Must of been the wrong prayers...

Coleman's manager John Alcanter confirmed to AFP earlier Friday that the actor was in a critical condition after suffering a brain hemorrhage and was unconscious on life support.

"He's on life support. He's unconscious right now," Alcanter said. "We're grateful for the prayers we have received."

Would have been better if they'd had better techniques for this difficult issue which has a very, very high mortality rate.  Unfortunately, medicine, in this area, is fairly primitive and they couldn't save him:

Former child actor Gary Coleman, known to millions as the star of hit sitcom "Diff'rent Strokes," died in hospital on Friday after suffering a brain hemorrhage, CNN reported Friday.

Coleman, 42, was hospitalized at the Utah Valley Regional Medical Center on Wednesday after suffering a head injury following a fall at his home near Provo, according to US media reports.

Long Time Coming...

MMR doctor struck from register
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News

The doctor who first suggested a link between MMR vaccinations and autism is to be struck off the medical register.

The General Medical Council found Dr Andrew Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct over the way he carried out his controversial research.

It follows a GMC ruling earlier this year that he had acted unethically.

Dr Wakefield, who is now based in the US, has consistently claimed the allegations are unfair. He now says he will appeal against the verdict.

His 1998 Lancet study caused vaccination rates to plummet, resulting in a rise in measles - but the findings were later discredited.

The GMC ruled in January Dr Wakefield had acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in conducting his research, but under its procedures the sanctions are made at a later date.

The case did not investigate whether Dr Wakefield's findings were right or wrong, instead it focused on the methods of research.

The panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest

During the two-and-a-half-year case, the longest in GMC history, he was accused of carrying out invasive tests on vulnerable children which were against their best interests.

The GMC also said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London's Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests.

And the panel hearing the case took exception with the way he gathered blood samples. Dr Wakefield paid children £5 for the samples at his son's birthday party.

It also said Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.

Serious misconduct

In making the verdict on the sanctions, Dr Surendra Kumar, the panel's chairman, said Dr Wakefield had "brought the medical profession into disrepute" and his behaviour constituted "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct".

In total, he was found guilty of more than 30 charges.

Dr Kumar also explained the reasoning for striking Dr Wakefield off.

"The panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession, and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him."

Dr Wakefield has consistently claimed the allegations against him were "unfounded and unjust".

As the GMC announced its sanctions, Dr Wakefield said: "Efforts to discredit and silence me through the GMC process have provided a screen to shield the government from exposure on the MMR vaccine scandal."

Two of his former colleagues at the Royal Free were also ruled to have broken guidelines.

Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch both helped Dr Wakefield carry out the research.

Professor Walker-Smith, who is 73 and has been retired for the past 10 years, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the register. Professor Murch was found not guilty of serious professional misconduct despite there not being ethical approval for the research.

In explaining this decision, Dr Kumar said he took into account the fact that Professor Murch stopped carrying out tests on children for the study because he did not think they were necessary.

Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said the scare over the vaccine had done "untold damage to the UK vaccination programme".

"We cannot stress too strongly that all children and young people should have the MMR vaccine."

The Department of Health reiterated this. A spokesman said: "The safety of MMR has been endorsed through numerous studies in many countries."

The guy is a sleaze. I just think he should be rotting in jail, not merely loosing his medical license, for putting the health of millions at risk so he could profit off the patent of his single-shot measles vaccine by making people fear the MMR vaccine.

Viral Stupidity...

The original, somewhat frightening, campaign ad:



The funny Poe spoof:

We're Better Than That, Too!!!! w/ Dale Peterson - watch more funny videos

I did not know you could actually do this...

It's just amazing... For it's utter stupidity...

The Next Victim...

These are wild animals. They may be tolerating the "Lion Whisperer" today... But, someday, he's going to be dinner...



Like Timothy Treadwell, the "Grizzly Man" who was killed and eaten (along with his girlfriend) by brown bears in Katami National Park back in 2003, it's only a matter of time...

Wow...

Libertarian Medicine at its finest:

Nailed: Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR - autism fraud


Summary of Brian Deer's investigation into a threat to children's health

With a series of stories spread over six years, Brian Deer has pursued a landmark public interest investigation for The Sunday Times of London and the United Kingdom's Channel 4 Television network into allegations - first made in Britain - linking the three-in-one measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) with claims of a terrifying new syndrome of bowel and brain damage in children. These allegations led to a decade-long health crisis in the UK, and sparked epidemics of fear, guilt and infectious diseases, which have been exported to the United States and other developed countries, spawning every kind of concern over vaccinations.

