Scrutable

She has held a number of talks across Britain this year and has upcoming events in London, Leamington Spa and Southampton.

By the end of the talk, she has told them that the triple vaccine protecting children from measles, mumps and rubella is linked to autism and bowel disease.

The Panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants.

You demonstrated to the Panel that your reports did not derive from your deeply held views and your evidence supported this. You explained to the Panel that your approach in your report was to provide the court with a alternative view based on the material you produced in your references. That material was largely drawn from publications that were in fact in favour of immunisation.

It was clear from your evidence and the evidence of your witness that your aim is to direct parents to sources of information about immunisation and child health safety to help them to make informed choices.

You told us that there are many books by doctors and others in this and other countries who seriously question vaccination and they cite a lot of history, proofs and medical papers to support their arguments. You did not use any of those publications because you did not think that the Court would regard those as satisfactory support or references for your recommendations. You largely used what was available in refereed medical journals.

The Panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent and unbiased.

Accordingly, the Panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

jdc wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:36 pm Anyone remember the last time the GMC investigated JD?

The evidence of Dr Donegan is treated with great reserve. She has deeply held feelings on the risks of immunisation. She allowed this to over-rule her duty to provide objective unbiased opinion considering all the relevant facts including those which detract from her opinion.

Dr Donegan's report was based on no independent research, and most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own.

I think this is the GMC's judgement:

The Panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants.

You demonstrated to the Panel that your reports did not derive from your deeply held views and your evidence supported this. You explained to the Panel that your approach in your report was to provide the court with a alternative view based on the material you produced in your references. That material was largely drawn from publications that were in fact in favour of immunisation.

It was clear from your evidence and the evidence of your witness that your aim is to direct parents to sources of information about immunisation and child health safety to help them to make informed choices.

You told us that there are many books by doctors and others in this and other countries who seriously question vaccination and they cite a lot of history, proofs and medical papers to support their arguments. You did not use any of those publications because you did not think that the Court would regard those as satisfactory support or references for your recommendations. You largely used what was available in refereed medical journals.

The Panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent and unbiased.

Accordingly, the Panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

jdc wrote: Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:36 pm Anyone remember the last time the GMC investigated JD?

The evidence of Dr Donegan is treated with great reserve. She has deeply held feelings on the risks of immunisation. She allowed this to over-rule her duty to provide objective unbiased opinion considering all the relevant facts including those which detract from her opinion.

Dr Donegan's report was based on no independent research, and most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own.

I think this is the GMC's judgement:

The Panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants.

You demonstrated to the Panel that your reports did not derive from your deeply held views and your evidence supported this. You explained to the Panel that your approach in your report was to provide the court with a alternative view based on the material you produced in your references. That material was largely drawn from publications that were in fact in favour of immunisation.

It was clear from your evidence and the evidence of your witness that your aim is to direct parents to sources of information about immunisation and child health safety to help them to make informed choices.

You told us that there are many books by doctors and others in this and other countries who seriously question vaccination and they cite a lot of history, proofs and medical papers to support their arguments. You did not use any of those publications because you did not think that the Court would regard those as satisfactory support or references for your recommendations. You largely used what was available in refereed medical journals.

The Panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent and unbiased.

Accordingly, the Panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Dr Jayne Donegan, a London-based homeopath who is also an NHS doctor, did not tell the undercover reporter not to vaccinate. But she expressed her view that “children should get measles”, and that for people who decide not to vaccinate their children it was "best not to discuss it” with other parents.

Part 1 of Nursing Children supportively through acute illness.
What to do if you don’t vaccinate and even more so if you do.
by Dr Jayne Donegan

Meningitis – How to avoid it?
by Dr Jayne Donegan

Rubella
Is it serious?
Why do we vaccinate against it?
Does the vaccine work?
What does the vaccine do? Are you more likely to get Rubella when you are pregnant?
Supportive treatment/ Homeopathic specifics
Measles
The Normal course of the disease
Is it still a killer? Has it changed over the course of the 20th – 21st Century
What does the vaccine do? – Atypical measles
Advantages of getting measles
Supportive treatment/ Homeopathic specifics
Questions
01 December 2019 Sunday afternoon, 1.45 for 2-4pm, North West London NW4
For further information and to book tickets please email jaynelmdonegan@yahoo.com with your post code, contact telephone number and number of tickets required. Tickets cost £11 (£10 per person for couples) and must be booked in advance.
Nearest tube station: Hendon Central

‘Vaccination – The Question: What you need to know to give Informed Consent’
26 January 2020, Sunday afternoon, London NW4. Please email jaynelmdonegan@yahoo.com with phone number and post code to book/for details.
02 February 2020 Sunday afternoon, Southampton. Details TBA
‘Nursing Children Supportively Through Acute Illness/ Sláinte Leanaí’
*** Change of date from 24 November 2019 to 15 December *** 2019, Sunday afternoon, North West London NW4 (email: jaynelmdonegan@yahoo.com with contact number and post code)
29 March 2020, Sunday afternoon, Brecon, Wales (part of all day event) details TBA
‘MMR – What you need to know to give Informed Consent’
01 December 2019, Sunday afternoon, North West London NW4 (email: jaynelmdonegan@yahoo.com with contact number and post code)
01 March 2020, Sunday afternoon, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire CV32. Details TBA
29 March 2020, Sunday evening, Brecon, Wales (part of all day event) details TBA

All DAY CONFERENCE in Dublin
04 December 2019. Details TBA

All DAY WORK SHOP in Brecon WALES
29 March 2020, Sunday afternoon, Brecon, Wales details TBA

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:06 am I don't have your reputation, Mike

Little waster wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:39 pm Just to ensure I’ve got everything clear.

Homeopathy Argument #1: Like cures like. Look ... vaccines! See told you. Homeopathy = vaccines. SCIENCE!!!!

Homeopathy Argument #2: Vaccines are bad because ... allopathy. SCIENCE!!!!

That about right?

tom p wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:55 pm

Little waster wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:39 pm Just to ensure I’ve got everything clear.

Homeopathy Argument #1: Like cures like. Look ... vaccines! See told you. Homeopathy = vaccines. SCIENCE!!!!

Homeopathy Argument #2: Vaccines are bad because ... allopathy. SCIENCE!!!!

That about right?

You are now a fully accredited member of the royal society of homeopaths & can treat the queen.

tom p wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:55 pm

Little waster wrote: Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:39 pm Just to ensure I’ve got everything clear.

Homeopathy Argument #1: Like cures like. Look ... vaccines! See told you. Homeopathy = vaccines. SCIENCE!!!!

Homeopathy Argument #2: Vaccines are bad because ... allopathy. SCIENCE!!!!

That about right?

You are now a fully accredited member of the royal society of homeopaths & can treat the queen.