Martin Walker MA quotes
[back] Martin J Walker
"I can’t stress enough that one is sitting in the midst of something which is bubbling away like some witch’s cauldron in central London. You inevitably become embroiled in this false and rather evil world of chicanery, corruption and distortion. Sitting there, listening to it, you get completely denuded of any better self, better feelings, any kind of spirituality you might have had when you arrived in the morning. It is a very stultifying and morally dangerous thing to have to participate in day after day."---[Interview of Martin Walker Sept 2008]
Another question that loomed large in my mind over the last week was, why is it that when the GMC can spend millions of pounds on this hearing, Miss Smith the senior prosecutor cannot be heard in the public gallery. [2008 Nov] A Brief stopover in another reality by Martin J Walker MA
"Journalists increasingly behave like lackeys would have acted in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or other repressed societies. These people who call themselves reporters seem unable to investigate or broadcast anything which goes against the grain in our society. It’s pitiful to watch."---[Interview of Martin Walker Sept 2008] ANDREW WAKEFIELD IN THE DOCK
It is also my hope that one day when we all escape from beneath this pharma-dominated society that has killed and damaged so many thousands, that the denial of adverse reactions to drugs and most specifically the denial of vaccine damage will become a criminal offense for which it's perpetrators receive long prison sentences. In my mind, the denial of MMR vaccine damage in children who are suffering the most terrible torment is a crime more severe than the most serious assault. [2008 Oct] An Open Letter to Brian Deer Rebutting His Article 'Families duped by a sad smearmaster of MMR fabrication and hatred' by Martin J Walker MA
the government in concert with the pharmaceutical companies, have decided to deny all vaccine damage from MMR. In order to do this, they have had to wipe out, disappear, make invisible, the agony and the tragedy that some thousands of parents have suffered and are suffering. It does stand to reason doesn't it, were the government or the industry to admit to even one serious case of adverse reaction, that began with IBD and was followed by regressive autism, that the floodgates would be opened. Denial knows no intermediary stages it has to be complete. [2008 Oct] An Open Letter to Brian Deer Rebutting His Article 'Families duped by a sad smearmaster of MMR fabrication and hatred' by Martin J Walker MA
As for the assertion that Dr Wakefield tried to make a personal profit from manufacturing a vaccine in competition to the multinational drug companies, it became clear during Mr Tahan’s evidence - and that of previous witnesses - that firstly, this was not a vaccine against measles, but a therapy that might ameliorate the adverse effects caused by measles vaccine; that Dr Wakefield had actually sought partnership with pharmaceutical companies to develop the therapy and finally that all profits from the patent, had it become a viable product, would actually have gone to the Royal Free Medical School. Dealers in Second Hand Words by Martin J Walker
The pharmaceutical companies are very powerful. Just look for a moment at the discrepancies in the law, between orthodox and alternative medicine in relation to adverse reactions. If an alternative practitioner is treating a patient with a diagnosed terminal illness and the patient dies while being treated with herbs or homeopathy, even if these treatments are not actually the cause of death, the practitioner can be investigated by the police and tried under criminal law, for manslaughter. The prosecution would be organised by the MHRA a government department completely funded by the pharmaceutical industry and the case would not be reviewed by the crown prosecution service; the therapist could go to prison. If on the other hand a pharmaceutical company kills or maims thousands - say, as with Vioxx over 50,000 deaths - with a particular drug, the victims or relatives of victims have only the civil law to resort to, and without legal aid or a rich benefactor, in Britain, this is not a viable course of action. [2008 Oct] An Open Letter to Brian Deer Rebutting His Article 'Families duped by a sad smearmaster of MMR fabrication and hatred' by Martin J Walker MA
in my view the cover-up of vaccine damage that has entailed
the denigration of thousands of parents and the complete, almost
Romanian-style lack of medical care of hundreds of damaged
children, encouraged by the government, the medical
establishment and the multinational pharmaceutical industry
together with a number of journalists, is one of the most
disgraceful incidents in British medical politics over the last
To my mind it ranks in a degree of obscenity with the cover up over the advancing number of environmentally induced cases of cancer in our society and the decades-long attempts by industry to conceal the health damage caused by asbestos.
