VOR Newsletter Highlights
Cathy Jameson: Break My Stride

Weekly Wrap: Andy Wakefield and the Uses of Adversity

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaBy Dan Olmsted
Mainstream medical and media types have decided to kick Andy Wakefield in the terminal ilium again. As John Stone outlined in an AOA post on Monday, CNN (home of Anderson Cooper’s famously vile grilling) weighed in with a column by Frank Y. Yong titled, “Blind Eye to Scientific Fraud is Dangerous.”
Yong wrote: “Episodes like the 1998 fabrication of data indicating a connection between childhood vaccines and autism risk have clear public health and policy repercussions.” (Yong is a junior fellow at Emory University in Atlanta, a virtual assisted living facility for emeriti CDC vaccine officials like Walt Orenstein and Robert Chen. I’m sure they cabled their approval.)
No need for Yong to elaborate on the “fabrication of data” before moving on to Michele Bachmann and Jenny McCarthy. (Bernadine Healy? Never heard of her.) “Everybody knows” by now that Wakefield committed fraud by changing the 12 case histories to falsely implicate the MMR in regressive autism and a novel bowel disease.
“Everybody knows” this solely because of the work of British slimester Brian Deer, who first filled the Sunday Times of London with his accusations. Nobody paid any attention, so he recycled them under the imprimatur of the British Medical Journal and its editor, Fiona Godlee. In an editorial accompanying Deer’s articles in 2011, she wrote:
“Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

“Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield.”
Nobody in England paid attention to the BMJ’s claims either, but the “fraud” then traveled across the Atlantic to our fair shores and became “truth,” a la the current Wikipedia entry for Wakefield: “Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.”

 Now, as his libel case against Deer twists in the jurisdictional wind in Texas, where an appeals court is taking a suspiciously long time to make up its mind on this simple issue, the vaccine injury denialists want us to think Wakefield is history, in every sense – no longer relevant except as a cautionary tale of scientific fraud run to ground.
“Andrew Wakefield has been discussed here and elsewhere a great deal,” Matt Carey, a member of the loathsome Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee, wrote on his blog.
“Thankfully his presence in the autism communities seems to have retreated to a small core of supporters and the occasional parent convention where he can, yet again, defend himself. Yes, his supporters are vocal. And, yes, he continues to cause harm. But his heyday is long past.”

 The reason Andy isn’t going anywhere is because, like Bernard Rimland – his only equal in the pantheon of autism science -- he, too, was right. Parents in England in the late 1990s did report autistic regression and the onset of bowel disease, and 8 of the 12 said they suspected the MMR shot, which occurred in eerie proximity.
As Carl Sagan said, and Paul Offit likes to parrot, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that the Lancet paper is a fraud, and that Andy alone perpetrated it, is extraordinary. But here’s the truth: There is no evidence that any – let alone all – of the Lancet case histories were manipulated to suggest a link to the MMR. Not a one.
And that, folks, is the real fraud, one that the journalism establishment is at grievous fault for repeating as fact rather than ferreting out. Despite that failure, Andy Wakefield is not history. He’s historic.

Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.



Keep up the good work.

L Land

I think that the proof that Dr Wakefield is right has been CDC/pharma's repeated attacks on him. When they changed their story from he was just wrong to he committed fraud, proved their need to cover up what they have done to our children.


So is he Frank or is he Deer or is he a hit man for Pharma?,


Angus Files


...if you throw enough mud, some will stick...

Keep telling a "lie" and it soon becomes the "truth", that it what Big Pharma is counting on.

Elizabeth Gillespie


Allow me to introduce my selves


"Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal."

And that was him trying to be Frank!!!



It would be like Deer trying to say I do not have a multiple personality disorder," trying to be frank or Dr Deer...Larf!!!.

Can the real deal ..oopps! real Deer please stand up...





cia parker

Thanks, Greg. I posted more this morning, but as I was posting, it told me that eleven shills had posted even before I was done. The moment has come when the pharma companies become so irked that they call in a school of sharks to pull me to pieces and finish me off. Lil*** was there today, Matt Carey, and several other new ones. I'm fairly sure that they are so crass, obviously uneducated and almost illiterate, and mindlessly vicious, that anyone reading would perceive them for what they are.



