Dear David of 1932: What Factors Led to Your Autism?
Levi Quackenboss: How to Win Any Vaccine Debate

L’affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus & BMJ’s Descent into Tabloid Science

Vera SharavAge of Autism links to Alliance for Human Resesearch Protection for Vera Sharav's damning indictment of the British Medical Journal's intervention in the Wakefield affair. She traces its history from the beginning but focuses on the journal's allegations of  fraud in 2011 and its sinister repercussions.

By Vera Sharav

L’affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus & BMJ’s Descent into Tabloid Science

Introduction: I have undertaken this review of the case against Dr. Andrew Wakefield because the issues involved are far more consequential than the vilification of one doctor. The issues, as I see them, involve (a) collusion of public health officials to deceive the public by concealing scientific evidence that confirms empirical evidence of serious harm linked to vaccines – in particular polyvalent vaccines; (b) the “willful blindness” by the medical community as it uncritically fell in line with a government dictated vaccination policy driven by corporate business interests.

Public health officials and the medical profession have abrogated their professional, public, and human responsibility, by failing to honestly examine the iatrogenic harm caused by expansive, indiscriminate, and increasingly aggressive vaccination policies. On a human level, the documented evidence shows a callous disregard for the plight of thousands of children who suffer irreversible harm, as if they were unavoidable “collateral damage”.

All of the documented evidence and testimonies submitted to the General Medical Council, upon which GMC issued its guilty verdicts against Dr. Wakefield and his two co-defendants in 2010, were subsequently forensically assessed by the UK High Court in March 2012, in the appeal of Professor John Walker-Smith, the senior clinician and senior author of the Lancet case series. The High Court determined that the verdicts of professional misconduct and ethics violations were unsupported by the evidence.

Indeed, the adjudicated evidence refutes the case against Dr. Wakefield; the documents and testimonies demonstrate that there is no evidence whatsoever, to support the charges of professional misconduct, much less the accusation of fraud. The accusation of fraud was hurled by the Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ, a medical journal whose corporate ownership is intertwined with the vaccine manufacturing Behemoths, Merck – with whom BMJ signed a partnership agreement in 2008 – and GlaxoSmithKline which provides additional financial support to BMJ. Among their numerous vaccine products, Merck and GSK manufacture the MMR vaccine.

My commentary is buttressed with details from the High Court decision (2012); transcripts of testimony before the General Medical Council (2007- 2010); documents and testimony that have been judicially adjudicated; the sworn deposition of the Deputy Editor of the BMJ with internal BMJ emails(2012); internal correspondence by CDC officials and CDC-commissioned scientists (2000-2009, some uncovered in 2011; new documents obtained in July 2017); the suppressed finding of CDC’s first large-scale epidemiological study (1999) and a transcript of the closed door meeting of the Epidemic Intelligence Service at Simpsonwood (2000); a transcript of the closed meeting of the US Institute of Medicine Committee on Immunization Safety Review (2001); the U.S. Grand Jury criminal indictment of Dr. Poul Thorsen (2011); transcripts of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (1988); a confidential report Re: Infanrix hexa submitted by GlaxoSmithKline to the European Medicines Agency (2012) documenting sudden infant deaths; Cochrane Collaboration MMR reviews (2003, 2005, 2012); HHS Inspector General investigation report – CDC advisory panel corruption (2009); CDC scientists letter of complaint about “rogue interests” “questionable and unethical practices” (2016)...    Read more at AHRP.org here.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Carol

"I freely admit to being semi-notorious for packing into a single highly readable and apparently bland sentence rats' nests of complexity and implication," quoth Brian Deer. Well, of course, because that's the easiest way to mislead the reader.

Here's Deer talking about the Lancet "author retraction." It begins with a quote from the Lancet paper: "'We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.' This claim was retracted by 10 of the 13 authors in March 2004."

But it wasn't. Here's the actual Lancet "author retraction":

"This statement refers to the Early Report 'Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children,' published in The Lancet in 1998. It is made by 10 of the 12 original authors who could be contacted. It should be noted that the statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the other co-authors.

The main thrust of the paper was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend these findings. While much uncertainty remains about the nature of these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal problems.

We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent." (emphasis added)

Morag

How terribly sad to hear of sickly and struggling to thrive children in Japan as well .
Pictures in a petri dish ."Words are powerful ,take them seriously".
Dr Masaru Emoto . Fasinatingly beautiful and interesting pictures of water crystals under a microscope . Science ,Art,or Nature ,whatever label gets allocated to it is still only a label?.
Kyo dake wa- Just for today
Okoruna-Don't be angry
Shinpai su na- Don't worry
Kansha shite-Express your thanks
Gyo wo hage me -Be diligent in your Business
Hito ni sinsetsu ni -Be kind to others
Dr Mikao Usui ["Usui-Sensei"] 1865-1926
Nemawashi at Age of Autism "Doing the groundwork " with lean toolkit and techniques for vaccine risk assessments !

