Dachel Media Review: More Vax Attacks
Tell Your Politicians Constituents Support Vaccine Choice

Andrew Wakefield Responds to Emily Willingham and Forbes

Willingham art

 Ms. Emily Willingham

Forbes Magazine

60 Fifth Avenue,

New York, NY 10011.


Re:       Malicious defamation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Without prejudice

Dear Emily Willingham,

            It has been brought to my attention that on or about April 30, 2014, Forbes ran an online article authored by you entitled, “Blame Wakefield For Missed Autism-Gut Connection.” The article can be found online at:


In this letter you made demonstrably false and misleading claims that have the effect of defaming me. Your false and defamatory statements are reckless, stated without due regard to the available evidence, and malicious. Accordingly, pending review by my lawyers, you will be sued for defamation.

            Specifically, your article states, as a matter of fact that:

Wakefield’s MMR/autism/gut red herring and the subsequent noxious cloud that his fraud left over any research examining autism and the gut.

            In making this false and malicious allegation of fraud, you erroneously ascribe the above statement to a “cite” from the authors of an article published in the medical journal Pediatrics when you write:

Well, the Pediatrics review by McElhanon et al. happens to cite that reason several times: Wakefield’s MMR/autism/gut red herring and the subsequent noxious cloud that his fraud… The Pediatrics authors state it unequivocally:

            On any ordinary reading, the intent of your statement is clear: to imply that the authors of the Pediatrics paper cite fraud on my part.  What McElhanon et al actually say is substantially different from your false and defamatory allegation i.e.,

It is clear that greater clinical and research scrutiny is needed to increase awareness on this topic and thus support development of the best standards of care. Previous controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine and proposed causal link between ASD and infection of the GI tract probably deterred investigators from dedicating resources to examine GI functioning in this population while fostering uncertainty in the ASD community regarding the validity of this line of inquiry.[1]

            There has been a substantial amount of inaccurate and misleading reporting regarding me and my work in multiple publications.  Some of the most egregious statements that have been made about me appeared in the British Medical Journal and in publications by Mr. Brian Deer.  As you should be aware, I am suing the British Medical Journal, its editor Dr. Fiona Godlee, and Brian Deer for defamation in state District Court in Travis County, Texas.  The case is Cause No. D-1-GN-12-000003, Dr. Andrew J Wakefield v. The British Medical Journal, et.al.  The case is currently on jurisdictional appeal, a matter that is irrelevant to either the factual merits of the case or to the prosecution of defendants such as you, based, as you are, in the United States.

            The pleadings and other papers on file in that case set forth my position regarding numerous statements made by Brian Deer, Dr. Godlee and the BMJ. I have filed affidavits in that case which support my claim that false and defamatory statements have been made about me.  The documents on file are public records to which you and Forbes have had access for some considerable time. These documents demonstrate that the scientific research conducted by me and published in the Lancet Paper was not fraudulent. It appears that you have failed in the most basic process of due diligence by not availing yourself of this information before making your defamatory statements. Your actions show a reckless disregard for the truth and are clear evidence of malice on your part; pending legal advice, you will be prosecuted accordingly.

            Further, you are advised that there is, in fact, a substantial body of peer reviewed and published work that corroborates the presence of gastrointestinal pathology in a substantial proportion of children with autism. The Lancet Paper was the stimulus for this compelling and important. I suggest that you avail yourself of this body of work in anticipation of legal proceedings against you. The microscopic, cellular, molecular, microbial, and pathophysiological changes that have been reported by independent researchers may prove to be somewhat challenging to your flimsy notion of “anxiety.”   

      You are also advised that I live and work in Austin, Texas where my business is headquartered, and that my work is conducted throughout the US. Your defamatory statements about me will undoubtedly cause me to suffer significant personal and financial damage.

            My lawyers are currently dealing with Deer and his co-defendants. They will be turning their attention to you well within the statute of limitations for filing a case against you and Forbes.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Andrew J Wakefield MB.BS


Bill Parrish

James Moody Esq.

Dawn Loughborough DAIR






It's a little late now, but the video in question is here:

At 1:21:40 an audience member asks Dr. Wakefield about the 400,000 dollars [sic] he made.

I, of course, feel that Dr. Wakefield has the right to do what he wants with the money he earns and is under no compunction to tell me or anyone else...(OK, maybe taxman, wife)...what he did with it, but since he did vouchsafe to give us information, I would have expected journalist Deer to convey that claim to his loyal readership, which it seems he didn't because they don't seem to know anything about it.


Alessandro, Hera and all, your points are bang on target.


Yes, Benedetta,the inhumanity indeed (inhumanity should appear in quotes) but they like to pick and choose what they focus on don't they. Some autism mother at RI just referred to Dr. Wakefields research as being Wakefield herpes. They truly are despicable and desperate to obfuscate the issue.


O'Neill and Lawrence look like trolls. They know what they are saying is BS.

It looks like the Royal Free never had itself a scheme to build a wing for inflamatory bowel disease so why these trolls are asking them if they've got any money for a scheme they did not have looks like the trolls trying to create something out of smoke and mirrors.

Schemes like that rely upon benefactors raising funds and then coming forward with plans supported by funding which the hospital would then be able to take seriously for these kinds of initiatives to be taken forward.

Any prospect of a wing being built was killed stone dead by Brian Deer causing all the false allegations against Wakefield.