Almost incredibly, the trigger for what would become a worldwide controversy was a single scientific research paper published in a medical journal - the Lancet - in February 1998. Written by a 41-year-old laboratory researcher, Dr Andrew Wakefield, and co-authored by a dozen other doctors, it reported on the cases of 12 anonymous children with developmental disorders, who were admitted to a paediatric bowel unit at the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead, north London, between July 1996 and February 1997.

Backed by a press conference and a video news-release, the five-page paper’s claims received huge media attention, and were followed by a sustained attack on the vaccine. This included further publications by Wakefield, criticising MMR, and led to an unprecedented collapse in public confidence in the shot, which, since the late 1980s in the UK and the early 1970s in the US, has been given almost universally to children, soon after they are one year old, almost eradicating measles and rubella.

The prime cause of the alarm was findings in the paper claiming that the parents of two thirds of the 12 children blamed MMR for the sudden onset of what was described as a combination of both an inflammatory bowel disease and what Wakefield called "regressive autism", in which language and basic skills were said to have been lost. Most disturbingly, the first behavioural symptoms were reported to have appeared within only 14 days of the shot.

Although the research involved only a dozen children, and its results have never been replicated, many medical breakthroughs have begun with small-scale observations, and, if true, Wakefield's findings might have been the first snapshot of a hidden epidemic of devastating injuries. "It's a moral issue for me," he said at the 1998 press conference, where he called for a boycott of the triple MMR, in favour of breaking it up into single shots, to be given at yearly intervals. "I can't support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination, until this issue has been resolved."

As the doctor campaigned, UK vaccination rates slumped: below the level needed to keep measles at bay. Even Tony Blair became embroiled in the controversy when Wakefield supporters suggested - the Blairs say wrongly - that the prime minister’s youngest son was not vaccinated with MMR. Meanwhile in America, a ferocious anti-vaccine movement took off, after Wakefield appeared on the CBS network's 60 Minutes programme in November 2000, speaking of an "epidemic of autism". This was followed by claims that all vaccines are suspect: either due to their content, or because of an increase in the number given to children.

"In 1983 the shot schedule was ten. That's when autism was one in 10,000. Now there's 36, and autism is one in 150," argued American actress Jenny McCarthy, who blamed MMR for her own son’s autism, and gained the highest profile in the US movement. "All arrows point to one direction."

Andrew Wakefield's role unmasked

But, as journalists queued to report on parents' fears, Brian Deer was assigned to investigate the crisis, and unearthed a scandal of astounding proportions. He discovered that, far from being based on any findings, the public alarm had no scientific basis whatsoever. Rather, Wakefield had been payrolled to create evidence against the shot, and, while planning extraordinary business schemes, meant to profit from the scare, he had changed and misreported data on the anonymous children to rig the results published in the journal.

Before Deer’s inquiries, Wakefield had appeared to all the world to be an independent, if controversial, researcher. Tall and square-headed, with hooded eyes and a booming voice, he was the son of doctors (a neurologist and a family practitioner), had grown up in Bath, a prosperous, west-of-England spa town, and joined the Royal Free in November 1988, after training in Toronto, Canada. His demeanour was languid - he was privately educated - and, born in 1956, he was a lingering example of the presumed honour of the upper middle class.

But the investigation discovered that, while Wakefield held himself out to be a dispassionate scientist, two years before the Lancet paper was published - and before any of the 12 children were even referred to the hospital - he had been hired by a lawyer, Richard Barr: a jobbing solicitor in the small eastern English town of King's Lynn, who hoped to raise a speculative class action lawsuit against drug companies which manufactured MMR.

Unlike expert witnesses, who give professional advice and opinions, Wakefield negotiated a lucrative contract with Barr, then aged 48, to conduct clinical and scientific research. The goal was to find evidence of what the two men called "a new syndrome", intended to be the centrepiece of (later failed) litigation on behalf of an eventual 1,600 families, mostly recruited through media stories. This, publicly undisclosed, role for Wakefield created the grossest conflict of interest, and the exposure of it by Deer, in February 2004, led to public uproar in Britain, the retraction of the Lancet report's conclusions section, and, from July 2007, the longest-ever professional misconduct hearing by the UK's General Medical Council.

Barr [audio] paid the doctor with money from the UK legal aid fund: run by the government to give poorer people access to justice. Wakefield charged at the extraordinary rate of £150 an hour - billed through a company of his wife's - eventually totalling, for generic work alone, what the UK Legal Services Commission, pressed under the freedom of information act, said was £435,643 (about $750,000 US), plus expenses. These hourly fees - revealed in The Sunday Times in December 2006 - gave the doctor a direct, personal, but undeclared, financial interest in the results of his research: totalling more than eight times his reported annual salary, and creating an incentive not only for him to launch the alarm, but to keep it going for as long as possible.

