"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."