And no benefactor is going to raise their head above the parapet with people who in my opinion are trolls like Lawrence and O'Neill and liars like Brian Deer out to attack them publicly on the internet over nothing.

What it does show is how desperate these trolls are to create more lies out of smoke and mirrors by innuendo and with no facts.

They or Deer are asking for an answer even a dumbbell would know will be "no". And it is just to make out Wakefield is a liar.

Sounds par for Mr Deer's typical "journalism", if it can be called that.

And it looks like Wakefield being falsely called a fraud by the BMJ on Deer's twisted facts is not good enough for them. Obviously because they know it is not true so want to make up some new BS.

Sick jerks


"SIDS is the leading cause of death among infants aged 1–12 months, and is the third leading cause overall of infant mortality in the United States."

The CDC says it has gone down.

The CDC say that.

Just saying


This is a tale that was told after the Congress of the United States - ordered these men to go check out the CDC data.

Enough said.


Benedetta; Thank you so much for your kindness and prayers
( By the way, your comment is right about my hubby. I just never connected the dots before. He loves his son dearly. But he avoids watching the games.)

Lawrence; thanks for the good evening wishes, hope you had a good evening too. By the way, if the decrease in SIDS shows we are doing something right, would an increase in asthma, type 1 diabetes, ADHD, autism and even childhood cancer, ( though I think cancer rates are starting to level off now)show that we are doing something very wrong?

Mo is I am really very unconcerned with how much money Dr. Wakefield donated to charity. Unless I am missing something, all doctors get paid and spend their money as they choose. You could similarly say that anyone making money off well baby visits and giving vaccinations has a conflict of interest in defending vaccines as well.

By the way, how much money has the APA accepted from pharma companies? Should that be allowed at all, or is that a conflict of interest too in your opinion?

How do you see the APA's support of legislation to consider vaccinations unavoidably unsafe and their argument AGAINST requiring vaccine manufacturers to make vaccines safer, when viewed in that light? Did they declare a conflict of interest? If not, should they have done?

If other scientists are discovering Dr Wakefield is right and that bowel conditions/unusual bacteria growth is present and needs to be treated in regressive autism, surely that actually indicates that his study and academic work was valid?

just some things to think about.


There use to be a tee shirt my daughter and her friends in high school wore - it had shiny letters on it -- out of focus -- called dazed and confused.

Dazed and confused alright..

Let us sum up what to focus on :

There was a novel inflammatory bowel diseasediscovered in the upper middle intestines in children with autism - and their Mothers said it was after the MMR vaccine they became ill --- and that the measle virus was found there.

Hmmmmm -- Oh my Gosh -the inhumanity! Dazed and confused let us focus instead on: Everything else!

John Stone

Incidentally, I posed the rhetorical question yesterday, what did Stephen Bustin do with the money for his court work (£225k in the UK litigation + the Cedillo case). I particularly don't like or trust the way Bustin conducted himself but it is still a ridiculous question. I don't regard it as any of my business. This is just a case of the uscrupulous way in which Wakefield is still being hounded.




John Stone

John O'Neill

The exchange published on Whale represents the despicable way that Deer and the Sunday Times treated Andrew Wakefield (bear in mind four days earlier James Murdoch, proprietor of Times Newspapers had been appointed to the board of GSK with a brief to look after the group's reputation) and Wakefield was being given zero time to answer on a series of complex issues many years before.

It should be pointed out that any money Wakefield did retain from his court work he was within his rights keeping. Obviously, the fact that he offered the proceeds from the patent to the medical school covers the issue of commercial conflict. In the event only costs atttached to the patent but if he paid out of his own pocket it was still potentially of benefit to the school and essentially philanthropic. I see this as a man working under great pressure trying to help people.


@John - as I stated earlier, I await a response back to my request, if any money ever was in fact donated. It does appear that Wakefield has claimed that he did give the money, though there has never been independent confirmation that it did happen.

Of course, Mr. Stone has proposed a different scenario - but I'm willing to let the evidence speak for itself.

As soon as I hear back, I will post up the answer.

John O'Neill

I clearly cannot vouch for the accuracy of Dr Long's figures - the article is clearly supportive of Dr Wakefield and would be expected to present those figures in the best possible (and no doubt agreed with Dr Wakefield) light.

The article does not (unless I've missed it - perfectly possible) make any statement as to whether Dr Wakefield did, or did not donate his legal aid money (as opposed to patent) to the Royal Free Hospital.

The email quoted at Whale.To seems to indicate that Dr Wakefield claims that this is the case - in which case Lawrence's FOI request will no doubt bear this out.

John Stone

John O'Neill

Thank you for providing a link to the Bill Long article - a history btw which was completely borne out in Prof Walker-Smith's appeal. This is the relevant passage:-

"This might be expected, since his work
on Crohn’s disease, the GI tract, and the
potential connection of the measles virus
to the development of Crohn’s disease was
foundational for Barr’s case. But a closer
look at that 435,000 pounds ($780,000)
reveals less than meets the eye.[38] The court
overseeing the litigation decided that it
wouldn’t award 100,000 of those 435,000
pounds. Then, Barr’s law firm decided to
withhold about 35,000 pounds after the
highly critical February 2004 stories about
Wakefield began to appear. With the British
tax of 40%, this brings his earnings down
to about 180,000 pounds for seven years
of engagement in the litigation. From this
he paid for a research assistant and then
paid at least 100,000 pounds to file and
update the patent application.[39]Decisions
to file in jurisdictions as wide as America,
Europe, England and Japan drained a good
deal of the expert fee money he earned.
Thus, at the end of it all, Wakefield didn’t
get rich on either the patent application or
the expert fees he earned. Most of it was
invested in ways that it was hoped would
benefit the School of Medicine and patients
with intestinal disease...

