WAKEFIELD TRIES TO SHIFT BLAME

Why does Wakefield now try to shift blame onto Dr Thores? Here’s a history of Thores’ involvement.
In 1998, after seeing a newspaper article, Thores contacted Jackie Fletcher, organizer of anti-MMR organization, JABS, to explain to her that the problems with Pluserix and Immravax MMR vaccines had been known before they were introduced and that the problems had nothing to do with the nonsense being peddled by Wakefield and Richard Barr. But Jackie Fletcher was in thrall to Barr and with him set up an ambush for Dr Thores. An appointment was made for Thores to meet Fletcher at Newcastle station, but instead he was met by the corrupt lawyer Richard Barr and his bedmate, Kirsten Limb. Thores explained his background in MMR manufacturer SKB and in Health Departments in Canada and UK. From 1988 onwards he had warned Kenneth Calman and David Salisbury over the dangers of Pluserix and the similar MMR, Immravax. Pluserix had been sold in Canada as Trivarix and had immediately caused unacceptable meningitis problems and had been withdrawn.
Thores was unhappy at being conned into a meeting with a lawyer when he was expecting to meet the parent of an MMR-damaged child. He was also uneasy about Barr’s apparent determination to ignore evidence and to instead pursue a generalized attack on MMR vaccines.
Another meeting was set up for Wakefield to attend with Barr and Limb on 28 February 1999. Thores repeated his account of warning Salisbury and Calman over the dangerous nature of Pluserix and Immravax and explained how he had circulated published papers to members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Thores went on to explain how members of the JCVI had been worried over their personal liability as they were approving a product they knew to be defective. According to Barr’s notes Thores claimed a representative of SmithKline Beecham had told him not to worry as “we are immunising the children and the Government is immunising us” and he took this to mean that there was a deal that had been struck between SmithKline Beecham and to the Government in relation to legal liability arising from the use of the Pluserix vaccine. Thores referred to another deal – Pluserix was not licenced in the UK and committee members were told that its licensing procedure was rushed through on a “fast track” basis.
Thores was also bothered by the bonus payment scheme for doctors that the Government introduced in 1990 to incentivise GPs to reach vaccination targets.
Thores told Barr that although he had signed the Official Secrets Act he was wiling to make a written statement confirming his claims.
It is noticeable from Barr’s notes on the meeting that although he had been involved in the MMR issue for several years he couldn’t spell the names of MMR products or the names of key individuals involvedand that Barr failed to make the most basic checks of Thores between the two meetings.
Jackie Fletcher was in a position to ensure that the litigation was soundly-based so it’s hard to understand why she ignored Thores’ warning as well as the others she received about the way in which Wakefield and Barr were exploiting the situation to the disadvantage of MMR-damaged children. It’s also hard to understand why Jackie Fletcher absented herself from the meeting with Thores while tricking him into meeting with Barr. This is one of a number of instances where Fletcher seems to have had far too close a relationship with the corrupt lawyer Richard Barr.
Later, Thores was interviewed by parents of MMR-damaged children and confirmed what he had said at the meetings with Wakefield, Barr and Limb, but Thores revealed that he had refused to have anything further to do with Wakefield or Barr because he had noticed that they had a hidden agenda. Thores confirmed that the MMR issue was based on the mumps component, not the measles component that Wakefield and Barr were using to make money. Thores confirmed that although he was bound by the Official Secrets Act he was willing to go to court where a judge could clear him to give evidence. He also revealed that he had retained key secret documents that were stored in his lawyer’s office in Edinburgh.
In view of the above it may seem remarkable that Wakefield and Barr did not use Thores’ expertise, but the sad fact is that Wakefield and Barr were interested only in exploiting the condition of MMR-damaged children and making as much money as possible from it. Using Thores evidence would have made it easy to win cases but that would have yielded little profit for Barr and Wakefield.
WAKEFIELD, THE PARENTS' FRIEND?
Dr Bill Long's article "On Second looking into the Case Of Dr Andrew J. Wakefield" in the Autism File (Issue 31 2009) records how Rosemary Kessick in a phone call to Dr Wakefield of 19th May 1995 told the story of how her son had descended into autism after having the MMR vaccine. The Findings of Fact following an investigation by the Fitness to Practice Panel at the GMC into the conduct of Wakefield and two of his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital outline how nearly all the Lancet 12 children did not fit the inclusion criteria for the study because they had had the MMR vaccine, Ms Kessick’s son included.
Wakefield knew as far back as the 1995 phone call that Ms Kessick’s son had had the MMR vaccine and did not fit the criteria for in inclusion in the Lancet 12. How many of the others, found to have been wrongly included in the Lancet 12 because they had had the MMR vaccine, made that known beforehand? This is a clear demonstration of research fraud? Is this why Wakefield ensured that parents were not called as witnesses?