Great job at posting on the CNN article. You presented the evidence quite well, and I am sure you will get the attention of people who are serious about researching vaccines and their adverse events. Though at times it may not appear to be the case, I think people are really starting to listen.

Cheers, Greg


Probably Brian Deer does not realise what the word lying means ...he must believe his delusional lies himself...

Rock on Dr Wakefield..

Angus Files

Donna K

The more the media and the medical industry trash talk Dr. Wakefield the greater and more widespread his heroic legacy will be when the blinders come off and MMR vaccine damage is undeniable to the masses. We're talking a hero of biblical proportions. That day will come and all those complicit in withholding the truth and medical care from MMR victims will be held accountable. This vaccine protection ideology squats on a foundation that children are expendable in a war on infectious disease. Just as the rest of the world came around to acknowledge the Nazi ideology as immoral and heinous and held those accountable, family of vaccine victims won't accept any statute of limitations for those who conspired to lie about hurting vulnerable children. And as they keep spouting their "genetic basis" for autism, or as Dr. Renee Jenkins of the AAP refers to children who suffer vaccine damage has having "defects," how can it not be recognized as another, but more insidious, form of genocide. Whether they're protecting their 'public health' ideology, their reputations or their bank accounts, or just following orders (standard of care), they will face judgement. There will be justice for our suffering children.

cia parker

About the extraordinary claims/evidence quote: I think it's interesting that Big Pharma and its shills have established vaxing as the default state. Grey Falcon on SoP told me that if I can't prove vaccine damage, then I have to vax. Really? Why should the default not be a complete moratorium on all vaccines while real, large-scale studies are done to prove beyond any doubt that they do NOT cause the damage they obviously do? The oral polio vaccine was discontinued in the US because it caused maybe two cases of paralysis a year. DPT when it caused maybe several thousand cases of brain damage and death a year. Rotavirus when it caused five or six cases of intussusception. Now a lot of shills have kind of given up the point, and say that even if vaccines now cause one in 36 kids to have autism, isn't that better than one or two in ten thousand dying from measles? Their extraordinary claims of vaccine safety, effectiveness, and necessity are what require their extraordinary (because impossible) evidence.

cia parker

Thanks, Linda!

cia parker

I think one small part of this tragedy is that doctors actually cannot treat the viral diseases like measles, mumps, chickenpox, etc., and giving antibiotics or cough suppressants to pertussis patients (the only things they have to try) make the patient worse. The meager antivirals they have are dangerous, and I doubt they're even tried very often. So we have the lords of the world completely unable to do ANYTHING to justify their outlandish charges for seeing an actual sick person. Parents are much wiser to keep their sick children at home, use herbal, vitamin, homeopathic remedies, hot tea, bed rest, etc., and stay away from the doctors, unless symptoms of pneumonia or meningitis develop.

Jenny Allan

Hi John-thanks -I enjoyed reading yours and others BMJ responses. It was very obvious this study was fatally flawed on several fronts, not least the apparent testing of another hypothesis -not Dr Wakefield's -that autism is linked to an increase in measles antibodies. Who thought that one up?

Of note is the date of the research publication 2007. This was the year the GMC 'inquisition' began into Dr Wakefield and his two clinician colleagues. Coincidence? NOT!

John Stone

Hi Jenny,

The study is unfortunately no longer available on the open web, the responses however are. There's one co-authored by Andrew Wakefield, Carol Stott and Arthur Krigsman, and even quite a good one from me:



Jenny Allan

Re - Controversy about taking blood from children for research purposes-including control samples from healthy children:-

The following excerpt is linked from an official NHS News webpage, and is a report on a 2008 research project which claims to show no link between MMR vaccine and autism. I have edited out much of the text in order to concentrate on the sampling cohorts. The full text can be accessed via the link below:-

MMR vaccine ‘does not cause autism’
Behind the Headlines

"This study was part of the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP), which enrolled 56,946 children from the South Thames region born between July 1 1990 and December 31 1991.

No association between measles vaccination and ASD was shown.
Gillian Baird, lead author

"There were 1,770 children from SNAP aged nine to 10-years-old, who had been classified as having special educational needs or had been diagnosed with ASD. A representative sample of 255 of these children were selected to have a standard in-depth diagnostic test for ASD. For this study, the researchers included only children who provided blood samples, and those who had received the MMR vaccine at least once. Information about whether a child had had the MMR vaccine was taken from parental report, GP and district records. This included 98 children (cases) with ASD and 52 children with special educational needs but not ASD (controls).