"[38] I derived the following points from
my January 15, 2009, interview with Dr.
Wakefield. I saw the law firm billings on two
large pink sheets from 2000 and 2001. A
quick addition of the figures yielded nearly
100,000 pounds expended in legal fees for
furthering the patent application.
"[39] The author studied some of the billing
records from a prominent London patent
law firm to Wakefield for their services in
the late 1990s and 2000. "

John O'Neill

The essay referred to in my previous comment can be found here:

John O'Neill

@John Stone, @Lawrence

I have certainly seen the claim that Dr Wakefield donated (specifically Legal Aid) money to the Royal Free before, although not at Age of Autism.

It can be found here:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/61844 (Quite a long page, so search for the phrase "Legal Aid Board grant")

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Andrew_Wakefield (Search for "special trust controlled by the Royal Free")

and at Whale.To, in an email attributed to Dr Wakefield:

Dr Wakefield writes: "Any payment that I received over the course of working for more than 7 years as a expert to the UK courts in the MMR litigation – substantially less than the sum Deer claims – was donated to an initiative to build a new center for the investigation and care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease at the Royal Free. This matter is described in more detail in a forthcoming essay by Bill Long, access to which will be posted in due course at http://www.drbilllong.com/index.html."


Have a great evening all - I have enjoyed the civil discourse.

I believe it is necessary to learn something new every day and challenge ideas from all angles - so don't even close a door until you're sure there is an open window.

Again, thank you.


"SIDS is the leading cause of death among infants aged 1–12 months, and is the third leading cause overall of infant mortality in the United States. Although the overall rate of SIDS in the United States has declined by more than 50% since 1990, rates for non-Hispanic black and American Indian/Alaska Native infants remain disproportionately higher than the rest of the population. Reducing the risk of SIDS remains an important public health priority."

Forgot my quote marks


A quick look at CDC on the SIDS
SIDS is the leading cause of death among infants aged 1–12 months, and is the third leading cause overall of infant mortality in the United States. Although the overall rate of SIDS in the United States has declined by more than 50% since 1990, rates for non-Hispanic black and American Indian/Alaska Native infants remain disproportionately higher than the rest of the population. Reducing the risk of SIDS remains an important public health priority.

I wonder if the blacks and the Indians don't know how to put them on their side backs.

You know the reason they went from back to belly in the first place was because the rise in SIDS. Then they went to side back -- I have to wonder about that side back -- don't those babies end up a lot of times on their backs.

Something don't make sense but what ever it is I am glad it has gone down some.

YOu better beleive after this vaccine reaction ordeal and heart stuff - mine slept with me.


@Linda - SIDS deaths are still down over 50% in the last 20 years, so again, we're doing something right.


"maybe we could put them in one of those baby papoooses and hang them upon a wall somewhere" Did you hear me hysterically laughing in Kentucky? :o).

Re SIDS, you might be interested in Dr. James McKenna's research in mother-baby cosleeping: http://cosleeping.nd.edu/articles-and-presentations/articles-and-essays/

To summarize his research-based position (as I remember it, I haven't read his latest research, which is at the link), mothers and babies belong together, are a codependent unit, they need each other even and especially during sleep, and the baby's breathing is in tune to the mother's rhythms and the mother's presence stimulates the baby's correct breathing pattern. He gives guidelines for safe co-sleeping. Years ago I heard him speak and I remember in his talk he explained how throughout evolution humans always slept together, even in the same bed (or floor), even to this day in some societies still do, to keep warm and safe. Comparing us to other primates making the point that no other primates sleep alone because they would die from predation or the elements, etc., so humans wouldn't be designed to sleep alone either, I remember him saying "Everyone knows that a solitary sleeping primate is a dead primate". Check out his research. The evidence in this case points towards solitary sleeping not being protective for SIDS.


@Benedetta - since SIDS deaths have dropped considerably over the last twenty years, I'd like to say that we're doing something right.


And Hera;
Take care of your man -- it is really harder on them. Mine was a jock - good in all sports - it broke is heart so, that he found any excuse he could not to go to the games or practice.

He would work with him at home but --

You know playing games is also no indication of success in life either.

Mine now has a job - he saves his money - he works on my Parents' home and farm -- he helps on our farm -- My Father worked with him on handeling the tractor -- I don't know what we would do with out him.

Betty Bona

@ Lawrence,
I have heard that the reason the back to sleep campaign helped reduce the SIDS rate is because it got those little baby noses a few inches away from the toxic fumes (flame retardants) from the bedding. There was a study that showed fans placed at mattress level during sleep time also reduced SIDS rates.


I am sorry Hera - I have been there too - only they put mine out in left field with a boy that did not have a hand, they kept esch other company.
So, I know how you feel and I am touched deeply and may God bless you and him.

Lawrence : the advantage of a little age -- you are able to see what has been around, comes around again.

At first it was putting them on their backs, so if they throw up - you know. When my came along they said put them on their bellies. Then they switched them to their side backs. Trying to get them from dying of SIDS.

That might give you clue - maybe we could put them in one of those baby papoooses and hang them upon a wall somewhere.


