| Revision as of 18:21, 7 March 2006 editMidgley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,008 edits →[]: misrepresentation by Ombudsman← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:29, 7 March 2006 edit undoMidgley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,008 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ** '''Comment''' Ombudsman is misrepresenting me in his polemic above, not for the first time, and I do suggest anyone who is tempted to take any part of it seriously read the actual comment I made in the BMJ Rabid Responses and consider whether this is part of a pattern of which this article is another part. | ** '''Comment''' Ombudsman is misrepresenting me in his polemic above, not for the first time, and I do suggest anyone who is tempted to take any part of it seriously read the actual comment I made in the BMJ Rabid Responses and consider whether this is part of a pattern of which this article is another part. | ||
| ** '''Comment''' One of the things about courts, at least English courts, is that very little of what they do is ''inexplicable''. Hardly any of it is even unexplained. It isn't always trivial to obtain the actual text of the explanation, but it is perfectly clear here that the Legal Aid Board had the opportunity to consider Dr Fletcher's comments, and decided, in the light of that and the other avaialable elements of the case the bringing of which was proposed, that the case was hopeless - hence their explicable decision to not fund it further. That case has been funded IIRC to around £10M from public funds already, and I think that it was reasonable to pay to bring such concerns to law, but it is not reasonable to go on and on and on. ] 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | ** '''Comment''' One of the things about courts, at least English courts, is that very little of what they do is ''inexplicable''. Hardly any of it is even unexplained. It isn't always trivial to obtain the actual text of the explanation, but it is perfectly clear here that the Legal Aid Board had the opportunity to consider Dr Fletcher's comments, and decided, in the light of that and the other avaialable elements of the case the bringing of which was proposed, that the case was hopeless - hence their explicable decision to not fund it further. That case has been funded IIRC to around £10M from public funds already, and I think that it was reasonable to pay to bring such concerns to law, but it is not reasonable to go on and on and on. ] 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ** '''Aside''' Clifford Miller whose comments are in the BMJ rapid - but not ''published'' - responses referred to above, and who I had commented on, is one of the candidates for being the ] whose ] and history are somewhat consistent with that idea and whose IP address is geographically adjacent to the address Mr Miller gives. (He is probably not notable, but is certainly persistent. Unaccountably, the college he examined in law at had forgotten him when I enquired of them, but I do not for a moment doubt that if they searched all their records they would eventually find him.)] 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:29, 7 March 2006
Peter_Fletcher
POV non WP:BIO. Not encyclopaedic. There are very very many retired civil service doctors in England and the only thing adduced about him is that he was to have been one witness in a trial which will not occur since the legal aid board determined it had no chance at all of success. Basically this is yet another attack page on immunisation presented as a biography - possibly we should decide that these are speedy delete candidates. DELETE Midgley 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Part of one user's walled garden on antivaccination activism. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 13:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep: An eminent scientist and high ranking authority on vaccines, Fletcher has shattered the illusion that the medical establishment is united in its refusal to acknowledge culpability for triggering an autism epidemic that spans the globe. For political and economic reasons, other medical authorities have been entirely unable to regognize and acknowledge the global catastrophe caused by vaccine injuries. Simply because the bulk of Fletcher's career predates the advent of the internet, there is no reason to assume his contributions to medical science are anything less than extremely noteworthy. Fletcher is noteworthy not only for the prestigious position he once held overseeing vaccine policy in the UK, but also for breaking ranks with medical authorities loudly and clearly as an expert on vaccine issues, and his statements have been reported around the world. Beyond that, he was chosen as an expert witness and played a primary role in the high profile UK lawsuit on behalf of the untold thousands of UK children who have become autistic and developed autistic enterocolitis following vaccination. He presented reports, inexplicably ignored by the court in its decision to derail the litigation, that supported the clinical evidence and observations by thousands of parents "that a triple vaccine (MMR) was causally related to the damage suffered by the children." Fletcher has been quoted widely by journalists around the world who have covered the vaccine controversy. Ironically, Midgley himself has said the only thing that he dismisses about the case presented on behalf of the children and their parents had to do with conflict of interest concerns. However, the only expert testimony in the case where such concerns could easily be dismissed would be that of a retired vaccine expert and recognized authority, such as Fletcher. Ombudsman 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Ombudsman is misrepresenting me in his polemic above, not for the first time, and I do suggest anyone who is tempted to take any part of it seriously read the actual comment I made in the BMJ Rabid Responses and consider whether this is part of a pattern of which this article is another part.
- Comment One of the things about courts, at least English courts, is that very little of what they do is inexplicable. Hardly any of it is even unexplained. It isn't always trivial to obtain the actual text of the explanation, but it is perfectly clear here that the Legal Aid Board had the opportunity to consider Dr Fletcher's comments, and decided, in the light of that and the other avaialable elements of the case the bringing of which was proposed, that the case was hopeless - hence their explicable decision to not fund it further. That case has been funded IIRC to around £10M from public funds already, and I think that it was reasonable to pay to bring such concerns to law, but it is not reasonable to go on and on and on. Midgley 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Aside Clifford Miller whose comments are in the BMJ rapid - but not published - responses referred to above, and who I had commented on, is one of the candidates for being the User:86.10.231.219 whose contributions and history are somewhat consistent with that idea and whose IP address is geographically adjacent to the address Mr Miller gives. (He is probably not notable, but is certainly persistent. Unaccountably, the college he examined in law at had forgotten him when I enquired of them, but I do not for a moment doubt that if they searched all their records they would eventually find him.)Midgley 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)