They also selected another control group of 90 children from mainstream local schools who were developing normally, had received the MMR vaccine, and had agreed to have blood taken. All the children were aged between 10 and 12. The people who tested the blood samples did not know which were from cases and which from controls........

......What were the results of the study?

There was also no difference in the level of antibodies to measles in the bloodstream between children with ASD (cases) and children without ASD (controls). Also, there was no relationship between the level of measles antibodies a child had and how severe their autistic symptoms were. For the 23 children with ASD and regression, there was also no difference in the levels of antibodies between them and the pooled control group."

Since ALL these children had received MMR vaccine, it seems logical to assume they would all have antibodies to measles. This was confirmed by the research. What the hell this proves in relation to MMR vaccine and autism I am at a complete loss to understand, but the IMPORTANT thing is the use of a large cohort of healthy schoolchildren, who supplied the control samples for this research. It is stated these children 'agreed' to this, although there is no mention of parental consent being asked for. I would be interested to know whether the parents were even informed.

Remember -this research was an OFFICIAL study, sanctioned and presumably funded by the UK Government Department of Health. Here we have a large number of schoolchildren who were required to donate blood for PURELY research purposes. There is no evidence of parental consent or involvement?

Dr Wakefield had the consent of both the children and their parents for taking blood samples at the birthday party and the kids got a fiver pocket money.


Thanks Cia. You are a force to be reckoned with in the comments sections. You're doing a lot of good. Keep up the good work.

cia parker

Michael Belkin has done several articles on vaccine profits, this is one:


Fievre, it's just propaganda. They're trying to paint him as someone who victimizes children. In reality it was no big deal. As others have pointed out, the children's parents (mostly doctors) were there and gave permission. The children had a choice on whether or not to give the blood samples.


This popped into my head and I'm throwing it out there. I'm sure these have been done here before, but two ideas explored I think would help to uncover the deception. One, to write about all the inconsistencies in the press about vaccines and vaccine injury, comparing quotes of the experts and their contradictions, and how the research is buried under political spin. Second, a piece about the current economics of vaccines - the business behind the public health initiative. How many billions and what is the business plan and outlook in dollars - maybe including the history of the build up of this business too, strictly from a financial standpoint. Maybe third, what would happen if the truth is admitted. What would happen if the truth was admitted and there wasn't a law in place to make the people pay so the business won't be effected - and even with the law in place, what would happen economically and to public health as we know it.

cia parker

I don't even see it as a mistake, just something they've latched on to because they have NOTHING else to justify their conflagration of the truth. Where are you going to go to get blood samples from healthy controls? The ones who aren't in the clinic, aren't, aren't being subjected to medical procedures? It was all above board, informed consent, no harms done, unlike the giving of the hep-b vaccine at midnight to every healthy newborn in America without informing the parents before hand or asking permission. And then when it causes encephalitis and autism, just deny that the agonized screaming lasting for days had ANYTHING to do with the subsequent autism. In which case should the medical criminals have been punished? In that of the doctor doing research which would ultimately save children from being damaged by the MMR, or that of the pharmacrats carrying out their invastive medical attacks in the dark, in secret, and without permission?


I try to distance myself from politics ,I don't much believe anyone is really interested in the outcome of the average US citizen, at least not those that want to lead. It's like having a favorite in a pit bull arena, it's so ugly who would watch, let alone have a "favorite". Where's the drive, it has to be selfish, to get us interested they have to lure us in with the promise of something we want. I feel manipulated every day,at times I listen and think it's a SNL skit, and am surprised when it's not. I have friends who say, oh you listen to "xyz", you must be a sheeple, or you should follow "wbs", that's where you get the truth. HUH? They can find the truth? Ha.. for me that is absolutely impossible. I'm in fact waiting for some to "come out" and admit the fun they've had with us over the decades and tell us all how stupid we are for not taking each topic on it's own merit and using our own minds. I believe in prefacing everything I read now, with a Ripley's "you can believe this or not".
What happens when they can't destroy your reputation and your life's work? I shudder to think, do they ,whoever they are, go that extra step. Sidney Sheldon wrote a book a few years back, not a good one, or so I thought at the time, yet today ,many years later I get it At times they may just have to "kill ya' off". Look what they've done to Andy and look what they've done to Hayes, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv

John Gilmore

Interesting note about Anderson Cooper: Nobody watches him, 250,000 viewers in a country of 320 million.


