Oh, no actual refutation of the facts given in the article, then?

And the article you link says:

months back. Brian Deer and a camera crew turned up. They booked under
their own name. I was the warm up act and, when I had finished, I went
to the back of the room to talk to parents. Then Andy was on and was as
excellent as usual. As he got off the stage, he was surrounded by
mothers asking questions. Deer and his crew pushed them aside, turned
on their recording equipment and attempted to conduct an interview.
(Clearly there was no permission or request  to film.) Andy did that
thing where you put your hand over the camera lens and attempted to
leave the room fast. He bent down to pick up his computer and knocked
against the cameraman. Deer interprets this as an attack. Deer's
interpretation is that his polite request for an interview was turned
down. No doubt edited highlights of this event will be shown." ----Paul
Shattock

But none of this is mentioned in the Times article. What was your
point? Edited highlights were not used here. This is just more whaleto
sh.t.

Nor does it address:

"The GMC's inquiry, expected to conclude at a public hearing next
June, is understood to be investigating Wakefield's work with lawyers
who were trying to sue MMR manufacturers while he was apparently acting
as an independent researcher.

In the original Lancet paper, the only evidence against MMR were
statements by the parents of eight children who linked the vaccine with
autism. The GMC is now trying to establish how many of them were
lawyers' clients.

At the heart of the GMC's allegations is the conduct of research
carried out at the Royal Free following the award of a £55,000
contract from lawyers in August 1996 to perform tests on 10 children
for the Legal Aid Board. Wakefield claimed last year the £55,000
contract was for a "quite separate" study. This is called into
question by confidential Royal Free documents, including letters from
Wakefield himself.

These documents indicate that the lawyers' money was initially
rejected by the Royal Free's medical school, but that Wakefield then
arranged for the hospital's management to accept it and to pay it
back to his research interests. The hospital has denied any wrongdoing.

The GMC is also understood to have put it to Wakefield that he did not
have approval from the hospital's ethics committee either for
including data on specific children in The Lancet or for soliciting
other doctors to perform potentially hazardous tests, such as lumbar
punctures.

"These tests were, however, determined and routinely carried out on
the children who formed part of the study without consideration of the
individual history, diagnosis, symptoms and clinical needs of the
children, and without an adequate evaluation of the necessity of the
tests," the GMC papers allege."

In fact, you don't address anything, do you?

Cathy

John cannot handle the FACT that his hero was a crook and incompetent.

Now, his hero is inflicted on the US.