SHW I have mentioned that I do not normally debate "at length" those who espouse a (lost) cause when they lack in specific appropriate expertise/knowledge, or can not produce proof in the form of (as herein) of peer reviewed papers and/or professional bodies opinions.
However having an interest in law, and noticing your comments I refer you to the British case in which she played a prominent part preceding the GMC actions which resulted from it
Case No: PO97P00384 & BH01P00395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION [2003]
This can be found on the aptly named the quackwatch site.
http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/immu/mmrcase.html
British Courts Side with Vaccination in Parental Dispute
"The evidence of Dr Donegan is treated with great reserve. She has deeply held feelings on the risks of immunisation. She allowed this to overrule her duty to provide objective unbiased opinion considering all the relevant facts including those which detract from her opinion."
Actually the charges brought by the GMC as a result of the High Court comments were nothing like this nonsense:
" Proving That Vaccines Aren’t Necessary To Achieve Health:
They actually were:
a. Gave false and/ or misleading impressions of the research which you relied upon,
b Quoted selectively from research, reports and publications and omitted relevant information,
c. Allowed your deeply held views on the subject of immunisation to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants,
d. Failed to present an objective, independent and unbiased view;
7. Your actions in head 6. above were,
a. Misleading,
b. In direct contravention to your duty as an expert witness; unprofessional,
c. Likely to bring the profession into disrepute;
SHW you write"
Dr. Donegan was called upon as a witness to provide evidence that children do not need vaccines to be healthy and that many are unnecessary and unsafe.
This brought unwanted attention to her from the British General Medical Council who then took her to court.
During this 3 year trial, she presented her evidence against a very tough opposition involving many QCs and a very expensive legal team, yet Dr. Donegan and her much smaller team WON the case.
The GMC hearings against Donegan actually, in short were that Donegan had misrepresented the scientific evidence she had quoted in the court case
It was not a court but a GMC hearing and it certainly did not last for 3 years.
The charges were served September 2006, and the hearing was from Aug 7th to the 25th, 2007
Many QCs? The GMC team:
Mr T Kark, Counsel, instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse, Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the General Medical Counsel
Donegan's team:
Mr I Stern, QC and Mr S Singh, Counsel, instructed by Clifford Miller,
One nutty swallow a summer does not make, nor does unresearched twaddle and quotes that are incorrect'
I finish with a comment from a British High Court Judge apropos Donegan:
“Most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own. Not to mince words, the court was presented with junk science.”
It is a totally lost cause, but I do, to a degree, understand why persons like yourself have a closed mind as to the efficacy of vaccinations, which have been with us in modern times since Edward Jenner's times in1796.
"Dr. Donegan gave her professional opinion that the safety and efficacy of vaccines has not been well studied and that there were other ways of achieving health than vaccination for these children."
"Not been well studied", absolute nonsense.
" there were other ways of achieving health than vaccination" Our default condition is healthy, vaccines prevent us becoming less healthy.
"More than 732,000 children's lives have been saved in the past 20 years due to routine vaccinations, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, 322 million cases of kids getting sick were prevented"
In threads like this I note that the "occasional" disbeliever, whilst quoting the extremely rare (nutty) "maverick "out there" (and like sites) "overlooks" the overwhelming evidence/opinions from a multitude of internationally accepted medical authorities, to say nothing of vast amounts of peer reviewed papers, from experts in the discipline of immunology .
By all means avoid vaccinations, but do not include your children based on nil clinical knowledge and the rare "nut"
Thankfully the British High Court ruled on just that point, and the jurists concerned were somewhat more knowledgeable apropos the law, and the science involved, than the GMC:
"The fathers application supported by CAFCASS Legal is granted. The court declares that immunisation to the extent set out is in these girls' best interest and should prevail over their mother's opposition."