British Mum, British Isles

@ Fievre,
Thank you for taking notice of my comment. In rough terms, 'they' were trying to invoke thoughts/comments among the general public of "how dreadful, taking blood samples at a children's party!" This used to be called manipulation of public opinion - no doubt there's a snappier term for it these days.

It's my understanding that it can be difficult to obtain permission to take medical samples from healthy children. It's also my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that it's not unknown for doctors to use their colleagues' children as donors for such samples. Please note that I'm not in a position to state whether this applied to the children at this party (again, correct me if I'm wrong). Can anyone closer to the action, as it were, clarify/elucidate my attempt at an explanation?

Glax Britannicus


It is what is called harassment. They went on a fishing expedition. As we have seen most of the charges could not have stuck in a proper court of law,and we are in fact down to something like parking tickets. A great many medical/scientific people were made nervous over this being in the charge sheet.


@British Mum, British Isles : The information you are giving is interesting ...but does not explain why the blood sampling episode had so much weigh in the characterization of Wakefield in the British islands; If the practise was so common, how is it it was made a point against him ?

Dan Burns

Dr. John Snow is another historic doctor abused by powerful business interests and the British government. As the story goes, Snow ended the 1854 cholera outbreak in London by removing the handle of the Broad Street Pump, located near the final resting place of a dirty diaper which had been used by an infected infant and dumped in a cesspool. His call to action -- clean up the London water system -- offended the Southward and Vauxhall Waterworks Companies, which supplied homes with water from sewage-polluted sections of the Thames. Under pressure from these businesses, government officials rejected Snow's theory of oral-fecal disease transmission. “After careful inquiry,” the Board of Health report concluded, “we see no reason to adopt this belief.” Snow was shunned by the medical establishment, but he had his admirers. He drank nothing but boiled water until his death and urged others to do the same. In 2003, he was voted in a poll of British doctors as “the greatest physician of all time.” See http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html

Jenny Allan

"For that they threw out the entire paper / not to mention the 200 children with similar MMR problems that followed and were treated by Dr. Wakefield."

I am sure cmo is onside, but this is a perfect example of how Wakefield misinformation becomes 'facts', particularly in the US, as a result of all the lies spread by Deer & Co.

Dr Wakefield's contract at the Royal Free Hospital PREVENTED any clinical contact with the children involved in his research. He was employed purely as a research scientist, based in the RF laboratories. The GMC case against Dr Wakefield included 'causing' children to undergo unnecessary invasive procedures for purely research purposes. In order to make this 'stick', two of Dr Wakefield's clinician colleagues Professors Walker-Smith and Murch, were dragged into the GMC 'dock' with Dr Wakefield. All three were found 'guilty' although Prof Murch was allowed to keep his licence to practice.

Professor Walker-Smith was later completely exonerated in the UK High Court and his licence restored. At the time of the GMC guilty verdicts Prof Walker-Smith had been retired for ten years. This distinguished and compassionate clinician wanted nothing more than to have his good name restored. In his memoirs he describes the GMC stainless steel and glass premises as a 'torture chamber' and the proceedings as 'an inquisition'.

I suspect Mr Justice Mitting, who had some scathing comments for the GMC's Advocate following Prof W-S's successful appeal, has also been active 'behind the scenes',since the GMC has subsequently completely overhauled all its disciplinary procedures. The Wakefield, Walker-Smith & Murch 3 year GMC so called 'trial' was estimated to have cost more than £8million. Ordinary UK doctors, who must pay an annual compulsory registration fee to the GMC, paid for this horrific abuse of GMC power.

Apart from the Lancet 12, there never were '200 other children' being treated for bowel problems at the Royal Free, at the time of the Lancet 1998 Wakefield et al paper. The actual number was around 40 children, one of whom was my grandson, (who still suffers terribly with his guts). The 'special clinic' was later disbanded by incoming UCL medical director Professor Pepys, who also admitted on a BBC Radio 4 programme being responsible for getting rid of Dr Wakefield.

