Fw: Re: Former science chief: 'MMR fears coming true'===Reader comments

[Guest guest]

A Life Sentence With No Appeal

by Seamark

It's the final insult. While asylum seekers and prisoners denied second

helpings of pudding are given legal aid, these agonised parents who believe

MMR caused their children's autism are refused it.

The battle by 1,000 families to prove the MMR jab ruined their children's

lives was in severe jeopardy last night following a decision to cut off

their legal aid.

Their multi-million-pound claim against the makers of the vaccine faces

collapse after the Legal Services Commission - which had spent £15million on

the action - refused to approve a further £10million.

An appeal for a judicial review into that decision has been heard and the

result is expected in the next two weeks. But without further public funding

these cases are unlikely to go forward, devastating the families fighting to

win justice for their sons and daughters.

They are bitter that, despite legal aid being handed out to a host of

dubious causes, their fight is being dismissed.

Campaigner, Jackie Fletcher, is the national co-ordinator of the Jabs parent

support organisation and her 12-year-old son, , is one of those

children involved. She said yesterday: " Without legal aid the families of

the damaged children face losing their day in Court - which we hoped would

give answers to all worried parents. "

The decision, last October, to stop any further legal aid was condemned as

illogical and perverse' by parents. It came only six months before the cases

were due to be heard of the children, who suffer from a range of

disabilities including autism, bowel problems, epilepsy and other learning

difficulties.

The LSC said that it recognised that the children suffered from a series of

serious medical conditions, and that the matter was of sufficient public

interest to justify the money so far invested in the case.

But the failure of any medical body to prove a concrete link between the

triple jab and these health problems meant the case had little chance of

success, it said.

Daily Mail, 24th February 2004

The Questions

by ce

Is Wakefield being attacked because of his findings or because of a

potential conflict of interest?

Is there evidence of an orchestrated government campaign against him?

Why have other research papers been accepted for publication in The Lancet

when a potential conflict of interest exists without there being such

controversy?

Why, given his tough comment on 23rd February, has Mr Blair never said

whether his son, Leo, has had the MMR, when that might have offered much

needed reassurance to parents and so boost the take-up rates?

Why has the government never ordered a clinical examination of children who

developed bowel disease and autism following MMR vaccination?

Its supporters agree it is impossible to prove that the MMR is safe. What

more, then, can be done to reassure worried parents?

The Independent, 24th February 2004