In the case of MMR, there is a government still in power that indemnified the world's biggest pharmaceutical company, GSK, against all claims made by the parents or relatives of vaccine damaged children. When the adverse reactions occurred in their thousands, in the form of inflammatory bowel disease and regressive autism, seizures and brain damage, the government battened down the hatches and began one of the biggest propaganda campaigns ever mounted in Britain. [2008 Oct] An Open Letter to Brian Deer Rebutting His Article 'Families duped by a sad smearmaster of MMR fabrication and hatred' by Martin J Walker MA
"Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of the majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion." -----S. Kierkegaard (1813-55), Danish philosopher. The quotation is from The Diary of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by Peter Rohde, 1960, pt. 5, sct. 3, no. 128, entry from 1850. There could not be a more exact analysis of contemporary views on MMR and the sub-set of children who have suffered serious adverse reactions. While the 'majority' is made up of those who simply receive their opinions from the media, together with those in positions of authority who simply make up ideological opinions, the parents and a handful of concerned professionals know their case from personal experience and a rigorous reading of the science. Uncomfortable Science and Enemies of the People by Martin Walker
Hospitals which opt out of the National Health Service could well consider making a proportion of their money by using their facilities and patients for drugs trials. In 1988, it was estimated that individual doctors and hospitals in Britain were paid sums 'ranging up to £100,000 to test new drugs on human volunteers'
Not one parent has complained about the treatment that their child received under the care of the clinical team at the Royal Free. Indeed, because the parents of vaccine damaged children, entirely support the work of Wakefield, Murch and Walker-Smith, the GMC clearly could not call any of them as complainants against the doctors. Because they didn’t want Brian Deer’s motives disclosed under cross examination, they have not called him either. So it would appear that there is no real complainant behind the GMC hearings. More importantly perhaps the voices of the children and the parents have been stifled in this whole process while both the government and the GMC have tried hard to convince the public that there are no vaccine damaged children. [Feb 2008] NEW LABOUR, THE VACCINE SCANDAL AND THE CHARACTER ASSASINATION OF DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD by Martin Walker
The refusal to cross examine might appear risky, in that it seemed to let
Salisbury off the hook with respect to important and simple questions such as:
‘Why did it take you two years to respond to Dr Wakefield’s first communication
with you, which warned the DoH of a public health crisis over MMR?’ and ‘Why did
it take six years for you to organise a meeting with Dr Wakefield to discuss his
ground breaking research?’ and finally, ‘Did you intend to suggest in your
evidence that Dr Wakefield was trying to blackmail the Department, by suggesting
he would precipitate a public health crisis unless you gave him money for
All the facts relevant to the charges against Dr Wakefield, Professor Murch and Professor Walker Smith will of course be given in evidence by the defendants themselves. If they remain accused. Dr Wakefield, in particular, will be able to inform the panel about the considerable evasion indulged in by Professor Salisbury and the Department of Health from the time that they were first informed of the epidemic of adverse reaction to MMR. The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker
The other considerable matter which Salisbury onanistically droned on about
was his department’s determination to understand public perception of the
various vaccinations. He introduced this matter by suggesting that no one else
(no other government) in the world was able to track the take-up and public
perception of vaccines in the way that the British government could. The data on
public perception of vaccine was massive, he said. The survey methods were
infinitely sensitive, the government even knew what newspapers respondents read.
In all, Salisbury and his colleagues had carried out 30 surveys into the public
outlook on vaccination, costing millions of pounds.
Listening only lethargically to this ‘evidence’, one might be moved by it. ‘The government really is interested in the public experience of vaccination’, an observer might think. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. All this data, all these surveys, all these millions of pounds have been spent in order to advance the marketing of vaccines and to plan public relations strategies which will ensure that the public accept the vaccine programme without question. This is nothing to do with science, this is jury rigging. The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker
In cross examination, the defence had previously put it to Professor
Zuckerman that he had co-operated with the media committee, and with Dr
Wakefield, in their plan to make clear their view of MMR and regressive autism.
Professor Zuckerman, who had chaired the media committee which organised the
press briefing had, it turned out, been appraised of the intention to propose a
return to the single vaccine.
In evidence, Zuckerman had denied this. A letter from him to Dr Wakefield produced in evidence, however, twice stated that in the event of a question being asked, he hoped that Wakefield would push the use of monovalent (single) vaccine. When asked about this letter in cross examination, Zuckerman had said that the twice used word ‘monovalent’ was on both occasions a typing error, and it should, of course, have read that they should push the ‘polyvalent’ (triple) vaccine. This was almost plausible, but if it was not true it hinted at a much deeper conspiracy on the part of the establishment than even I had imagined.