Prof Pepys was later given a knighthood for his dementia research, in partnership with MMR vaccine manufacturers GSK. For this a UCL ‘new company’ was formed, Pentraxin Therapeutics.(Remember Deer banging on scathingly about Dr Wakefield forming a company to market his own therapeutic discovery transfer factor?) In the Wakefield case the Royal Free would have got any profits from the sale of Transfer Factor, but GSK would cream off any profits made by Pentraxin Therapeutics .

Alzheimers is still a major problem in the UK, as is bowel disease in children. The latter is rising alarmingly. I am still furious about the witch hunt against two excellent clinicians and an honest clever researcher. My grandson never got the chance of Transfer Factor. The patent is still owned (and archived) by the Royal Free.

Jeannette Bishop

Under the current circumstances, I guess I'm going to hope that every time the mainstream makes misleading and patently false vaccine representations (maybe I should just shorten that to any vaccine representation) that a few more think, "hmmmm, vaccines, I really should look into that some more" and then some of those few (maybe not few) actually do look into it ...



I don't know if someone has already mentioned this but Andrew Wakefield is also famous for identifying bowel disease as part of the complexity of autism spectrum diseases. When the establishment turned against Wakefield and his findings they also turned against 10s of thousands of extremely ill children who have bowel disease in addition to an autism diagnosis. In order to keep attacking Wakefield they also have to attack his science (which of course is brilliant) and so these children are not treated. One of the primary reasons to not vaccinate your child is that if he/she should get bowel disease from the MMR it will go untreated, and your child will be medically ill with no medical care. On the other hand measles, mumps, and rubella will be treated. So why wouldn't a parent take a disease that could be treated to one that will go untreated? My rule of thumb is that until doctors are treating vaccine injury with the same compassionate care given to the disease the vaccine would prevent who would choose to get vaccinated. And none of these so called preventable diseases is really so bad--chicken pox, measles, the flu... or possibly autism, autoimmune disease, seizure disorder, severe bowel disease..take your pick.


@Benedetta, who asks "is Texas just full of these guys?"..."How can there be so many?"


Think back to 1940's Europe.

How could there be so many, who killed innocents for not going along with the current power plays?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Big Pharma has indeed learned from history. They've learned from every political move the Nazis made, and they've learned from every mistake made by the tobacco industry (like, not having paid off generations of politicians to look the other way, and not having overseen the education of generations of doctors and nurses).


The more pharmaceutical mafia and medial hyenas attack Dr. Wakefield, the taller he grows and more famous he becomes among parents as the child savior. Renewed attacks on him and on other vaccine critics are best evidence that we are winning the war of public enlightenment about toxic vaccinations. These attacks are a proof of Dr. Wakefield victory.


Mainstream media sure is doing its best to keep a 16 year old case series of 12 at the forefront of public discussion.

Michael B Schachter MD, CNS

Congratulations to Ottoschnaut. His post is 100% correct. The content of his post makes me want to vomit, but it is 100% correct. Michael B Schachter MD, CNS

British Mum, British Isles

In the UK it is customary, if you take part in medical research by donating blood samples, having X-rays, CT scans, MRI scans, whatever, for you to be offered an "honorarium" of a variable amount of money as recognition of inconvenience caused to you. It is my understanding that such sums of money are budgeted for as part of the expenses of medical research.

Five years ago my adult ASD child was offered about £80 to attend a recognised medical centre of excellence and have an MRI scan. Sadly, after initially accepting, my child decided not to do this - I still wonder if anything of relevance would have been found.


Anyone who follows this knows David Salisbury was receiving physician filed reports of adverse effects from MMR including autism as far back as 1988. The Lancet 1998 finding of unique gut disease associated with ASD is a medical fact, no amount of denial or caterwauling will change the cascade of research the proves it to be so.

In the past two weeks- we have read in the pages of the NYT that Low T therapy is an oversold, dangerous intervention.

In the past three days we have read in NYT how corn syrup lobby battles sugar syrup lobby by paying a cardiologist $46,000 a month, and additional millions for "research." The corn syrup industry is seeking to invent science exonerating their product from known adverse health effects. They have m oved beyond lobbying to pure Big Lie propaganda, per the NYT. The cardiologist says the millions he collects does not influence his science- he is just a humble guy toiling in the salt mines. Remind you of anyone else?

