|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français|
It is true that, some 3 weeks after my column was submitted, the GMC found that, though on a number of points Dr Donegan's evidence had been incorrect or misleading, these faults were ‘insufficient to amount to a finding of serious professional misconduct’.
To anybody familiar with Dr Donegan's views on immunisation, the GMC's judgement that her aim was ‘to direct parents to sources about immunisation and child health safety to help them make informed choices’ is in itself worthy of debate. Space here, as in my column, restricts references. However, if Dr Gooderham doubts whether I have done my research, could I refer him to my book which provides several hundred references (as well as a detailed account of the case in which the judge criticised Dr Donegan for advancing junk science in the guise of expert evidence).1