In addition to the personal payments was an initial award of £55,000, applied for by Wakefield in June 1996 - but never declared to the Lancet, as it should have been - for the express purpose of conducting the research later submitted to the journal. This start-up funding was part of a staggering £18m of taxpayers' money eventually shared among a group of doctors and lawyers, working under Barr's and Wakefield's direction, to try to prove that MMR caused the previously unheard-of "syndrome". Yet more surprising, Wakefield had predicted the existence of such a syndrome - which he would later dub "autistic enterocolitis" - before he carried out the research.

This Barr-Wakefield deal was the foundation of the vaccine crisis, both in Britain and throughout the world. "I have mentioned to you before that the prime objective is to produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous," the lawyer reminded the doctor in a confidential letter, six months before the Lancet report.

And, if this was not enough to cast doubt on the research's objectivity, The Sunday Times and Channel 4 investigation unearthed another shocking conflict of interest. In June 1997 - nearly nine months before the press conference at which Wakefield called for single vaccines - he had filed a patent on products, including his own supposedly "safer" single measles vaccine, which only stood any prospect of success if confidence in MMR was damaged. Wakefield denied any vaccine plans, but his proposed shot, and a network of companies intended to raise venture capital for purported inventions - including a vaccine, testing methods, and strange potential miracle cures for autism - were set out in confidential documents. One business was later awarded £800,000 from the legal aid fund on the strength of now-discredited data which he had supplied.

Behind the veil of confidentiality

As with the researcher, so too with his subjects. They also were not what they appeared to be. In the Lancet, the 12 children (11 boys and one girl) were held out to be merely a routine series of kids with developmental disorders and digestive symptoms, needing care from the London hospital. That so many of their parents blamed problems on one common vaccine, understandably, caused public concern. But Deer discovered that the children (aged between 2½ and 9½) had been recruited through MMR campaign groups, and that, at the time of their admission, most of their parents were clients and contacts of the lawyer, Barr. None of the 12 lived in London. Two were brothers. Two attended the same doctor's office, 280 miles from the Royal Free. Three were patients at another hospital clinic. One was flown in from the United States.

The investigation revealed, moreover, that the paper's incredible finding of a sudden onset of autism after vaccination was a sham: laundering into medical literature, as apparent facts, the unverified, often vague, memories and assertions of a group of unnamed parents who, unknown to the journal and its readers, were bound to blame MMR when they came to the hospital, because that was why they had been brought there. Wakefield, a former trainee gut surgeon, denied this. But the true number of families accusing MMR wasn't eight, as the paper said: it was 11 of the 12 (later all 12) and, in some cases, records noted the children's legal involvement before they were even referred.

"Mum taking her to Dr Wakefield, Royal Free hospital, for CT scan, gut biopsies," wrote one family doctor in the north-east of England, for example, before referring the only little girl in the project. "Will need ref letter. Dr Wakefield to phone me. Funded through legal aid."

In the light of these discoveries, the case was overwhelming to dig deeper into Wakefield's findings. In an exercise never before accomplished by a journalist, Deer was able to go behind the face of the 1998 paper, identify the subjects, and access original patient data. Penetrating veils of medical confidentiality, he discovered that the hospital's clinicians and pathology service had found nothing to implicate MMR, but that Wakefield had repeatedly changed and misreported diagnoses, histories and descriptions of the children, which made it appear that the syndrome had been discovered.

As revealed in The Sunday Times in February 2009, the effect was to give the impression of a link between MMR, bowel disease and the sudden onset of regressive autism, when otherwise none was evident. The hospital's pathology service had repeatedly declared bowel biopsies from the children to be normal, and not one of the 12 cases was free of critical mismatches between the paper which launched the vaccine crisis and the kids' contemporaneous clinical records. Some children showed signs of autism before vaccination. Some were deemed normal months afterwards. Some did not have autism at all.

"From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study," said the father of a boy from northern California, who was admitted, at age 5, to Wakefield’s research, "the data clearly appeared to be distorted."

Children's protections sidelined

In addition to finding that the Lancet paper had been rigged, the investigation uncovered a raft of other issues: starting with irregularities in ethical supervision. Research on patients is governed by national and international standards - particularly the Helsinki declaration - and no reputable hospital review board would have endorsed the kind of fishing expedition Wakefield embarked on for Barr. Without that endorsement, moreover, no major medical journal would have published any resulting paper. Nevertheless, to satisfy the Lancet's stringent patient-protection requirements, but without revealing to hospital authorities what was really going on, Wakefield falsely reported that a gruelling five-day battery of invasive and distressing procedures performed on the kids, including anaesthesia, ileocolonoscopies, lumbar punctures, brain scans, EEGs, radioactive drinks and x-rays, proposed for the lawsuit, was approved by the Royal Free's ethics committee.