Dr. Offit maintains no COI, despite his vaccine fortune. Dr Insel unilaterally kills a hard fought, voted upon, NIH approved $4mm grant to do the first ever study of health outcomes in vaccinated kids compared against fully invaccinated kids- and the millions of dollars his brother made off vaccine development has nothing to do with it. Coleen "Dioxin is Perfectly Safe" Boyle is still sucking off the government tit decades after she invented science at the behest of Monsanto. Brian "Those Kids Don't Have Bowel Disease" Deer gets an editorial in BMJ- despite the fact that he is a proven, heinous (make that "Hey! Anus!") liar. Offit, Insel and Boyle want us to pretend that the appearance of a COI is not in fact a COI.

The takeaway is that mainstream media is content driven like everything else. Thems that pays writes "the news." 90% or more of what is described in the MSM as "news," "science," and "peer reviewed medical research" is anything but.

The issue of iatrogenic vaccine induced brain injury is now starting to get traction because the very pharma whores who are shilling the illusion of vaccine safety are coming home to brain damage kids. Selah!


Sometimes I think not enough attention is devoted to Dr. Wakefield and the other doctors and scientists who have been persecuted for their integrity, so I'm pleased to see this post today and I hope this is kept in the forefront at least until there is justice.

Benedetta, I know you know this - that your question was rhetorical. But I want to say this anyway. The big deal with the blood draws at the birthday party is that they needed something to pin on the good doctor, no matter how ridiculous. They might have instead attacked him for wearing the wrong color socks that day, and too many among the dumb as dirt public, led by the corrupt medical establishment and puppy dog press following along adoringly at their heels, would have agreed that Dr. Wakefield was a horrible man for doing so. They were just going to attack him in any way possible because he crossed the line they made that no one is allowed to question vaccines.

Which reminds me... Preventative care in the US is recommended by The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/.
I went to their site to look around and found something very interesting. On the page for "Immunizations For Children", the task force has this:

"The USPSTF recognizes the importance of immunizations in primary disease prevention. However, the USPSTF does not wish to duplicate the significant investment of resources made by others to review new evidence on immunizations in a timely fashion and make recommendations. The USPSTF therefore will not update its 1996 recommendations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) publishes recommendations on immunizations for children and adults. The methods used by the ACIP to review evidence on immunizations may differ from the methods used by the USPTF."

What's interesting is that the Task Force makes all kinds of recommendations for other conditions that overlap with the CDC's work. But they don't touch immunization. It seems that it is verboten. Also, note the peculiar last statement, that " The methods used by the ACIP to review evidence on immunizations may differ from the methods used by the USPTF."

What is THAT all about? Are they saying that if they did address the topic of immunization that their recommendations might not agree with those of the ACIP? Is that a way of distancing themselves from the ACIP's schedule?


CIA Parker
Yes that was what my childhood best friend said was the biggest mistake Dr. Wakefield made.

I know that unlike her I was not the valedictorian of the class;
But maybe I do know something??? I did manage to finish my BS and masters degree before the age of 25 -- were as it took her another 25 to get her BS in nursing.

and even though the Bible says we have been given the knowledge of right and wrong --good and evil - and I do find myself struggling sometimes about why things are wrong, why there are certain rules --- I am really puzzled as to why this is a big deal?????

What is the thought processes of the people pointing out birthday party boys - supplying controls?.

Louis Conte

During all that has happened, there are those who knew and said nothing.

In 1998, the people involved in case assessment within the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation - Evans, Casserta, Balbier and others - understood that the MMR was causing encephalopathy. They published a paper that stated this fact.

The DPT was shown to cause encephalopathy in the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES) long before Dr. Wakefield became the target.

It is just a fact that vaccine injury sometimes involves brain damage. The behavioral disorder we call autism often follows.

These are facts that were understood by many for a long time. Many knew and said nothing.

The more vaccines one gets, the more opportunities there are for adverse reactions - as with any other drug when you take more and more of it. Kathleen Stratton said so a few years ago.

The truth is there. Some had the courage to speak out and were attacked for it. Some decided that they were the ultimate defenders of orthodoxy and made sure that those they designated as heretics were punished. But most put their hands in their pockets and said nothing.