@Hera - Additional studies were done, like this one:


And published, so I don't think "suppression" of information is the problem. Perhaps it is more that the majority of the published information just doesn't conform to your particular worldview.

SIDS rates have decreased by over 50% since 1990 - which nicely coincides with a push to make sure babies slept on their backs & in their own cribs (not their parents' bed).

Which, interestingly enough, coincides with the increase in the number of vaccines - which would lead one to believe that vaccinations have a preventative effect on SIDS.

Since vaccines are tested in combination with other vaccines (if you are adding one to the schedule, you compare reaction rates between groups getting all the old vaccines against the group getting all of the old vaccines plus the new one), thus we are able to determine differences & if there might be an issue with the new vaccine (in combination).

There is also a new article out which addresses a number of concerns:



by the way Lawrence, my youngestson is on a baseball team too.( He has multiple disabilities most likely caused by his father's anthrax vaccinations.)
He loves it and is so proud of being able to play. Most of the kids on his team are at least 4 years younger than him, and the parents, bless them are so kind. They hush the kids when they start to ask why he is so bad, when he tries to make the bases and he can't run faster than a two year old.

He tried to hit the ball 12 times in practice and the sweet Mom beside me said oh he's got a great swing if he could connect.
He was so proud of being on the team that he took his baseball bat to school to show his teacher.
( By the way, I hate baseball season. It hurts like hell. But I appreciate the kindnesses and thank God it makes him so happy.)


You mean to tell me you have not even got yours through puberty yet?
Let alone those end of 20s?

My grandmother's response when we all were excited when the school informed us all that one of our cousins had tested out at genius level--

It does not guarantee success in life.
---and I am hardly disappointed.


Lawrence; not a disappointment. Every kid that gets through unscathed is a success.

Becoming rarer now though for kids to be okay, with asthma rates increasing despite all the smoking restrictions, (which theoretically should be making our childrens' lungs healthier).

Of course some of that may also be household cleaner sprays. And pesticides in food.

The study was published in 1991. I don't think you could get it published now. But that's just Mo. And again in Mo, given that vaccines can cause death, it made me question why SIDS seems to correlate with shot times. If a child has a defective heart etc,then why don't they die in the first couple of weeks ? Is there something in the shots that increases their risk of death? It seems possible. And again if increasing a titer makes a vaccine more dangerous, then what does combining vaccines do?
Benedetta : thanks!


Oh, but my oldest did surprise the heck out of my a couple of weeks ago - he started hitting left-handed during baseball (and he's always been right handed). I guess he's going to be a switch-hitter, which is kind of cool.


@Hera - that link did spark my memory...and that type of research is exactly why we don't use high-titer measles vaccine. You'd think, if there was "suppression" of evidence going on, that those types of studies would never get published.

As to my kids - they are 100% fine, no issues, no allergies, etc (except for an amazing fascination with dinosaurs, Godzilla , trucks and trains) . Sorry to disappoint.



My understanding - from what I have read - just like you can read it too - is Dr. Wakefield agree to testify for these kids what he found . . The money was never in his hands. They set up a fund to be directly transferred from the law offices/government (not sure which ) to the hospital.

and Lawrence;

My daughter is exceptional too. She was the valedictorian out of a very large class - She has two BS degrees but she has bipolar.

Additonal vaccines in getting her Hep B made her really worse - sending her into depression,

Nothing like giving some one with bipolar an antidepressant - and when they hit the mania phase they go into orbit.

See how things -- your kids too - still have a chance to go beyond exceptional - exceptional exceptional --so Good luck with those exceptional children of yours.

Dan: I am honored; thank you; for giving me a voice -that has been smashed down for years till I thought I would explode or even die--

John Stone : what you said I laughed when I saw it -- it is true.- I could do better -- but I probably won't - I get too carried away and in a hurry before I explode.

Hera: that was very sweet. I have not noticed any typos out of you and you have very thoughtful comments - such as this very post, but I pretty bad.



During a November 2013 congressional hearing, Colleen Boyle, CDC Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, was asked point blank by Florida Congressman Bill Posey, if a vaccinated-unvaccinated study has ever been done. At first she tried to side step the question, and then he forced her to admit that NO, one has never been done. Her testimony is still online I believe if you want to see for yourself.

Thank you for the AAP link. What that tells me is that they are feeling the pressure as they should. I will go through each of those studies and consider them each on their own merits as well as I can, bearing in mind what Dr. Boyle admitted in November (she ought to know) and also bearing in mind that, and you won't like this, what is published even in peer reviewed journals isn't always quality research. Some time ago, within the past year, I was reviewing a study abstract that examined the safety of either HPV or Hepatitis B vaccine (one or the other, can't recall). I think it was HPV, but anyway... The abstract concluded that the vaccine was tolerated well. I think the study focused on females aged 15 - 23. The point is that I looked at the actual study and what I found flabbergasted me. The data showed a significant (as far as I'm concerned) rate of new cases of arthritis, diabetes, MS, and other maladies in the previously healthy girls who received the vaccine. That experience made me cynical of relying on abstracts (which is oftentimes all that practitioners read) and published research going forward. Later, I learned of Dr. Marcia Angell's statement that casts doubt on the validity of published research (here quoted from her Wikipedia bio):

"In her 2009 article "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption", published in The New York Review of Books magazine, Angell wrote :[7]
...Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

That's not a conspiracy theory anymore than the need for antitrust legislation in the late 1800's and early 1900's resulted from conspiracies that business practices needed to be regulated in order to protect consumers. To date, the medical industrial complex has managed to avoid real oversight of its business practices, to the great detriment of the global population.