Angus Files

We question the vaccine ideology Wendy also how they like to try and confuse the vaccine make up simply to make it harder to pin their negligence down when adverse reactions do occur.At one time Japan had the healthiest people on the planet but now they have a higher rate of autism than anywhere ..but then Pharma and the GMO et-al had a point to prove since Japan removed the MMR vaccine due to adverse reactions.Unlike the UK the doctors were effectively filling in the equivalent yellow card system and it showed it to be what it is a vaccine of death and horror.

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/shockingly_higher_rates_of_autism_and_developmental_delays_in_asia

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Carol

The Honda paper is an odd piece of business: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x/full . There's a mountain peak of ASD at birth year 1990 which the authors must find difficult to explain because they just deny that it exists. They say, "When 1996 is used as the standard, ASD incidence is significantly low in each birth year until 1992...." Huh?? The ward under study was dramatically redistricted in 1994 so why would 1996 be the "standard"? In fact, 1990 towers over 1992.

Honda et al. don't want you to know what's buried in that 1990 mound in their backyard.

John Stone

Jonathan

You make an interesting paradoxical point: reinstatement for AW would leave him under the regulation once again of the GMC!!!

Jonathan Rose

Oh, I agree, John. If we publish this book, some doctors may read it and even conclude that it makes good sense, though those who want to retain their licenses to practice medicine probably won't defend it too vocally. But our prime audience should be the lay public. Polls have consistently shown that, while a majority of the public thinks vaccines are *probably* safe, between 70 and 90 percent aren't entirely sure of their safety, even if they lack the scientific data to back up their doubts. Likewise, most readers no longer trust the mainstream media, and probably suspect there's something fishy in their repeated denunciations of Andrew Wakefield, even if they can't specifically identify the holes in the case against him. This essay explains it all, in clear, detailed, and readable prose. With a nod to Levi Quakenbush, this is how we can win the vaccine debate.

Wendy Stephen

It’s worth remembering that the MMR brands trialled (1) and ultimately used in Japan were not the same as those used in the UK or the US. They were entirely different in respect of the strains used, the dosages, excipients and the combination of the strains. (2 & 3)

Any data collated, irrespective of content and interpretation, following administration of Japan’s brand of MMR is therefore unique to that brand and cannot be visited on any other around the world.


(1)

The trivalent combined vaccine was composed of the following vaccines: measles- AIK-C 557, Kitasato Laboratory (104.5 TCID 50/O.5ml), mumps-Urabe strain AM-9 MC-3-1, Osaka University Microbiological Laboratory (104 TCID 50 /O.5ml) and rubella-TO SS6 OOI, Takeda Chemical Industries (104 TCIND 50/O.5ml).

Effects and Side Effects of a New Trivalent Combined Measles - Mumps and Rubella MMR vaccine, Isozaki et al

Tokai J Exp Clin Med., Vol. 7, No, 5, pp. 547-550, 1982

(2)

“The vaccine used at the start of the government programme contained mumps vaccine developed by Osaka University Microbiology Research Center (OMRC), measles antigen developed by Kitasato Research Center, and rubella antigen developed by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. These institutes had also produced their own versions of the measles -mumps-rubella vaccine but these were not recognised for official use until late 1991.”

Lancet Vol 343 January 8th 1994 P 105


(3)

“MMR vaccines were made by mixing the RIMD’s mumps vaccines (Urabe strain vaccines), measles vaccines (AIK-C) developed by The Kitasato Institute and the rubella vaccines developed by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and unifying the composition”.

Main Judgments of Lower Courts

Case numbers: 1993 (wa) 12535 and1996 (wa) 4262
Case subject: Damages claim
Date of trial: 13th March, 2003

susan welch

John. Thank you for your response. It conjures up a most comforting vision!

Peggy Jaeger

Praise God..! Hallelujah and thank the Lord..! This woman sounds like more of a tiger than has ever been on our team side. This person sounds too strong and too thorough in research and her knowledge to be a Very Formidable investigative agent in this whole matter of Wakefield's pillorying and the forced use of faulty vaccines, plus the hiding and defaming of real evidence of the damage vaccines and BMJ, along with medial jlournals and Federal agaencies here in the USA. I hope she's also in contact with Robert Kennedy, Jr., who the press keeps trying to trivialize. But He has power in high places that may be bulldogs under the rug to those medical,politico's. This report ought to be blasted out in billboards, news interviews and a copy sent to every representative in both governments, the U.K. And USA. Thank thankmyounfor publishing this amazing article.!! 👍🙏🙏💖💖
Grandma peg

John Stone

Susan

I am not expecting a conflagration. I think it will burn a slow hole in the heart of the medical establishment.