Bob is quite correct. History will not remember those who said nothing. We should make sure that history remembers those who conspired to subvert the truth to maintain their control.

cia parker

I've posted a lot of comments on this article (strafed it, if I may say so myself), including several about Dr. Wakefield. Yesterday a shill told me that Dr. Wakefield's license had been revoked because he took blood samples from the boys at his sons birthday party without permission from the hospital. He needed control samples, he asked the parents for permission, got it, asked the boys if they would give blood in return for giving them five pounds, they accepted, the blood was taken under standard hygienic conditions by a medical professional. Everyone was happy, nothing bad occurred. They are reduced to saying that this was the SOLE cause for his having his license revoked because all their other reasons have been proven to be false, and we're back to Big Pharma paying Brian Deer to bring the action and BP telling the GMC it had better revoke the doctors' licenses to make an example of them, to show other medical professional what would happen to them if they dared to even mention the POSSIBILITY of a vaccine causing severe damage to the children it was given to.


The actual retraction, which is often fraudulently alleged to be a retraction of the entire paper:

Retraction of an interpretation

The Lancet, Volume 363, Issue 9411, Page 750, 6 March 2004

Simon H Murch a, Andrew Anthony b, David H Casson e, Mohsin Malik f, Mark Berelowitz c, Amar P Dhillon b, Michael A Thomson a, Alan Valentine d, Susan E Davies g, John A Walker-Smith a

This statement refers to the Early Report “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children”,1 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 this statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the other co-authors.

The main thrust of this paper1 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.2, 3 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.4

We were unable to contact John Linnell.



There is nothing more maddening and frustrating than the media's constant chant that Dr. Wakefield's work was fraudulent, and that he is the source of all concerns about the MMR and (along with Jenny McCarthy) about vaccines in general.

In addition, they say or imply that his coauthors all retracted the 1998 paper, whereas actually the coauthors only retracted the interpretation of a possible link with MMR, the accurate statement that 8 of 12 parents had noticed a link and that further research was warranted. The coauthors stood by their findings of inflammation in the bowels. None of them said that Dr. Wakefield had pulled the wool over their eyes - they just said that the information about an MMR link was too preliminary to mention in the paper. And, of course, Walker-Smith was exonerated by an English court of almost all the same charges that the GMC had found against Wakefield.

The thousands of parents who have spoken out about the adverse reactions they witnessed in their children were not motivated by a supposed fraudster and by the celebrity of a Playboy model. Dr. Wakefield responded to the concerns of parents; he did not create those concerns. Jenny McC spoke out about what she witnessed in her son, and her words traveled because so many others have had similar experiences. Her son has recovered from autism, which in a better world would attract great interest instead of ridicule.

And CNN is censoring comments. They have not posted any of my comments linking to valid information about Dr. Wakefield. They should be ashamed of themselves.

John Stone


Yes we also recall that Deer was hired by a Sunday Times editor who needed "something big" on "MMR" and whose father had sat on the Committee on Safety in Medicines which had brought in MMR and its particularly hazardous Pluserix variant in 1988. And also that Blair went to the trouble of endorsing Deer's original set of allegations on TV the day after they were published - absolutely typical of the way Blair debauched the government and the media.




After the 1998 paper, the UK provided three single vaccines for the three MMR viruses for several years, as suggested by Dr. Wakefield.

The UK government then banned the single imported vaccines and demanded that all parents use the MMR vaccine produced by the British drug company GSK.

THIS IS WHEN the UK vaccine rates began to drop.

A major part of the UK MMR problem came from Tony Blair.... who sidestepped a question on which vaccines he provided to his son.

From his statement it was obvious that he did not use the GSK combined MMR.

I believe the "total elaborate fraud" located with the 12 children by Brian Deer was the timing of "head banging" of one child .... the question was did the ....head banging start.... a few weeks or a few months after the MMR vaccine.

For that they threw out the entire paper / not to mention the 200 children with similar MMR problems that followed and were treated by Dr. Wakefield.

Brian Deer using his "middle name as his last name" interviewed several Lancet parents nearly 11 years after their children were treated by Dr. Wakefield.


The first judge Amy Meacham - had a husband that was a lobbyist for the pediatric association.

The govenor that was going to be the republican's choice for the president of the United States had an advisor that was also a lobbylist.

Is Texas just full of these guys?
Is the whole world just full of them?
The whole world is full of paper pushing drones in suits -

How can there be so many?