As Miss Smith, heroine of the defence, led Salisbury through his evidence, she presented him with a letter written by Roy Pounder head of Wakefield’s department, to the Department of Health. A letter which Salisbury had seen. The letter, according to the twisted narrative of the prosecution, was supposed to be an example of how the Royal Free research team had constantly tried to blackmail the DoH. In the letter, Pounder had notified the Department of their intention to recommend at the press conference that parents ask for the ‘monovalent’ vaccine. He wrote, Pounder said, making this clear because he did not want the NHS to be caught short when requests for the single vaccine were made. ‘Did they have sufficient stocks?’ he asked. Now, unless monovalent was also a typing error in this letter, a nightmare picture of conspiracy and deceit is beginning to unravel in the GMC hearing. The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker
While we’re on the subject of statistics, perhaps someone could explain the meaning of the figures in the table for Measles Notification: England and Wales, By Age Groups, 1989-2006, that appears on the Health Protection Agency web-site. This table shows the number of measles cases notified (excluding ones at Port Authorities, to exclude the bias of people bringing measles into the country from abroad) for 2006 as 3,739. Why is this figure almost 3,000 more than the figure quoted by the HPA and repeated in the articles of Fitzpartick and others? Dealers in Second Hand Words by Martin J Walker
The position of Professor Walker-Smith is testimony to the lengths that politicians and the medical establishment will go to keep faith with the pharmaceutical industry; to break an exceptional physician on the rack of cynicism and profitability...................[Sept 2007] GP in MMR row cleared by GMC
Professor Candy said that he was upset and surprised when the Lancet published the first paper without the second, and even more surprised when the publication of the first paper was accompanied by an editorial which suggested that there was no evidence presented for the strength of the measles virus in the gut of the children cited. This information was in the second paper, he said, and it was his opinion that both papers should have been published together; that the first paper was supported by the second. In Candy’s opinion the two papers were ‘indivisible’. [Sept 2007] GP in MMR row cleared by GMC
Transcripts were freely available through week one, when allegations were being read out without rebuttal. After cross examination began it was decided not to make them available any more.[ 17 to 20 July and 23 to 26 July] The Hearing Trundles On by Martin J Walker
I have been interested to hear the Chairman of the panel refer to the
proceedings on a number of occasions as an ‘enquiry’. By no stretch of
the legal imagination could this be the case. The proceedings are
adversarial and at their heart is a hard brought and fought prosecution.
The prosecuting authority is the General Medical Council, which is acting in concert with government public health policy and pharmaceutical company marketing strategies. The ultimate point of the prosecution is, from the prosecutor’s perspective, to defend the regulatory tenets of industrial scientific and medical research, isolate Dr Andrew Wakefield, and cast him out beyond the pale of informed medical opinion.
Were this an ‘enquiry’, an independent GMC would, from the beginning, have produced evidence of process, which would cast light on the motives of the sole complainant in the case, Brian Deer. Had it been an enquiry, many hours would have been spent recording the evidence of all the parents who had cajoled, fought and pushed their way to the Royal Free in order to get their children the best medical attention available in Britain.
This hearing is to all intents and purposes, a ‘trial’. As such, it is remarkable in contemporary society for not questioning, in any degree whatsoever, issues arising from the power of the pharmaceutical companies, their vested interests and their marketing strategies. The word ‘kangaroo’ became associated with the word ‘court’ presumably on account of that animal’s capacity to jump over great swathes of ground. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker
Dr Berelowitz would, he said, have nothing to do with Wakefield after
the press conference. So vehement was he on this matter, that it
occurred to me for a second that he was going to say that Wakefield had
forged his signature on the protocol form for subsequent research in
which he had clearly been involved. In the event, however, Berelowitz
claimed that he was tentatively involved in the research in name only and after
a time had not gone through with any involvement...................In many ways Dr Berolovitz was hoist by the same petard as all the other
prosecution witnesses. He had willingly taken part in the research for a
period of time, and he, as those before him, now had to somehow cast
that involvement in an innocent light, while appearing happy to endorse
the prosecution against Wakefield.
......Take the matter of Dr Berelowitz and lumbar punctures. The GMC prosecution have presented these as highly invasive, risky procedures which should on no account be used on children; they were portrayed as arcane and evil experimental methods. But how could Dr Berelowitz agree with the prosecution on this matter? If he did, he too would surely be admitting guilty involvement. So, on this, as on a number of other matters, Berelowitz, witness for the prosecution, essentially gave evidence for the defence.
.....Dr Berelowitz had to make a similar defence on the issue of ethical approval, another of the main planks of the prosecution case. On this he maintained very clearly, as others have done before him, and as others will no doubt do after him, that the writing up of a case-series does not require ethical approval. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker
Both GPs refused to fall in line behind the prosecution supposition that
in referring the children to the Royal Free the doctors had given up
their patients to the devil. Both declared with ringing common sense
that they had done what was best for their patients and their parents.
