Prev: Worthless Ravings from a
Next: Eye Witness Report from the UK GMC Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch Hearing
From: john on 31 Jan 2010 16:19
From: Peter B on 31 Jan 2010 17:06
"john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote in message
Poor John, it must be false, has to be false, can't be anything but
From: Mark Probert on 31 Jan 2010 17:55
On Jan 31, 4:19 pm, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
You mean the Al Queada of Autism, don't you? They are as credible as
the Whale.to site.
From: Jan Drew on 31 Jan 2010 18:13
Troll and harasser "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com>
Shows his dishonesty.
> "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote in message
Yesterday I was talking w/a neighbor who had vaccinated her (now 9
year old) son according to the CDC "rites" and her son is OK...I was
expecting her to defend her decision but instead she said she knew she
was just lucky, knew about the 1 in 60 rate, etc. The truth is out
there and people know it. The Big Liars will be found out.
Posted by: Amanda Blinn | January 31, 2010 at 04:56 PM
Jim, you're magnificent!
Posted by: Alli Edwards UK | January 31, 2010 at 04:23 PM
Nice Speech! Awesome job. One of the signs in the background really
summed it up nicely.
"Guilty of helping our damaged kids".
That's it in a nutshell.
Posted by: A Friend | January 31, 2010 at 11:39 AM
This is nothing short of obscene. I don't know where the greater
frustration lies for me...with the corrupt system, pharma,
initimidated peds--or--the people who ask me to explain what's
happening to us, in this country, in the UK, what is happening to
these doctors. They stand in front of me sort of annoyed as if to say,
"I guess that's bad...but... what are YOU getting so worked up about?"
The greatest lesson I have learned on this journey so far: The power
of denial is greater than autism itself.
Sidenote--Teresa I have nary a clue what your literary acredentials
are but I must tell you are THE BEST armchair investigative-watchdog
journalist I have ever read! PLEASE KEEP GOING!
Posted by: lj goes | January 31, 2010 at 08:44 AM
Jim Moody absolutely RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROCKS !!!!!
Posted by: htbenz | January 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM
Jim Moody summed the proceedings up perfectly, and all Harris could do
was throw out the standard, denialist "no evidence" claim.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | January 30, 2010 at 09:51 PM
Red Rover, Red Rover, Let Glaxo and Merk come over. We will stand
stong and not break our bond and you will fail in your greedy plot to
prevent true science from flourishing. We shall overcome with peace,
care, knowledge, and love for the people of the planet.
Posted by: maggie | January 30, 2010 at 09:11 PM
Jim Moody does a fantastic job in explaining the facts about false
testimony and the complaint being presented by many autism
organizations both here and in the UK.
The man with the wild eyes and inappropriate smile is no innocent
bystander. He is Dr. Evan Harris MP who has an interesting connection.
I am sure we will hear more about that but here is a link to a blog
that he started that has some questionable accusations.
This is a part of a post from that blog. It is well written and I
think shows a strategy that Evan and so many others use. She is
directing her comment to Evan:
Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR Scare Evan on C4 News
"We have asked if we can have the single vaccines on the NHS but have
been told that we cannot even though our doctor said that he could not
rule out the possibility that the MMR had contributed to our
I therefore watched the Channel 4 News item with interest. I am well
aware of your stance on this issue which I respect. You are entitled
to your view. Your conduct though I do not find acceptable. Frankly I
do not understand where you are coming from on this. You are prefectly
entitled to attack the science, to express your view that the MMR is
safe but I think your are wrong, and in fact do yourself no favours,
when you start attacking the integrity of Andrew Wakefield and others
who share Wakefields concerns about the safety of the MMR. You have
stopped playing the ball and are now playing the man.
I personally have no doubt at all that Andrew Wakefield is a decent,
honest man who has genuine concerns about the safety of the MMR and is
committed to finding out what has caused the autism and bowel
disorders in children like our daughter. The most serious finding
against him by the GMC is essentially that he treated the children in
the study like guinnea pigs. It is therefore extraordinary, is it not,
that not one parent of those children has complained about him? Your
comments about the parents being in distress and that he took
advantage of them is the sort of patronising nonsense that I am afraid
is rather typical of the medical profession, and certainly is
something we got in spades from our GP when our daughter was
But more serious. I felt, were your comments about the individual (I
dont know his name) who appeared on the show alongside you. You
accused him, without showing any evidence to back up your claims, of
seeking to make a profit at the expense of public health by
advocating, and offering single vaccines. In effect you accused him of
being motivated purely by money. This is clearly defamatory. How on
earth can you be so sure that money is his primary motive to make such
a serious allegation as that on live TV? And you appear to be proud of
it too judging from this website! I would like to give our son single
vaccines but cannot. If I wanted to vaccinate my son against measles I
would have to go to a private clinic. Can you not see the absurdity of
accusing an individual of profiteering in this way, when, if he and
Wakefield and others had their way, the single vaccines would be
available on the NHS? The individual on the wshow came across as a
more reasonable and plasuible person than you.
I have lodged an official complaint about this with your party."
From: Jan Drew on 31 Jan 2010 18:15
On Jan 31, 5:55ï¿½pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:19ï¿½pm, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> You mean the Al Queada of Autism, don't you? They are as credible as
> the Whale.to site.
Speaking of credible....................
In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747
November 9, 1992, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,
HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings
Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.
Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law ï¿½ 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law ï¿½ 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.
[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special
[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately
NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT
NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION
Date Of Birth:
1698 WEBSTER AVE
MERRICK, NY 11566
MARK S PROBERT ESQ
NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION
From: Mark Probert - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 11 2001 4:17 pm
Email: Mark Probert <markpr...(a)my-deja.com>
Noah has had one since 11/26/96 (my birthday).