WHO CAUGHT LYING IN PUBLIC OVER VACCINES
From: "Clifford G. Miller
<cgmiller@cliffordmiller.com>
(regarding Jayne Donegan's case)
Now don't that beat all - WHO telling outright lies. If you
circulate this please include my address in England so WHO can try to sue me -
note the word "try".
Sheri Nakken wrote:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/08-030608/en/index.html
Millions of deaths are prevented by vaccination every year, yet public
anxieties and vaccine scares that ignore rigorous science continue to hamper
immunization programmes. Jane Parry reports.
In the Donegan case before the UK's General Medical Council last
August in an exhaustive three week hearing involving 5 medical expert reports
and approaching 400 medical references, the absence of any "science" was the
most remarkable thing.
In particular, not a single paper was produced which established the safety of
any childhood vaccine in use in the UK. A witness of fact who also was an
expert in her own right regarding the testing of pharmaceutical products
confirmed also that what is considered the gold standard of medical evidence -
the placebo controlled randomised clinical trial is simply not carried out on
vaccines - yep, not even ones for kids. And that was why the expert she sought
out Dr Donegan, for advice about whether to vaccinate her children.
Fortunately, Dr Donegan's advice on vaccination is the only advice available in
the UK which has been proven in rigorous detailed and extensive legal
proceedings to be valid. That cannot be said of the advice from our Department
of Health. Not only was Dr Donegan acquitted by the GMC, but most unusually
they found her defence proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whenever WHO claim lives in the third world have been saved, they refer to
"estimates" - guess WHO produces those "estimates". And are "estimates"
science? Not in this case or in the case of WHO. But that is not all. There
is no "rigorous science". Medical research is medical research and not
"science" even if they try hard to pretend it is science. And medicine is not
science either. And try as hard as they can, I am not sure it is truly accurate
to describe any medical research as "rigorous". Biological systems are a little
too uncertain to be rigorous about everything.
"Clifford G. Miller" <cgmiller@cliffordmiller.com>