What is more, both felt that their actions had been thoroughly
vindicated when they received the discharge summary from the Royal Free
and when later it became apparent that the two patients had been offered
a believable diagnosis and treatment which had in differing degrees
helped their condition.
The second of the GPs was an ebullient man who despite being called for the prosecution, determinedly spoke for the defence. .....The fact that these worthy doctors had been brought to London in order to give evidence against three other doctors and, in a sense, against their patients and their parents made one wonder at the GMC's political turpitude. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker
A mother had approached her Consultant Paediatrician, with her son’s
case. The consultant appears to have taken a jaundiced view of both the
mother and the child. Despite having no real idea himself of how a
diagnosis might be reached, he had bridled at the suggestion that the
child be referred to the Royal Free, saying that he could not see how
the child might benefit.
To get support for this decision, based upon ignorance, he communicated the details of the case to Dr Kirrage. Kirrage in turn had immediately sought advice from a friend in high places, Dr Elizabeth Miller. Miller had told him that Andrew Wakefield’s theories and research were now discredited and that there was no link between MMR and autism. In her opinion it was best not to refer the child to the Royal Free.
Using a pro-vaccine propaganda leaflet sent him by Miller, that he copied into an apparently personal letter, Kirrage wrote back to his consultant friend. He suggested that the consultant send a copy of this letter to the parents, at the same time informing the child’s mother he could not see that either the child or the family would gain anything from travelling to the Royal Free in London.
What made this apparently ideologically motivated decision even more hurtful was the fact that neither the consultant nor Kirrage appeared to have the faintest notion of how they might get a proper diagnosis or specialised treatment for the child in their own Health Authority area. They were, as the mother wrote in a heart wringing letter to the consultant, dooming her son to incarceration in an institution where he would be drugged to keep him manageable. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker
Professor Zuckerman made the point on a number of occasions that in 45
years, he had never come across funding for research which entailed
'lawyers directing the research'. He didn’t have to explain this in any
depth and defence council never put to him the endless evidence that in
much research into workplace illness, in for example, the chemical
industry, not only is the funding supplied by associate industrial
interests but the work is carried out in industry funded establishments
with data provided entirely by the industry in question.
.......Zuckerman clearly detested Wakefield. He poured sugary flattery on both Professor Murch and Professor Walker-Smith. Answering cross examination from Dr Wakefield’s counsel, he was completely defensive. Obviously feeling trapped and threatened, he was always on the brink of leaving his chair and the hearing.
.....But the most intriguing question of all related to the press briefing shortly before the publication of the Lancet paper. Zuckerman had helped organise the ‘conference’ and he seemed happy to chair it. He had a preview of its structure and the questions it would address. However, when a journalist at the end of the briefing, asked what approach parents should now have to the MMR combination vaccine, Zuckerman directed the question to Dr Wakefield. This was despite the fact that he knew Wakefield to have had concerns about the polyvalent vaccine for many years. Despite the fact Zuckerman was at that time in receipt of a letter from Dr Wakefield in which it was explicitly stated that, if asked at the press briefing, Wakefield would make clear those concerns.
As soon as Dr Wakefield had made the statement which apparently ended his career at the Royal Free, suggesting that it might be better to suspend use of MMR until research had proved its safety or otherwise, Zuckerman re-directed the question to Professor Murch. Murch quickly expressed his complete support for the vaccine. Why, one might ask, had Zuckerman directed the question to Wakefield?
Slowly with steady articulation, Mr Koonan put it to Professor Zuckerman that he had alleged Dr Wakefield was implacably opposed to any attempts at replication of his work, although, in fact, replication did take place. 'It’s as simple as that', Mr Koonan blandly ended the statement. There were signs, then, that Zuckerman was about to lose it.
Koonan’s next set of questions dealt with the press briefing. He suggested to Professor Zuckerman that Zuckerman was not displeased to have the paper published by Dr Wakefield and other researchers from the Royal Free. That he thought the work reflected well on the medical school. He was even, Mr Koonan suggested, pleased to chair the briefing.
At this, Professor Zuckerman lost his footing and began to slide down the cliff face, his terse venomous responses coming almost automatically. 'I absolutely reject this. I absolutely reject this. I absolutely reject this' he said in triplicate at one point.
At the end of Zuckerman’s evidence one was left with the impression that he had performed cleverly, expressing his personal detestation of Dr Wakefield, defending his professional interests and managing to avoid answering the most damaging exchanges with Mr Koonan by utilising a display of histrionics. [July 30th to August 6th] Prosecuting For The Defence by Martin J Walker