Folks seem to have a problem with definitions.
[slan-der]–noun1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.2 .a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
One commenter at the Wakefield piece writes, "It is unbelieveable that everyone here is so supportive of Dr. Wakefield, whose unethical and unscientific "study" led to the deaths of many children from totally preventable diseases. He has proven nothing."
This comment causes Stagliano to write, "Dear Concerned Parent (not concerned enough to use your actual name while casting aspersions.) Your comment borders on slander - had you read his work you'd know the facts of the case. Kim"
Nope, I don't think, based on the definition listed at the top, that it "borders on slander" and I sure don't think reading Wakefield's book or retracted studies will give us the facts of the case. The GMC hearing report will provide the facts, though.
Time again, the folks over at Age of Autism display unequivocally that they believe assertions and anecdotes over scientific research and legal findings.
Plus, the whole dig at anonymous is rather ridiculous from a site that allows many anonymous supporting comments without ever asking for an id, oh, like their commenter of the week, "Deb in IL" and others like:
bensmyson (yes, he's easy enough to figure out, but it's still anonymous/pseudonymous)
Whatever Name You Want To Give Me Today