Bob Moffitt

Throughout history .. powerful interests .. be they political, religious or industrial .. have always focused their angry energies on anyone and everyone who dared disagree with them .. making them "scape-goats" .. upon which they would deliberately attach the most vicious lies, distortions and deceptions to discredit their views.

Once having succeeded in making the "scapegoat's name" synonymous with fraud or corruption .. they are free to dismiss all "disagreements" simply by attaching the scapegoat's now fully sullied .. and .. discredited .. name.

So, if history is our guide .. we can rest assured .. when the truth is finally revealed for all to see .. Dr. Wakefield's name and reputation will be restored to it's rightful place of honor among courageous men .. just as Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelwies .. who is now respected and revered as the man who suffered outrageous .. cruel indignation .. of the entire medical profession of his time .. because he dared alert them to the embarrassing fact THEY were spreading disease and death by not washing their hands properly after treating patients.

Indeed .. just recently there was a report clearly stating that THOUSANDS of patients in hospitals throughout the country are STILL being unnecessarily .. carelessly .. exposed to death and disease .. because .. hospital staff fail to "wash their hands" after the most menial chores .. such as .. changing bed linen and then touching sterilized instruments .. thereby contaminating them.

In any event, while the names of Semmelwies and Wakefield will be remembered with reverence for their contributions to protecting the public health .. the ignoble names of those who made careers of making them "scapegoats" will be .. justifiably so .. long forgotten by history.

John Stone

This is oldest solution to a problem of what to do about somebody who is very inconvenient with some modern variations - basically you get someone to make up a tale, but then you get the international media to do the rest. Basically, by now there are whole list of stooges but Deer is the first. Everything he has said about the Wakefield Lancet paper has long been disproven but they are reliant on the mere fact that it has been said - for the medical establishment and the modern media - corrupt, insane with power, greedy it really doesn't matter.


Anne McElroy Dachel

The media doesn't want Wakefield to be forgotten. He's the fall guy (along with Jenny McCarthy) for the whole controversy. In the world of make-believe medical science we're told that no one would have connected vaccines to the development of autism if Wakefield hadn't written about it in a British medical journal sixteen years ago.

Periodically we need to be reminded of this fact. It sends a strong message to other doctors and scientists and members of the media: This will happen to you too if you question the safety of vaccination.

If the medical community and federal health officials solidly support the claim that studies show no link, it must be true. If no one but Wakefield thinks vaccines cause autism and he's been debunked, we have to look elsewhere for the cause---all the while learning to accept a generation of disabled children no one can reasonably explain.

Anne Dachel, Media

Jenny Allan

From above:-
"Now, as his libel case against Deer twists in the jurisdictional wind in Texas, where an appeals court is taking a suspiciously long time to make up its mind on this simple issue"

Yes- This IS suspicious. To recap, the three judges in Texas are NOT judging the Wakefield V BMJ Godlee and Deer litigation, but are deliberating over whether or not this action should be heard in a Texas Court. Godlee, Deer & Co are trying to convince the judges this is an ENGLISH issue and should be decided in the UK.

Dr Wakefield has lived in Texas for the past twelve years and has brought up his family there. The BMJ article was published Jan 2011, and was available in both online and hard copy form in Texas at that time. Non BMJ subscribers worldwide could access the article free via the internet.

There are several legal precedents. In theory at least, all Dr Wakefield has to prove to the court is that Deer's BMJ article was available and delivered to Texas subscibers. This is easy to prove, since the Texas branch of a US Paediatric Association, re published Deer's article in their own online webpage, also adding their own defamatory tuppenceworth. The US 'hard copy' of the Jan 2011 BMJ Journal had a lurid full colour illustration of building blocks, with the title 'How the case against MMR vaccine was built'. Undoubtedly, Deer's article was 'the star of the show'.

Judge Amy Meacham took only a few hours to 'throw out' the Wakefield case, stating this did not come under the 'jurisdiction' of the Texas Courts. Later it turned out, Judge Meacham's husband made his living as a lobbyist, including for that same Paediatric Association which re published Deer's article, a shameful conflict of interest.

Dr Wakefield's faith in 'Texas Justice' appears to have been misplaced, from my side of the Atlantic. I pray I am wrong!!

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.)