And I am sincerely very glad to hear that your children are ok after vaccination. I hope it is always that way. I hope too that you can understand that many AOA readers and staff did not fare as well, have suffered devastating losses of health and life, and continue to struggle with the fallout. More and more people find themselves in this horrible situation, with injuries occurring after vaccination (not all here, but many), and they are sharing their experiences and looking for healing, and answers. That's why the AAP is on the defensive. As I said, they should be.


Benedetta; I always love your comments, and haven't even noticed the typos.( There are typos in my comments too.) Speaking of which there was one placebo group not two, as I incorrectly stated in the previous comment.)
Lawrence; here is the link
So, it appears that a high titre measles vaccine is more dangerous, and more likely to lead to death in children under 9 months old, than getting the measles virus itself? Again, I realize we don't use high titre vaccines for measles at this time, but this is still pretty scary stuff.
And please note this is in a third world country with no doubt poorer childhood nutrition, and probably poor medical care.
Could you comment on this please Lawrence?
By the way, just out of interest, do your fully vaccinated children show signs of autoimmune damage ( diabetes, asthma, food allergies, autism spectrum disorder etc) or so far are they completely healthy?

Dan Olmsted

Benedetta don't ever change! We love you and all our commenters. You make AOA what it is.


@John - actually, I never said that it was anything to do with "Transfer Patent," since what has been reported was the Wakefield donated the money he received to the Royal Free Hospital for the building of a GI Wing for Research.

To which my response was - if that amount of money had been donated for a project(upwards of $700K US depending on the current exchange rate) would, at least here, be grounds for having a plaque or other mention, should such center have been built - and that it would have been easy for such documentation to be produced for such a sizable donation.

Wherein I was going to make inquires to the RFH to see if such a donation had ever been made.

As best as I can reconstruct the series of posts - that's pretty much it. If there was a search function here on comments - it would be easy to find my original post & the subsequent post by another individual linking to the Wakefield video / question response about the money.

@Benedetta - as for my own children, I can assure you that they are perfectly fine, exceptional even.

John Stone


I am sure we all regard the typos as an amiable idiosyncracy and would miss them if they weren't there.

John Stone


If such a comment ever was posted I promise you it has not been removed.


John Stone;
I bet you will remember Lawrence for now on ----


Hey; I am sitting here in KY what do I know about money and Dr. Wakefield! Let alone make a statement about it!

Some times I wish they would delete some of my stuff when I have a lot of typos -- I just can't seem to care.

But I am a good reader and listener -- and not a bad judge of character, esp when I look around at my fellow human beings in my own community and family and see a lot of evidence of what is being said.

Notice Lawrence that you think your kids are just fine -- but shame on you for not following that schedule and letting your kids slide during the flu. My ped would not have done that. I was suprised after my son had some kind of seizure after the third time he let my son out of the rest of them - not so for my daughter -- and she had Kawaaskis as a result of her DPT shot and he knew - but never came right out and told me but hinted . Did you know that the Hep B has in it the pertussin as a adjuvant?

I came a hair of allowing my son to have a Hep B in highschool and my daughter did.

Considering that my neighbors all thought their kids were fine, as I did my daughter untill they reached puberty -- maybe your kids are fine and maybe the are not. Some brain injuries are hard to discern.

John Stone


My previous comment was made before seeing your latest answer, which in itself seems problematic. Before you didn't seem to know where you'd seen the link and now you say it has vanished. Truth be known there is huge amount of video material of AW on-line but all this from you unfortunately seems pretty devious.

It began with you asserting that such claim had been made. Then you faltered when I pointed out that it may have been something which was said about the Transfer Factor patent. The it was a comment of Benedetta which you accused us of removing. Then it was link in a comment by you don't know who. Of course, it could be a matter of finding a needle in haystack - we have precisely 103,511 comments here or possibly 103,512 after this one but you should have located your source first.


@John - I am always civil.

I expected that the link to the original video (with the time stamp) would still be here to refer back to. As I don't bookmark comments, I would be forced to rely on whatever posts remained here. I certainly did not "make this up" and was responded only to what had been posted.

If those posts are now gone, I have no ability to bring them back or provide an adequate rebuttal with direct citations.

So, I would ask that the original video link, with time stamp could be provided so as to assess the validity of the statement (whether it was uttered at all). If anything, just to put the issue to rest, one way or the other.

John Stone


We are glad if it is civil. At the moment, however, you seem to have a problem providing a consistent story. If there was an issue here you really needed to substantiate that the claim had been made in the first place: trying to refute something that has never been said is rather an absurd activity. I think you really know better. If you write about something you provide the citation first.


@John - the Wakefield video / audio link seems to have vanished (unless one of the other regulars here can find it).


@John - that link to Wakefield's video was provided by a regular here & I was merely responding to that.

It can be difficult to carry on a conversation, not knowing when comments will be approved (though I will say, I find this new willingness to hear alternative points of view to be refreshing).

If I can find the video / audio again - and it listed a specific minute / sec where this comment was made, I will endeavor to retrieve it.

John Stone


It has to be said this is not very satisfactory.

First of all you seemed to accept that it may have been a confusion over the Transfer Factor patent, then you blamed it on Benedetta and accused us of removing her comment, and now you are saying it was in a video of Wakefield himself. If that is the case why did you not say so in the first place.


