Others are pointing out the details of the incongruence of the charges made against Wakefield, so I will just throw out what I think is obvious concerning the list of men who retracted their support and what I see happened.

"In view of this, we consider that now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings, according to precedent.

Simon H. Murch
Andrew Anthony
David H. Casson
Mohsin Malik
Mark Berelowitz
Amar P. Dhillon
Michael A. Thomson
Alan Valentine
Susan E. Davies
John A. Walker-Smith""

Dr. Wakefield would not retract his position, so he had to be made an example. If everyone else was "let off" for retracting their support it would be too clear that the only crime was not retracting support. Therefore, Walker-Smith had to fall as well as to not highlight the real offense which was not retracting support. If Wakefield had folded the GMC would have relented. Their approach was like a mobster telling a bunch of witnesses to a murder he had committed "you didn't see nothin', right"? It happens to often, villianizing an enemy{as they view him} to start a war. It might appear one against many in this case, but I believe a terrible injustice is being carried out here and I stand with the good doctor as many do. We have a politicized issue in the hands of a polticized GMC against one doctor who spent years treating people and they expect people to believe the things they allege? Who is their chief witness? Brian Deer as of now. That is, until this latest fiasco fails to sway the public and then they will go back to pressure other docs from the group to say Wakefield was dirty. They can say and do what they please, but he will be vindicated in time.

Thank you so much for posting this article. I am printing it out to give to someone who blasted me unexpectedly, and almost gleefully, with the "What do you think about this new evidence against Dr. Wakefield?" question. I defended him vigorously, and she started to thank me for my response, but stating his research has been replicated five times and showing the actual citations for that research are two different animals entirely. Consider me prepared for anyone, now. I will keep a few spares with me at all times, too. Just in case. ; )

ChildHealthSafety - just curious when you were at IC Phi. I was there 90 - 93.

After an introduction stating which paper they're talking about the Lancet retraction reads this way:

"The main thrust of this paper was this 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 those 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 have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider that now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings, according to precedent.

Simon H. Murch
Andrew Anthony
David H. Casson
Mohsin Malik
Mark Berelowitz
Amar P. Dhillon
Michael A. Thomson
Alan Valentine
Susan E. Davies
John A. Walker-Smith"

Re: Post by Jersey Joe: "What I do not understand, though, is why the other doctors removed their names from the study and seemingly disowned the findings. I am curious to know if anyone is aware of their motivations or if they have made statements about why they withdrew their names."

In my humble opinion, it is obvious to me that these doctors and researchers were in legitmate fear of their own reputation being trashed and of losing their professional licenses to practice medicine. They realized why they were being attacked and could not financially afford to mount a defense that would only end up costing them their careers. [thus their "motivations"]

Regarding any statements made by these co-authors, that issue would require research; Martin Walker or John Stone would probably have information on this. However, it would not be wise for any of them to make any statements against the prosecution, Brian Deer, or the GMC, unless someone decides to come forward now and risk their own career.

The three that refused to recant thier findings were very courageous and determined to represent the interests and welfare of all children who recieve vaccines that could possibly cause serious damage to them. They realized that the GMC ruling was a pre-determined outcome and yet they stayed to fight for all of us at "The Battle of the Alamo". That battle was also "lost" but because of this the WAR was finally won later on, and Texas won it's independence from Mexico. Let's just hope that America and Great Britain may finally win their independence from Big Pharma.

I am very sympathetic to Dr. Wakefield who seems to be the victim of some type of primitive witch hunt. What I do not understand, though, is why the other doctors removed their names from the study and seemingly disowned the findings. I am curious to know if anyone is aware of their motivations or if they have made statements about why they withdrew their names.

Estrellea, are you accusing the researchers of being in cahoots with Wakefied? Which ones?

Carol, some were co-defendants of Wakefield's in the GMC hearing and Walker-Smith was also stripped of his license to practise. So their co-authorship with Wakefield is of very limited value. But I was referring more to the fact that none of those citations replicates Wakefield's original postulation of MMR->Gastroenteritis->Regressive Autism. Nor do they support his unique diagnosis of 'autistic enterocolitis'.

Estellea- I'm afraid your comment doesn't make any sense. ??? huh?

I feel public trust is already eroded. It is rare to find a young parent who doesn't hear about vaccine safety concerns. Even with little exposure to those concerns they are giving pause. This whole journey has really taught me to question everything (not just in medicine). I ask myself, "Who is paying for this?" "Where did this originate?" Lots of "W" questions. Thank God for Dr. Wakefield and his research at Thoughtful House. Because of pioneering, brave practitioners like him, my son is recovered. I will do anything to prevent vaccine injury in other children. I don't care how much money Pharma wastes on propaganda and false advertising---Too many people know.