From: Peter Parry on
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:18:56 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:


>And so it came to be

Anyone interested in facts rather than the ramblings of a failed hack
can find the GMC verdict at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected

>Dr Wakefield and colleagues had applied to the research ethics committee at
>the Royal Free Hospital to carry out research programme 172/96, this
>programme was to study children who had inflammatory bowel disease.

Not quite, 172/96 covered research funded by the Legal Aid Board via
the solicitors Wakefield was working for. (Page 10/11 of the
findings).

>The defence case had been straightforward and unlike the prosecution case,
>had seemed more or less unarguable. Around 1994, various parents whose
>children suffered from terrible bowel problems, and regressive autism,
>sometimes immediately after their MMR vaccination, began to approach the
>Royal Free Hospital, wishing the country's gastrointestinal experts to
>examine them and give a diagnostic opinion.

You forgot the bit about them arriving via the solicitors Wakefield
was working for.

> Dr Wakefield's
>involvement in these cases had deepened when it began to become evident that
>many of the children were suffering from a new, or novel bowel illness. Dr
>Wakefield was, after all, the head of the Experimental Gastrointestinal Unit
>at the Royal Free Hospital.

and paid specialist for the claimants solicitor.

>In 1997, before any formal research trials were begun or carried out, Dr
>Wakefield with a number of other colleagues, began to assemble 'a case
>review paper', which involved recording the cases of 12 children who had
>arrived at the Royal Free consecutively in the preceding few years.

"Consecutively"? Almost all of these children [through their parents]
were actually clients and contacts of a UK solicitor, Richard Barr. In
February and June 1996, Barr wrote to numerous clients and contacts,
mainly people who'd got in touch following publicity and advised them
that those whose children had any of a list of possible symptoms of
Crohn's disease [such as bouts of diaorrhea, gut pain or even mouth
ulcers] should contact him for possible referral to Wakefield.

" the Panel is satisfied that these referrals did not constitute
routine referrals to the gastroenterology department. "

(Findings P45/46)

"c. The description of the referral process in the Lancet paper was
therefore,
i. irresponsible,
Found proved
ii. misleading,
Found proved
iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information in the
paper was accurate;
Found proved

In reaching its decision, the Panel concluded that your description
of the referral process as �routine�, when it was not, was
irresponsible and misleading and contrary to your duty as a senior
author. "

�35. a. In a letter to the Lancet volume 351 dated 2 May 1998, in
response to the suggestion of previous correspondents that there was
biased selection of patients in the Lancet article, you stated that
the children had all been referred through the normal channels (e.g.
from general practitioner, child psychiatrist or community
paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms,
Admitted and found proved

b. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 32.a., 34.a. and 34.b.
this statement was,
i. dishonest,
Found proved.
ii. irresponsible,
Found proved
iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information
provided by you was accurate;
Found proved "

> No money was used or received from
>outside the National Health Service, for either the clinically necessary
>evaluation of the children or for the case review study.

Not quite :-

"f. On 6 June 1996 Mr Barr submitted copies of the Costing
Proposal and the Legal Aid Board Protocol to the Legal Aid Board,
Found proved

g. On 22 August 1996 the Legal Aid Board agreed to provide a
maximum cost of �55,000 to fund the items in the Costing Proposal as
proposed by you and as set out at paragraph 3.d.,
(amended) Found proved

h. The Legal Aid Board provided funding in two installments of
�25,000, in late 1996 and in 1999 respectively, which was paid into an
account which was held by the Special Trustees of the
Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust for the purposes of your research
generally,
Admitted and found proved

i. The money provided by the Legal Aid Board was not needed for
the items listed at paragraphs 3.d.i. and ii. above, which were funded
by the NHS;
Admitted and found proved "

>In 1998, Dr Wakefield along with eleven other authors published 'a case
>review' paper in the Lancet. The paper charted the details of 12 children
>who had sequentially arrived at the Royal Free Hospital in search of
>clinical treatment for serious bowel conditions.