@John - if I am mistaken, I am mistaken. Though there was a post (perhaps not on this particular article) where a link to an audio file of Wakefield was posted where I was directed to a specific part of the talk where the donation was mentioned by Wakefield (in answer to a question).

I will endeavor to find it here - and if so, post it back up.

John Stone


You have to kidding - I don't know whether Benedetta can remember anything? I have a very high regard for Benedetta btw, a lady of great knowledge if many typos. We certainly would not have deleted such a thing. But, of course, if it was said by Benedetta - perhaps a mistaken memory of the Transfer Factor issue - then that's forgiveable. As I have said people in a well-meaning way sometimes run things together, but the point is that if Wakefield didn't say it and no one being advised on the matter by Wakefield said it, you are really trying it on.

If you are saying we deleted a comment by Benedetta, we most certainly didn't.


@Linda - so, you are asking for a retrospective study? Well, those have actually been done - though you refuse to accept the results.


Retrospective population studies are included in the list, in the link I have provided. There are others as well, which can be easily found by using a "Search Engine" and PubMed, for instance.

Some will undoubtedly claim "bias, or conspiracy" followed by howls of COI & Pharma Shill. But it does not change the nature of the evidence or the decades of research that back it up as well. Again, not bullying or hate speech.


@John - now you are being disingenuous. The statement that Wakefield "donated" his money to the RFH was made on this site & I responded that I was going to make inquiries as to whether or not that statement was factual....interestingly enough, the post by Bernadetta where she made that statement has now vanished

Therefore, I can conclude that Wakefield did not donate any of the funds & those here that claim he did are incorrect (and that Brian Deer's statement is factual correct).

And when one makes a claim, especially one that is from a research study, it is typical to include a link to that study - so that everyone can see it for themselves. Telling someone to "go look it up" is also disingenuous.


A very sizable entirely unvaccinated population already exists. All one has to do is examine them and compare their health, development, intelligence, lab work, medical histories and number and type of prescriptions with those vaccinated according to CDC schedule. A study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes has been requested by Congress. The CDC has refused to do it.

Re your response to Hera that you'd like to see the link that she gave the title to...You don't know how to use a search engine? It took less than 2 seconds for me to bring up the abstract. You're either lazy, obstructive or ignorant. Definitely not sincere.

John Stone


I am mystified. Are you citing any statement by Wakefield? Just before I pointed out that what he had offered to do was to donate any earnings from the Transfer Factor patent (which seems to knock on the head the idea that he was profiteering from it) and that might the basis of some misunderstanding - a point which you seemed to accept. Very often people with the best will in the world elide details, and come up with erroneous claims. I looked back also to see whether anyone had said this here apart from you and could not immediately.

An uncharitable interpretation is that you invented the whole thing so that you could say "See, he didn't do it!"


@John - so what you are saying is that Wakefield "didn't" donate the money to the Royal Free Hospital?

John Stone


If he got it all - and I don't believe he did - these were payments over about seven years: the rate of £150 an hour being standard. We note Stephen Bustin - acting as witness for the pharmaceutical companies in the same litigation - had accumulated £225,000 from the UK litigation at the same rate by the time he came to testify at the Cedillo hearing in 2007 and he got paid loads for that as well.




Frankly, if Wakefield was in it to make money (above normal professional remuneration) he would not have been challenging the status quo.

PS Does anyone know what Bustin did with the money?


@John - interesting once again. So, what is the definitive answer as to what Wakefield did with the 400,000 pnds that he was given for his research?

I've still got that pending request with RFH - will update when I receive a response.

John Stone

BTW I think it was an erroneous claim that Wakefield donated his payment for court work to the Royal Free. This has got confused with the issue of the Transfer Factor patent:

"As the GMC lawyers wrote in an attendance note with Mr. Chengiz Tarhan, the Finance Director of the Medical School, “However, CT (Chengiz Tarhan) pointed to a letter from him to Dr. Wakefield dated June 26, 1998 where CT confirmed Dr Wakefield’s wishes that all the inventor profit from the Transfer Factor patent was to go to a charity and that the inventors would make no money for themselves whatsoever.”"


PS It strikes me as most unlikely that Wakefield would bedonating money to the Royal Free Medical School after he was forced out in 2001.


@Linda - no, that's not what I am proposing (I don't see the need for a randomized double-blind study the randomly puts tens of thousands of children at unnecessary risk for disease to prove a point that has already been proven by decades of research).

What I am merely pointing out, that to conduct the type of study that you are "demanding" that disease exposure could be part of the study control - since many here claim that getting the diseases naturally is a better way to "tune" the immune system.

@Hera - I would love to see a link to that study.

@Benedetta - luckily, I don't have to choose. You make the false comparison that it is "either / or" when you are talking about two separate issues. I noticed here that there is an article that talks about Measles or Autism, when they are two separate issues.

My children have been vaccinated, according to the current recommended schedule (and shocker - we did have to delay a couple of vaccines because my oldest caught a very serious case of the flu, before he was old enough to receive that vaccine....that was a very scary couple of weeks).

But otherwise, we've followed the recommendations of our trusted Pediatrician, who does follow the most up to date research and discusses our childrens' health with us, including vaccines, so that we can make the most educated choices.

So, despite your claims to the contrary - it isn't an either / or situation. The evidence doesn't support your position, and that isn't bullying or hate speech, merely a fact.