Carol

I've noted a few examples of Deer's distortions below. These examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive:

Child 1: Deer says that 10 weeks before MMR Child 1 could not “hear properly,” sign of a developmental disorder.

Fact: Medical records show Child 1 had a simple ear infection after which his hearing was normal.


Child 2: Deer says that Child 2’s head banging occurred months after MMR rather than two weeks.

Fact: One of 2’s doctor says that he started temper tantrums about two weeks after MMR.


Child 3: Deer says that Child 3 did not have non-specific colitis.

Fact: An image of Child 3’s biopsy was included in Lancet paper. It showed dense infiltration of inflammatory cells.


Child 4: Deer says that Child 4 had developmental delays before MMR.

Fact: Medical records show Child 4 regressed after single measles vaccine and became worse after MMR.


Child 5: Deer says that Wakefield concealed concerns with Child 5’s development before MMR.

Fact: Medical records noting such concerns were not in possession of the Lancet authors.


Child 6: Deer says that Child 6 had “fits” [febrile seizures] before MMR.

Fact: Medical records indicate normal development until MMR, after which near cot-death with behavior change.


Child 7: Deer says that Child 7, brother of Child 6, had “fits” [febrile seizures] before MMR.

Fact: Medical records show normal development until MMR, after which became quiet and language-deficient.


Child 8: Deer says that Child 8 was not developmentally normal before MMR.

Fact: After surgical repair of heart problem, developed rapidly. After MMR, grand mal seizure with rapid deterioration.


Child 9: Deer says that Child 9’s parents blamed MMR for the child's regression 2 months later, which Wakefield concealed.

Fact: Clinic note of Walker-Smith says “MMR…no obvious reaction.” Parents only made association at later date.


Child 10: Deer says Child 10 did not have non-specific colitis.

Fact: Dr. Anthony: mild chronic inflammation in colon. Dr. Casson: decreased goblet cells; epithelial focal abnormalities.


Child 11: Deer says Child 11 showed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements before MMR.

Fact: Father’s letter to Royal Free says MMR, then months of sickness, then autistic behavior at 18 months.


Child 12: Deer says that Child 12 did not have autism.

Fact: Psychiatrist Dr. Ing says Child 12 had autistic spectrum disorder.

Shelley Tzorfas

When they took down Wakefield, they took down half the children in the world with him.

susan welch

@john Although I've only had time to skim the complete article, I am completely 'wowed' by it. Anyone who reads it must, surely, now be aware of the whole, corrupt saga - and those that played their part in the continuation of brain damage in children.

My question to you, as a 'veteran' in this fight is what you think will be the repercussions? Can so much evidence still be ignored - especially in view of the fact that so many more parents are now doing the research?

I am also intrigued as to why this excellent article has been produced. It is so comprehensive and must have taken many, many hours to research and produce.

I would welcome your thoughts.

David Weiner

Jeanette, you are exactly right. While most have been brainwashed to believe that state licensing was introduced in order to protect consumers, the truth is quite different.

Medical licensing in the U.S. came in at the behest of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and the AMA in order to give a legal monopoly to allopathic medicine. Patients then, as now, were happy to have choices in the type of health care they used.

The medical license is a weapon used by the State to keep doctors who threaten the status quo (gravy train) in line. It has no place in a free society and was not used in the 19th century U.S. It is the linchpin of the Doctatorship that we suffer under today.

John Stone

Tim

Yes, back in 1998 you could get through the UK National Health Service the MMR in separate component shots, and the DPT so the right of parents to be cautious was still recognised. These options were rapidly removed after AW was asked his opinion at a news conference in 1998 and it was actually British health officials who became big on Offit's unhinged 10,000 vaccines in one go proposition, not US officials.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2017/03/paul-offits-10000-vaccine-doctrine-and-deception-on-every-child-by-two.html

Tim Lundeen

@john

Very good comment re Wakefield's biggest crime: suggesting we should not give multi-dose shots.

From pharma's point of view, splitting up vaccines has two major problems: (1) it limits pharma profits, because it limits the number of doses they can sell, and (2) it suggests that vaccines might cause injury.

No wonder "Wakefielded" is now a verb...

John Stone

Jonathan

This document should gradually seep into the soul of the medical profession, but is it not perhaps also essential reading for anyone trying to understand our times (for the wider academic community)? These are fatal events with global consequences like a terrible war. It is just than in our age there are new dimensions. I suppose the vaccine lobby is somewhat like the mediaeval church selling indulgences: it plays on people's fears and it extracts money. They also fear the internet like the printing press.