But Deer revealed that, despite the research being executed on the uniquely vulnerable, developmentally challenged children of sometimes desperate parents, the ethics committee was not told the truth about the project, and had given no such approval. Wakefield and his key associates issued a formal statement denying this explosive discovery, but later changed their story and admitted it during the General Medical Council hearing, where - despite clear rules - they now argued they needed no approval.

Wakefield's basic science was also probed. The story was much the same. He had obtained the legal money and planned his business ventures against a theory of his own that the culprit for both inflammatory bowel disease and autism was persistent infection with measles virus, which is found live as a normal part of MMR. But Deer revealed on Channel 4 that sophisticated, unreported, molecular tests carried out in Wakefield's own lab had found no trace of measles in the children's guts and blood. Those tests were among a string which found no evidence of the virus. The Sunday Times also disclosed critical flaws in one apparently positive study, which involved materials supplied by Wakefield. This had misled thousands of families affected by autism, both in the UK and the US, ensnared for years in hopeless litigation based almost entirely on his measles theory.

Deer (who in April 2006 reported the first British measles death in 14 years) took no view on whether vaccines may or may not cause autism, but he never found any scientific material which repeated the Lancet findings. Although all kinds of children suffer from digestive issues, he learnt of a mass of authoritative research which overwhelmingly rebutted Wakefield's claims. "Specifically, numerous studies have refuted Andrew Wakefield’s theory that MMR vaccine is linked to bowel disorders and autism," was how the American Academy of Pediatrics summarised the position in an August 2009 statement to NBC News for a Dateline programme which featured both Wakefield and Deer. "Every aspect of Dr Wakefield’s theory has been disproven."

The impact of the investigation has been felt around the world, with media coverage from New Zealand to Canada. In the UK, the revelations prompted a statement by the prime minister, a collapse in the anti-MMR campaign, and a rebound in vaccination levels. In the US - where the Barr-Wakefield deal was joined by allegations marshalled by American attorneys that a mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, was also at fault - findings by Deer were presented by the Department of Justice in federal court, followed in February 2009 by scathing judgments. After hearing a test case of petitions from some 5,000 families, one presiding judge said: "Therefore, it is a noteworthy point that not only has that 'autistic enterocolitis' theory not been accepted into gastroenterology textbooks, but that theory, and Dr Wakefield’s role in its development, have been strongly criticized as constituting defective or fraudulent science."

Wakefield campaign denies everything

In response to Deer's findings, Wakefield supporters denied that he received money for research, and, amid a barrage of sometimes paid-for attacks, smears and crank abuse, insisted that the doctor was a champion of children’s interests. But the father-of-four had not only baselessly triggered the resurgence of sometimes fatal or brain-disabling measles outbreaks, plunged countless parents into the hell of believing it was their own fault for agreeing to vaccination that a son or daughter had developed autism, and misled an ethics committee over child rights and safety, but it was discovered that he had gone as far as to buy blood samples from children as young as four years old, attending a birthday party, and then to joke about them crying, fainting and vomiting.

Meanwhile, Wakefield bizarrely argued that he never said that MMR caused autism at all. But documents - including patents - evidence the doctor's claims, and he published a string of further misleading reports intended to undermine the vaccine. Even when he knew that his allegations had been proven baseless, he was found promoting them from a controversial business in Austin, Texas, called Thoughtful House, where, after being fired from the Royal Free in October 2001, he held a $280,000-a-year post, spun from his campaign against the shot.

Throughout the investigation, Wakefield refused to co-operate, filed complaints, and issued statements denying every aspect. He also initiated, and then abandoned with some £1.3m ($2m) costs, a two-year libel lawsuit, financed by the Medical Protection Society, which defends doctors against complaints from patients. In reply, Deer and Channel 4 accused Wakefield of being "unremittingly evasive and dishonest". His conduct in the litigation was also criticised by a High Court judge, who said that Wakefield "wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them", and that the doctor was using them as "a weapon in his attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public issue".

Wakefield, who contrived a bizarre conspiracy theory, says he has done nothing wrong. "The notion that any researcher can cook such data in any fashion that can be slipped past the medical community for his personal benefit is patent nonsense," he argued in a March 2009 statement. "Scientific rigor requires repeatability for verification of any research and Mr Deer's implications of fraud against me are claims that a trained physician and researcher of good standing had suddenly decided he was going to fake data for his own enrichment."