Lawrence; here is one of the studies that really worried me.
Child mortality after high titre measles vaccines; prospective study in Senegal'
They had three groups EZ high titre vaccine at 5 months ( n =336) , Schwartz high titre at five months ( n =321) and placebo at five months followed by standard low titre vaccine at ten months ( n =358)
All of course are living in an environment where measles before the age of 9 months is a substantial cause of death.
The results; Child mortality in the two groups given the high titre vaccine was significantly higher in the two groups given the standard vaccine.

So children given a placebo before ten months had a better chance of survival than children actually given a high titre measles vaccine. And "the high risk of death in the two high titre vaccine groups remained significant in multivariate analyses"
You can read it online.

I read this one a long while ago, and I was in absolute shock at the time. No, we don't use high titre measles vaccines any more, but how do you feel about that degree of danger with a variation just of the titre? How do you feel about the fact that a high titre vaccine was more dangerous in terms of childhood mortality than the illness it was trying to prevent, and in a third world country where exposure to the disease was commonplace and medical treatment and childhood nutrition and health were no doubt less than optimal.


Lawrence let me ask you a question

What would you perfer for your child an infectious disesase or a life long auto immnune disease.

Which is worse in your opinion.


"Unfortunately, using a "self-selected" population for this kind of study would be fraught with bias & would have results that would be completely useless and tainted."

What are you talking about? Do you believe that people can "self-select" for good health? Really? If that's true, then you've just explained that we don't need vaccines.

"There is also the distinct possibility that, to be as accurate as possible to compare outcomes, you would need to have a group of unvaccinated children that would be purposely exposed to childhood diseases, at the equivalent times that they would normally receive vaccines. In this way, we could compare health outcomes of children who were naturally infected vs. those who were vaccinated and uninfected."

I'm trying really hard to be respectful, but lately when I come across this crap, I have flashbacks of the horror movies of the 60's. Remember that one where there is a mad doctor on an island conducting experiments on people and animals? Was it Dr. No? That's what this garbage reminds me of. Mad scientists. So, to prove that children don't need vaccines, we need to expose them to the diseases on the day that they would have been vaccinated. So, expose neonates to hepatitis B on day one? And then at the pediatrician's office at 2 months, instead of giving 8 vaccines in one day, we should purposely expose infants to more wild hepatitis B, some rotavirus, wild diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hib, PCV and oh, don't forget the polio. That's what you're proposing?

Forgive me, but you're out of your mind.


First of all, Dr. Wakefield doesn't have to try to be "relevant". The man is revered for his integrity, contribution and sacrifice. Nothing will ever change that. While the medical community has used him as a scapegoat and an example of what will happen to those who cross the line, the parents of children who benefited from his work have come forward to testify that his help was invaluable.

Regarding doing away with the VICP, you do have a point - our justice system is far from ideal. An attorney can answer this better than I can, but it is my understanding that the protections and standards found in a regular court of law are missing in the VICP, making the process unfair. I understand too, that as the process typically drags on for years, I've heard as long as a decade, the cost of filing a claim in VICP isn't small either, with families bearing the financial burden of travel and other expenses involved in appearing. There is more information about VICP in this youtube video by the Canary Party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg

I knew a woman many years ago whose 3rd or 4th child (I don't remember which) had a severe reaction to the whole cell DPT. When only a few months old, while she was nursing him the day of his injection, he threw his head back and never looked at her again. He eventually was institutionalized. I can't imagine anything more heartbreaking. She told me that her pediatrician, who I knew as the most respected in town, voluntarily testified in court that he was sure it was the DPT that harmed her son. I'm pretty sure this predated the VICP as she told me this in the early 90's and my recollection of her account of what happened in court didn't sound like the VICP. Also, this soft spoken woman told me that it was Pharma's attorneys who relentlessly verbally beat up on her, so it must not have been the VICP, because Pharma isn't involved in the VICP. Anyway, she told me that Pharma's defense consisted of assassinating her character "they tried to make me look like a negligent mother" and they didn't stop there. They also went after the reputation and credibility of the town's senior and most respected pediatrician. And, they got away with it. She lost her case. This woman didn't go around telling everyone this. One day she told me in confidence and I could see the pain and trauma that she will always carry around with her - not only the pain of losing a child, but of how she was then betrayed and victimized. As a young mother myself at the time, that made an impression that I will never forget. So, you're right, real court can be tough too, but I believe the legal experts who say that regular court is better than vaccine court.

Now you'll say that what I'm saying is all anecdotal so it doesn't matter, right? That's usually how it goes. Well, Lawrence, throughout man's evolution, knowledge, insight and wisdom have been passed down from one to another, from generation to generation, through oral histories, which were and are anecdotes. Only recently in the last 100 years or so, this integral part of our humanity has come under attack by a group of self assigned elitists calling themselves scientists who have declared that none of what we say to each other, none of our experiences or impressions, matter, that only THEY can accurately interpret the world and develop guidelines for living based on THEIR recommendations. This small society who thinks they are a ruling class are in for a rude awakening, because mankind isn't about to relinquish the right to communicate, interpret ideas and experiences, to think for ourselves and to follow our own instincts, especially with respect to our children.


Oh, by the way Lawrence;
In the last IACC meeting - Please notice that I do sit through the whole 8 hours of these meetings --and I am not watching NCIS tv series or doing more fun things - this has become my hobby. Perhaps we as Americans have forgot that we must be watchful -- it is our job - we have too many hobbies.