Carol

I don't see a link to Dr. Wakefield's affidavit in the article. Here it is: https://issuu.com/wakefieldjusticefund/docs/1_3_12__plt_original_petition

Morag

To be frank Fred . John Stone is spot on accurate in his observations.
Bully boys always stand out like a sore thumb . Generally speaking usually with control freak tendencies and issues going on as well somewhere , ego sensitivities usually a total waste of space as well ,so if the cap fits and all that .
Quite a line up of Professional Codes of Conduct heading for "The chopin Block "ma dear
Dr Andy Wakefield's honourable standards are solid, with unquestionable Codes of Conduct consistently demonstrated by his ongoing professional presentation. No question about it whatsoever .

Jeannette Bishop

Obviously, licensing isn't a service to the healthcare consumer. It's an empowerment of the state to interfere with the individual's very health and life. If you have the most ethical and capable running things, they/we might do pretty well (as compared to now), even without the incentivizing of competition given equal status (lowly consumer certification groups or maybe something undefined as yet) to be innovative, etc. But if we have an elitist-minded war-mongering oligarchical class with eugenicistic tendencies and depopulation desires trying to do who knows what with the artificial inflating of their pharma stock values (and this doesn't even have to be an accurate description of the majority of the class, I'm beginning to think, just the ones willing to terrorize all the rest), then we'll probably have something much like what we have...declining life expectancy and rising crippling epidemics of chronic illness.

Jonathan Rose

This is the most comprehensive and best-documented defense of Wakefield I've ever read. It's almost book-length, so perhaps Skyhorse could publish it as a book.

Maybe we can get his medical license back....

John Stone

Fred

That, of course, is the problem. Bullies like you don't care what the actual truth is, you just like to taunt the victims of gross institutional malfeasance. In fact you get a big kick out of it.

ANGUS FILES

Great work I just hope somone in the media is up to push it..

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/05/11/declassified-cia-documents-shows-agencies-control-over-mainstream-media-academia/

"The document states that the CIA task force “now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation,” and that “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success” stories,’ and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.” Furthermore, it explains how the agency has “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”

As JFK said

Herein lies the problem: What is “national security,” and who determines that definition? JFK bravely told the world that the “dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh[] the dangers which are cited to justify it.” He also said that “there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”

This week again from the release of the JFK papers it was confirmed operatives from the CIA were concealing news world wide.I guess the one thing to do to fight back is talk to and inform others.

Pharma for Prison

MMR RIP

Frederic Chopin

Will you please let us know when Wakefield gets his license back?

Gary Ogden

Bravissimo. Exhaustive. Comprehensive. This entire article should be published by BMJ. Fat chance? And Dr. Godlee brought before a tribunal of actual journalists; there are a few left. Her editorial is libelous, pseudo-journalistic fraud.

Morag

Fascinating article, "Garde a l'eau!" The Standards are sure under The Searchlight and Spotlight .
Of note as well that.The Health Foundation UK states co-owenership of The BMJ Safety Journal as well Imagine that ! An interesting Financial history there to read about as well

John Stone

In late 19th century France it became expedient to scapegoat a young Jewish army officer for a crime committed by someone else - actually it is the sort of vile thing which happens every day - but it became an issue of class definition. The ruling class defined itself by the maintainance of what was known to be a falsehood: the nature of the falsehood (who stole military secrets and gave them to the Germans) was very important to people at the time although it scarcely compares to the enormity of what is being done to children now. But it was a class issue: if you want to hold a place in public life you buckle down, you maintain the charade - in 19th century France a few prominent people stood up, and Dreyfus was exonerated (although it took several years). As a man Andrew Wakefield is much more important than Dreyfus, who was simply a competent and honourable army officer: Wakefield's biggest crime was to say we must consider vaccine damage as a possibility when we look at sick children. His second biggest crime was to challenge the plans of a great industry by suggesting a triple vaccine might be safer if it was split up. The were, of course, two thoroughly moderate ideas - and he had to be made an example of.

bob moffit

Unfortunately .. this extensive ... well researched and documented examination of the ongoing .. highly successful .. media driven propaganda effort of world-wide public health agencies .. to "demonize" anyone .. such as .. Dr Andrew Wakefield .. who dares question the "safety and efficiency" of the billion-dollar global vaccine industry .. will be willfully savaged by the powers that be .. who are determined to protect the professional reputations of public health officials .. as well as the lucrative profits of vaccine industry billionaire corporations.

If ever a SWAMP NEEDED DRAINING .. IT IS THE SWAMP IDENTIFIED BY NAME AND ORGANIZATION .. WITHIN THIS CRITICAL "REVIEW OF THE CASE AGAINST ANDREW WAKEFIELD!!!!!!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)