Lancet paper retracted and doctor ousted

On 28 January 2010, a statutory tribunal of the UK General Medical Council handed down rulings on Wakefield's conduct, following a 197-day inquiry, wholly vindicating Brian Deer's investigation. Branding Wakefield "dishonest", "unethical" and "callous", the panel of three doctors and two lay members found him guilty of some three dozen charges, including four of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally-challenged children. His 1998 Lancet research was found to be dishonest, and performed without ethical approval. Five days later, the Lancet fully retracted the paper from the scientific literature, prompting international media interest.

"What is indisputable is that vaccines protect children from dangerous diseases," said the New York Times, in one of a string of editorials to appear in world newspapers. "We hope that The Lancet’s belated retraction will finally lay this damaging myth about autism and vaccines to rest."

On 17 February, Wakefield was ousted by the directors of his Texas business, and, after further proceedings, his license to practise medicine is expected to be revoked.

It's not like it's going to stop the anti-vax crowd though...

Fox Stupidity Exposed...

Watching a mellow push-back against the right-wing stupidity of Faux News is hysterical:

Q As for critics who are calling this your Katrina, is there -- President Obama’s Katrina --

MR. GIBBS: Can I say this -- I watched FOX yesterday.

Q I really didn’t want you to go there. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: But you sort of -- you opened both the double doors and voila, here I am. (Laughter.)

Q But it wasn’t just FOX calling this your Katrina.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, but FOX had the very special and unique interview with Michael Brown -- you opened it and I had to do it -- who for those who weren’t let in on the big secret, Mr. Brown, FEMA Director Brown under Katrina, intimated on FOX, and it wasn’t -- I will editorially say, didn’t appear to be pushed back on real hard -- that this spill was leaked on purpose in order for us to walk back our environmental and drilling decisions, and that the leak that we did on purpose got out of control and now is too big to contain.

So suffice to say, Wendell --

Q What is his attribution? What is his -- Mr. Brown’s attribution?

MR. GIBBS: I can only wish that the network that you work for had asked that prior to interviewing him yesterday.

Q But reporters in here asked that.

MR. GIBBS: Well, you should --

Q So I’m asking you --

MR. GIBBS: You should call headquarters, my friend, and --

Q I’m asking you --

MR. GIBBS: -- ask for somebody who makes the decisions to put people like that -- because I got to tell you, Wendell, I’m not entirely sure that a factual answer that I might give to any one of your questions is going to change the notion that your network put out the former FEMA director to make an accusation that the well had been purposely set off in order to change an offshore drilling decision.

Q Nor would that affect the reporting I do.

MR. GIBBS: I didn’t intimate that it did. Again, I would -- you and Major should --

Q If we can, let’s move on from it.

MR. GIBBS: You could get on a conference call and maybe do some work. Go ahead.

Sadly, the talking point discussed is just one of many foolish talking points put out by the wing-nutst...

Of COURSE...

My general rule is, the more the gay-bashing, homophobia the bigger the closet...:

A Christian leader and prominent neuro-psychiatrist who co-founded the Family Research Council with evangelist James Dobson took a ten-day European vacation with a callboy he met through RentBoy.com and was caught in an airport with the escort by a Miami newspaper.

The escort said he had met George Rekers, professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of South Carolina, on RentBoy.com. Rekers, when confronted, didn't deny that he'd met the callboy online, but said he had hired him to help him carry his baggage and didn't learn he was generally hired for "private company" until mid-way through his European vacation.

"I had surgery," Rekers told Miami's New Times, "and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him." (The paper noted that it didn't stop him from pushing a "tottering" pile of luggage through Miami International Airport.)

The callboy, identified by a pseudonym, told the New Times' Penn Bullock and Brandon Thorp that Rekers claim that he didn't know his "line of work" seemed spurious.

"He should've been able to tell you that," he said. "But that's up to him."

According to Penn and Thorp, the slender, 20-year-old escort's profile advertises his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch cock."

Really? Luggage? Was he lifting it with his dick? Storing it in his smooth, sweet, tight ass?

And didn't you, well, think those might be odd things to post in an on-line resume? Seriously, why would you hire someone stupid enough to make a resume like that? Unless, of course, you were looking for a call-boy...

Anyway, now that one of the heavy-hitters of the "ex-gay" movement has been caught with his pants down, maybe that creepy, homophobic industry will die...

Elavator Rapist Pwnd by Attempted Victim

I think the most important thing she did was showing situational awareness and, when he made his move, responded with overwhelming force and DID NOT LET UP.   One of the most important things to remember in a fight is to not let up until your opponent is incapacitated.