Nope, it charted the details of a group of children sent by a
solicitor Wakefield worked for.

> In 2003,
>legal aid was withdrawn from the claim being prepared by parents against
>three vaccine manufacturers.

Because the _claimants_ received the report by Dr Bustin on the
failures in Unigenetics upon which they relied. It was the
_claimants_ lawyers who told the court they no longer had a
sustainable case.

"The actions proceeded and expert evidence was exchanged. At this
stage, three leading counsel for the claimants in the group action
produced a lengthy advice. They advised that, as the evidence stood,
there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that the MMR vaccine
could cause ASD"

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/155.html


From: Mark Probert on
On Jan 31, 4:18 pm, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/walker898.html
> Eye Witness Report from the UK GMC Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch Hearing
> By Martin Walker MA
>
> January 31, 2010
>
> ageofautism.com


Got transcripts? No? Didn't think so.

From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 31, 6:12�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:18�pm, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.whale.to/vaccine/walker898.html
> > Eye Witness Report from the UK GMC Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch Hearing
> > By Martin Walker MA
>
> > January 31, 2010
>
> > ageofautism.com
>
> Got transcripts? No? Didn't think so.

We do have transcrips of your disbarrmnet.
Any time you try to put down others I will post the transcripts of
your disbarrment, and lying posts.

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731


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
the
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.
Probert.


DISPOSITION: 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,


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.


COUNSEL:


Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.


JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.


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 � 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
Court's
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 � 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
to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.


OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.


OPINION: [*282]


[**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
Referee.


[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served
upon
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
default motion.


The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to
cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.


The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent
has
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


Source:


NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT


Currency Status:


ARCHIVE RECORD


NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION


Name:


MARK PROBERT


Date Of Birth:


11/XX/1946


Gender:


MALE


Address:


1698 WEBSTER AVE


MERRICK, NY 11566


County:


NASSAU


Phone:


516-968-5572


EMPLOYER INFORMATION


Employer:


MARK S PROBERT ESQ


Organization:


PERSON


LICENSING INFORMATION


Licensing Agency:


NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION


License/Certification Type:


ATTORNEY


License Number:


1253889


Issue Date:


00/00/1978


License Status:


DISBARRED


License State:


NY


From: Mark Probert - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 11 2001 4:17 pm
Email: Mark Probert <markpr...(a)my-deja.com>
Groups: k12.chat.teacher


Noah has had one since 11/26/96 (my birthday).


From: Jack Schitt on
On 1/31/2010 6:27 PM, Jan Drew wrote:
> On Jan 31, 6:12�pm, Mark Probert<mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 4:18�pm, "john"<nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.whale.to/vaccine/walker898.html
>>> Eye Witness Report from the UK GMC Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch Hearing
>>> By Martin Walker MA
>>
>>> January 31, 2010
>>
>>> ageofautism.com
>>
>> Got transcripts? No? Didn't think so.
>
> We do have transcrips of your

You just cannot leave him alone, can you? You are a sick, obsessed woman
who needs help.

What are transcrips?



>
>

From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 31, 6:30�pm, Jack Schitt <jack.sch...(a)thedump.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2010 6:27 PM, Jan Drew wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 6:12 pm, Mark Probert<mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> �wrote:
> >> On Jan 31, 4:18 pm, "john"<nos...(a)bt.com> �wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.whale.to/vaccine/walker898.html
> >>> Eye Witness Report from the UK GMC Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch Hearing
> >>> By Martin Walker MA
>
> >>> January 31, 2010
>
> >>> ageofautism.com
>
> >> Got transcripts? No? Didn't think so.
>
> > We do have transcrips of your
>
> You just cannot leave him alone, can you? You are a sick, obsessed woman
> who needs help.
>
> What are transcrips?

The same thing as transcripts.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -