Age of Autism Winners! The Puzzling Piece Necklace
Dan Olmsted On Charlottesville -- Right Now with Coy Barefoot

Vaccine Safety Advocate Kim Stagliano Discusses Wakefield Tale

Mark's camera 024 By Kim Stagliano

Many of us have spent the last few days fielding phone calls and emails from reporters around the country. Here are three articles on the newest chapter in the Tale of Dr. Andrew Wakefield expressing support for him. Click the links to read the full articles and comment where you are able to. Thanks. KIM

AOL News, Dana Kennedy

">>>Despite a new report that a 1998 study linking childhood vaccines to autism was based on "bogus data," many autism activists are standing by their man -- the disgraced doctor who led the research.

But autism activists, including actress Jenny McCarthy's Generation Rescue, the National Autism Association and well-known autism crusader Kim Stagliano, believe Wakefield's original findings were distorted. They claim that he never said vaccines definitely caused autism but merely suggested the possibility of a link merited further examination.

The activists told AOL News that Wakefield has been crucified by the pharmaceutical industry, which makes millions off vaccines and doesn't want them scrutinized.

"No one's saying don't vaccinate your children," Rita Shreffler, executive director of the National Autism Association, told AOL News today..."

NY Daily News, Rosemary Black

"The barrage against Dr. Wakefield is an unvarnished attempt to convince the American public that there is an ‘anti-vaccine' movement, while ignoring that American children are chronically sicker than ever and autism now hobbles at least 1% of American children," said Stagliano, who is the author of the book, "All I Can Handle: I'm No Mother Teresa."

She added that parents have the right to demand vaccine safety and "honest science, without those who have a financial interest controlling the conversation."

The actress Jenny McCarthy, whose son has autism, hadn't issued comment on the BMJ article, according to CNN. However, McCarthy, who founded Generation Rescue, a group that backs the idea of a link between vaccines and autism, had supported Wakefield in the past.

CafeMom The Sitr, Juilie Ryan Evans

"...So has all of the fear been for naught, does this mean there's no evidence of a link between the two, and we can all go out and vaccinate our children without a question in our mind that there could be a negative consequence?

Some, like Jennifer LaRue Huget for The Washington Post, say yes:

"Okay, can we just be done with this autism/MMR link once and for all?" Huget writes. "It's been such a huge distraction, likely diverting energy and funds from the research that could detect autism's true causes, and has led to many kids' needlessly coming down with a disease that should be entirely preventable. Let's put this behind us and move on."

Not quite, say others. Wakefield himself vehemently denies the new report and says it's motivated by the pharmaceutical industry, who's trying to take him down.

Kim Stagliano, mother of three daughters with autism and author of the book All I Can Handle; I'm No Mother Teresa, agrees. She says the timing is suspect and points to links in the pharmaceutical industry as well. She said the Wakefield case closed last spring, but now Dr. Paul Offit, co-inventor of the Merck RotaTeq vaccine, has a new book out called Deadly Choices: How the Anti-vaccine Movement Threatens Us All.

"If RotaTeq sounds familiar to parents, that is because Dr. Julie Gerberding, former head of the CDC in Atlanta, placed it on the pediatric vaccine schedule during her tenure," Stagliano said. "Your baby now receives three doses of this oral vaccine. Dr. Gerberding is now the current President of the Merck Vaccine Division, which manufactures RotaTeq."

She said this report does nothing to sway her opinion that vaccines can injure children.

"Vaccine injury is real. Just as childhood diseases are real. The barrage against Dr. Wakefield is an unvarnished attempt to convince the American public that there is an 'anti-vaccine' movement, while ignoring that American children are chronically sicker than ever and autism now hobbles at least 1% of American children. Parents have every right to demand vaccine safety and honest science -- without those who have a financial interest controlling the conversation."...

All I Can Handle Small Kim Stagliano is Managing Editor of Age of Autism. Her book from Skyhorse Publishing, All I Can Handle I'm No Mother Teresa; A Life Raising Three Daughters with Autism is available now. Visit her website at Kim Stagliano.


Cherry Sperlin Misra

Big Pharma panicked after Dr. Wakefield's terrific speech at the European Parliament, and threw him under the bus. Bad move, Pharma friends- I thought you were smarter than that. There's no bus heavy enough to crush Dr. Wakefield.
Just as the British Government was helpless in front of the moral force of Mahatma Gandhi, so will the British Medical
Council fail in their attempt to destroy that which we hold dear in Science and Medicine.
Poor Dr. Wakefield- Look what you have done to him ! Now he has to write the book,
"Elaborate Fraud" .


I posted the following comment on the cafemom site, and apparently it did not make it past their moderator:

"I would like someone to explain to me exactly how an unsupported allegation from a journalist (with a clear history of conflict of interest) equals medical or legal proof of anything."

Jenny Allan

Quote from above:-
'It was not possible for Wakefield or anyone else to falsify the prior clinical records of the children because no one at the Royal Free Hospital London had them nor is it normal practice for them to have had them. So there could be no fraud over “altering” those histories. It just was not possible.'

Yes, in the UK when patients are referred by their GPs to specialist investigations and treatments, their previous GP's notes are disregarded and a fresh medical history is always taken. This is also the case for patients taking part in dedicated medical research projects. This makes a nonsense of Deer and Godlee's ridiculous allegations of an 'elaborate fraud' perpetrated by ALL the Royal Free researchers involved with the 1998 Lancet article.

Brian Deer is NOT medically qualified in any way and will therefore be unfamiliar with the usual protocols regarding GP referrals. The only the 'elaborate fraud' going on here has been perpetrated by HIM.

Angela F

I am new to the Autism world. My twins were diagnosed a few months ago. It is a completely different world. I was once the person who said, "Vaccines have nothing to do with Autism". Once i began my research, I stopped vaccinating my boys, got kicked out of my doctors practice and friends and family think i am crazy for researching the biomedical path. What I dont understand is why are we not educating the average person? I got furious reading on Yahoo's message boards ranting "to anti-vaxxie's .. Whats your excuse now?" People know so little about Autism and its many causes. I would love to see some of these very intelligent people posting on non-Autism sites. We just might educate "the masses".

Heidi N

Just want to say thanks to all of you who are volunteering your time to uncover so much of the travesty we have going on. Thank you so much for your hard work. We need checks and balances to the current vaccine program. The doors need to be opened to allow lawsuits. This is the only way they will do the testing to ensure their program is doing more good than harm.



I give Brian Deer the benefit of the doubt regarding his 2009 misrepresentations of Child 1 because I anticipate he might claim that he was unaware that at 9 mos Child 1 merely had an ear infection (as opposed to the first symptoms of autism). By the time of the BMJ article in Jan. 2011, there's no way he could claim ignorance.

Do I really think he didn't know in 2009? No, because it appears that the information about discharge from the ear was in close proximity to mention of hearing loss in Child 1's medical records.


The NY Daily News link contains a poll, asking if you believe vaccines cause autism--vote!

Cynthia Cournoyer

You can assume, that people who decide how to promote vaccines, are watching what is happening in the media today. They watch how the safer/anti-vaxers are reacting, trying to be one step ahead of us.

I think that the Wakefield story will be dragged out every year for all it is worth. Fear is all the vaccine promoters have. First we were afraid of deadly epidemics, then we are afraid of them returning. Those two things used to be enough to keep people getting vaccines. Now, people are afraid of autism and rightly so. The vaccinators feel the Wakefield story is the strongest weapon in their arsenal right now. You can believe that it will be used until they get their "money's worth."

Bob Moffitt

Thanks for the clarification regarding British media coverage .. or .. as you inform me .. lack thereof .. of Brian Deer's latest allegations of "elaborate fraud" in Dr. Wakefield's now 12 year old study. Since Deer's re-hashed allegations were published in a prominent British medical journal .. I assumed it received the same saturation coverage it received here in the colonies.

Silly me .. I assumed .. and we all know how unreliable "" can be ..


Here's a list, taken from this excerpt of Dr Mercola's interveiw with Dr Wakefield:
In the years after his initial controversial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to Crohn’s disease and autism, he published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced disorder.
All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, which he explains in great detail in this interview.
This is very interesting indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.
Says Wakefield:
“… it’s been replicated in Canada, in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Italy… [but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.
I’m afraid that is false.”
For those of you who have swallowed this type of reporting hook line and sinker, here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings:
1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005  
5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10 
9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6 
13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13 
14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372. 
19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382. 
20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16 
25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465 
26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

Heidi Stevenson

On seeing the news about Deer's claim of fraud, I went to his first report and read it. What I found was, without even having to see the information he claims to have, clear indications of misrepresentations. It may not be a scintillating read, but I think it's important because it makes clear that the mainstream media merely parrots what they're fed. They don't even bother looking at the documents themselves.

Brian Deer's 'Wakefield Fraud' Report Is Full of Misrepresentations (


Bob - the British media have for the most part not run the story this time around, it appears to be US commercial interests driving this particular wave of BS.

Jenny Allan

Bob Moffitt says of Deer's January 2011 BMJ article:-
'he gained saturation coverage by the national media in both the United States and Great Britain.'

The Telegraph newspaper ran this story in the UK. At the time of writing, I am unaware of any other 'popular media' coverage here, although there are plenty of internet articles and blogs from interested parties. Deer and Godlee have 'crossed the line' in terms of acceptable journalism, including specialist publications.

The allegations of fraud against Wakefield et al in Deer's BMJ article are outrageous, and I am quite sure also actionable under present UK libel and medical confidentiality laws. They involve the entire research team at the Royal Free Hospital, who were involved in the 1998 Lancet article and not just Dr Andrew Wakefield.

Jill Fenech

I have also read that Wakefield's research has been replicated five or even six times with the same results. Does anyone have a list of where and where these studies were done? I just want some ammunition for a friendly family doc who is bound to ask. Thank you.

Bob Moffitt

How sad our media is these days.

Think about it .. Brian Deer's allegations against Dr. Wakefield are many things .. but ... the last thing you could call them is "new".

Indeed, they are merely a regurgitated-manipulation of the same allegations he and others have been making against Dr. Wakefield for at least ten years. Yet .. incomprehensibly .. he gained saturation coverage by the national media in both .. the United States and Great Britain.

Can someone .. please .. anyone .. tell me why main-stream media continues to identify Brian Deer as an "investigative journalist"? If they insist on labeling him an "investigative journalist" .. they ought to at least give some indication of what he has "investigated" during the last ten years .. other than .. Dr. Wakefield?

If anything .. Brian Deer's obsession with Dr. Wakefield reminds me of Herman Melville's tragic character .. Ahab .. who spent his entire life pursuing Moby Dick .. a white whale Ahab blamed for biting off his leg in a previous encounter.

Ahab was a sad, tragic figure .. and .. sorry to say .. in my humble opinion .. so is Brian Deer's obsession with Dr. Wakefield.

Jim Thompson


Brian Deer does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. His proclaimed evidence of fraud includes his personal interpretation of non-public confidential records for the Wakefield et al case series children. The British Medical Journal has just gone back in time 319 years. See


I became familiar with the vaccine controversy 16 years ago while pregnant with my first son. Both my sons were born in B.C. only 18 months apart from one another. My first was born in a hospital where shots were not on the schedule. During my son's first doctor appt., with our GP, at about 3 months old, we were concerned because he couldn't breath well due to a nasal congestion, and he didn't sleep well at night. Our doctor told us without any knowledge of our vaccine concerns, that we should not immunize him until we resolved our son's breathing difficulties. I was given information on an elimination diet to try while nursing, and how to look for mold in our apartment. We found some, moved, and our son became healthy. We never decided to catch up on his vaccines and our doctor never pressured us to. My question is, I don't understand what people who are against Wakefield are trying to tell us about his motives? It is easy to see what Pharma might gain or lose in this debate about vaccines and autism's possible connection, but about Wakefield? Are we suppose to believe that he deliberately set up this fraudulent study in order to expose children to more disease and to bring down the pharmaceutical companies?

Dawn Barnsdale

I am so shocked that with all the conflicting stories that Brian Deer has told- not to mention his questionable sources he refuses to disclose- along with the Wakefield study that clearly states that the MMR /Autism link was one of MANY hypotheses - that people can't see this for the witch hunt that it is!! So many conflicts of interest are involved on the accuser's side- but the media puts such a spin on it that "sheeple" are believing all the lies! Until the CDC does a longitudinal study with one group of children being vaccinated according to the CDC's schedule and one that is not- and as I said - longitudinal study- not a few weeks and call it good, then I will continue to believe that the amount of vaccines we give our children and the ages we inject them are DANGEROUS! And while I do not believe that EVERY case of autism is a vaccine injury- I am convinced that A LOT well as the other neurological problems so many children are diagnosed with today. Yes, heredity plays a role, I believe as other environmental factors but - there is not one cause for autism and the research needs to follow that logic and maybe, just maybe some answers will be found.


Fox News I thought did a pretty good job, that was in the morning.

In the afternoon I watched the CNN version while in a crowded waiting room at the veteran's hospital. About 40 plus people.

CNN made Dr. Wakefield look desparate as they interviewed him on location, he was surrounded with other people, there was noise in the back ground - oh wait, some of that noise was the obnoxious reporter that kept interupting Dr. Wakefield with long, loaded questions. Then Deer came on - in the actual studio all dressed up, better video, was treated nice by the reporter, got to finish a thought as well as a sentence.

My Dad is hard of hearing and when I speak to him I speak loud, it was a room full of patients waiting about 40 and I was telling my father at the top of my voice which one was the good guy in all of this, and which one was the bad guy. SO, CNN hit a nerve and I have a right to talk to my own father about the matter.

Somebody in the back of the room said Deer is a son of a bi----! And every one in the room shook their heads yes!

