

it

Quoted message said:

> clearly states, "Dr Wakefield's conflict of interest was that he had
> received £55,000 ($90,000) from England's legal-aid board to carry

out a

Quoted message said:

> second study on the relationship (if any) between MMR and autism."
> (Note the word "second."😉 Apparently Wakefield's (and his

colleagues'😉

Quoted message said:

> theory of an MMR-autism link existed *before* he (they?) received

any

Quoted message said:

> legal aid funds.

Quoted message said:

> >

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2459156

Quoted message said:

> > Andrew Wakefield..bought and paid for....

sure?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It appears his second study merely echoed the findings of his

earlier,

Quoted message said:

> independent study.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you are assuming that the first study was financially

suported by

Quoted message said:

someone/thing that ispure as the driven snow...as of now, considering

his

Quoted message said:

cover-up of his funding for the second study, the funding of that

first

Quoted message said:

study should be carefully reviewed.

It sounds like the original investigation (study) didn't have outside
funding at all, but rather was initiated when Wakefield and some of his
colleagues noticed what they thought was an interesting correlation
between chronic intestinal disease and (what most would term) autism. I
suppose they used the facilities of the Royal Free Hospital (where they
worked), so I guess you could say the RFH "funded" the study.

I'm still looking for the publication of the first study.

js