Common people are very insightful, if given enough information -



I only know that Child 1 was suffering from an ear infection (rather than a "hallmark presentation of classical autism") from reading _Callous Disregard_. It sounds like the mother's concern about her son's not hearing properly and her concern about a discharge from his ear were pretty much rubbing elbows in the GP records. Still I gave Brian Deer the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he somehow overlooked the ear infection in 2009, but we know he knew about it for the BMJ article.

(I also notice that "Andrea Barrow" in the footnotes to the BMJ article becomes "Anthea Barrow" at one point. So much for the rigorous, thorough, exhaustive checking Brian Deer assured Anderson Cooper the BMJ did.)

Jim Thompson


Brian Deer has access to these childrens’ records but the public has none.

And here is a conflicted reporter (he filed the original complaint and then reported on the complaint in the Sunday times) reporting on childrens' medical records in the British Medical Journal.

And the British Medical Journal, while raking in huge sums of money selling advertising to Pharma, gives no accounting for a peer review of Brian Deer’s allegations against Dr. Wakefield regarding the childrens' medical records.

(Look at alleged ties to Pharma at ).

“Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott


The endless "Wakefield witchhunt" is another way of avoiding "the problem is the problem."

Has the measles virus, matching the MMR vaccine strain been found infecting the gut tissue of Autistic children ??? yes it has.

Has the same problem been found in five other studies in five other countries ?
yes it has.

The MMR vaccine was split into separate shots for a while in the UK after the 1998 Wakefield paper.

The UK outrage came when the separate shots were elimnated, and the UK parents were told to take the MMR once again.

Dan E. Burns

Kim, thanks for the work you are doing fielding calls from reporters and for your list of supportive articles. David Kirby once told me, "It’s easier to get on the news in Dallas, Atlanta, or St. Louis news than the national news, especially if you can stage an attention-getting event." CNN has staged an attention-getting event for us. Now, as parents and vaccine-safety advocates, we have an opportunity to tell our stories. The media, national and local, are listening.

Readers, Dr. Wakefield can't carry the ball for every play. It's time for parents like you and me to make that call or send that email to the reporters we have been cultivating. Every positive message helps. It's D-Day.

Jenny Allan
In the case of Mr Deer no conflicts of interest declared either to the GMC or the BMJ.


Wasn't there a barrage of these "Wakefield faked data" stories two years ago, or was it one year? Seems to be an annual occurence, like the "get a flu shot or die" campaign.


I want to dwell a little on Child 1 as depicted by Brian Deer in "How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed," published in BMJ on January 5, 2011. Why? Because if we find that Deer has been deceitful in portraying the nature and timing of one child's symptoms, then we don't need to puzzle out what 172-96 is or how the British Legal Aid Board works. We will have caught Deer lying to us and that's that.

And lying about no small matter. According to Deer's BMJ article, Wakefield manipulated the timing of the first appearance of the Lancet children's autistic symptoms to make them coincide with receipt of the MMR vaccine.

Here's what Deer says about Child 1 in BMJ, January 5, 2011:

"Child 1’s recorded story began when he was aged 9 months, with a 'new patient' note by general practitioner Andrea Barrow. One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious. Indeed, a Royal Free history, by neurologist and coauthor Peter Harvey, noted 'normal milestones' until '18 months or so.'"

And here's Deer's earlier version in The Sunday Times of February 8, 2009:

"In the [Lancet] paper this claim [by the parents that MMR at 12 months was responsible for Child 1's autism] would be adopted, with Wakefield and his team reporting that Child One’s parents said 'behavioural symptoms' started 'one week' after he received the MMR.

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism."

So in his BMJ article, toned down from his peppier Sunday Times version, Deer seems to be suggesting that Child 1's hearing problem at 9 months was his first autistic symptom, permanent yet subtle enough to perhaps escape the notice of his mother and doctors during the boy's time at the Royal Free. But what Deer fails to tell us in either article is that in the GP's entry documenting the mother's concerns about Child 1's hearing, the mother is also noted as concerned about a discharge from her son's left ear. (_Callous Disregard_, p. 191, hardcover)

Why would Deer omit to tell us that Child 1's hearing problem at 9 months was accompanied by a discharge from his ear? Perhaps he didn't read that far along in the medical records. Or perhaps the pus wasn't mentioned in court. Or perhaps he just forgot about it. It's conceivable. But we do know that Deer knew about the discharge by the time his BMJ article was published because Andrew Wakefield told him about it in a chapter entitled "Deer" in _Callous Disregard_, published in 2010.

Now it's possible that Brian Deer thinks that the discharge from the ear and the hearing problem were unrelated. It's possible, I suppose, that he thinks that. But an ethical journalist would nevertheless tell us about it. He wouldn't conceal it just to make a case against Wakefield and his research. That would be manipulation of data. That would be unethical.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)