Tom Insel head of the committee and head of NIMH I think those are the right letters --

Said -- they had the data of the kids that had autism that had been vaccinated, and their siblings that were not vaccinated because their parents decided against vaccinations.

But they have not nor intended to pull those results together into any stats or data.

Now I have two things to say about that.
First if you have a sibling that has autism -- as in my family that is probably because of over vaccinations - training of the immune system of pervious generations -- Hmmm Tom Insel might be able to get away with it -- it might not show anything.

But then again there is a chance that those last few vaccines in this affected generation just might make a difference -- They never mentioned it again in the meeting -

I guess they got to look at those numbers-- first, just to make sure it will show what they want us to see. So they might even as we speak looking at the data behind some lock door - way back in the back little secret room.


Like John Stone said we don't trust the CDC. It amuses us (for lack of a better word) that with all the games they play - they still keep getting increased numbers.

Games: Like dropping states at the last minute - picking and choosing certian areas in a state for no rhyme or reason - - making sure they they take 12 years before they report on that group --

Next time it they might get the numbers to hold steady or with luck to at least go down a bit. because the got the DSM changed - putting the middle group of those with autism - PDD-NOS into a new catagory they made called communication disorders and spattering them out to other catagories like tourettes, OCD and on and on.

As for the other questions you ask -- let the geniuses the love to quote gambling slogans (The risk outweighs the benifits or is it the other way around??? - no I got it right the first time.) lst them figure it out.

Maybe you can start asking some of your own questions-- tease it a part for yourself.

Maybe we could do just a small case study of 12 -- I would trust that study more than big studies rearranging groups and numbers and fancy math.

John Stone


We don't trust the CDC on the rate of autism: they report reluctantly, belatedly and selectively - and it is all carefully, repulsively stage-managed to deflect concern. What the do report is nevertheless a massive catastrophe, but they are still holding back:


Birgti Calhoun

Lawrence, let me clarify something to you. The vaccine court, the way it is set up, is there to protect the pharmaceutical industry. This court is not your ordinary court. Let me give you an example: A child was vaccinated with 8 vaccines on one day. The child had a reaction. But it didn't seem too bad at first. So, neither the mother nor the doctor did anything because they were in a wait-and-see mode. It's really hard to tell whether a child is autistic at 5 or six months of age. So the mother notices something not really looking right. The child is not talking at age 2 and the she tells her doctor about this, and he tells her that Einstein didn't talk until he was 4. Meanwhile the statute of limitations runs out and the mother is looking for information about the vaccines, but there are delays. It is not so simple even just knowing about the vaccine court. Anyhow the vaccine court is set up to make it very difficulty to win. The special masters are not usually as qualified as they ought to be. That court is no substitute for proper legal action.


@Benedetta - another question for you. Why do you trust the CDC when it comes to the numbers they present for the rate of Autism & not when they present information that shows that vaccines aren't related to the onset of Autism?

Wouldn't it make more sense to reject all of their information, in your opinion, as hopelessly tainted & unreliable?

I would also ask, given the demand to set up a Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study, would you be willing to accept the standard RCT procedures for double-blind studies (to eliminate bias, whether it be selection bias or recall bias)?

If so, would you be comfortable with the idea that a few tens of thousands of babies would be randomly assigned to either the unvaccinated or vaccinated groups - wherein perhaps even their pediatricians may not know if they are giving vaccines or placebos (depending on how the study was set up)?

Of course, the standard answer here is - why can't we just use kids that are unvaccinated today to compare?

Unfortunately, using a "self-selected" population for this kind of study would be fraught with bias & would have results that would be completely useless and tainted.

There is also the distinct possibility that, to be as accurate as possible to compare outcomes, you would need to have a group of unvaccinated children that would be purposely exposed to childhood diseases, at the equivalent times that they would normally receive vaccines. In this way, we could compare health outcomes of children who were naturally infected vs. those who were vaccinated and uninfected.

If you don't see the ethical dilemmas in the proposed studies, not to mention the issues with selection bias & examining non-random populations, then you lack an understanding of how medical science (and research in general) operates today.

And as a follow-up, I have requested information regarding Wakefield "donation" from the Royal Free Hospital. I hope to be able to provide an update if that information is forthcoming - and I promise that I will post either way.


Oh, I just thought of something
Lawrence: you are asking these questions to get me to think --

Well enough;
But then you will have to understand this

That is all I have been doing some heavy thinking for 30 years every since my daughter came down with Kawasakis.

Things started to synap in my brian -- 28 years ago when I saw and knew for sure 100 percent what a severe vaccine reaction looks like in my then baby boy.

Since then I have woken up to what else - is vaccine related. And have been doing a lot of thinking/reading - every since.

I think I am WAY ahead of you -- I am willing though to help you out -- in your thinking - if you are not too invested in your own beleif system.


@Linda - let me clarify something you just said...you stated that litigation is prohibitively expensive, yet AoA & the people here support abolishing the Vaccine Court and forcing families to rely on "prohibitively expensive" litigation to get any compensation for legitimate vaccine injuries.

Would you care to explain?

And to stay on topic, since this is merely the "threat of litigation" and only may occur if Wakefield resolves his suit in Texas....I believe that no such suit will ever be filed & this is merely an attempt by him to remain relevant to his supporters.


In the US, defending one's rights through litigation is extremely expensive, prohibitively so for all but the wealthiest. It would be good to see Dr. Wakefield confront Time after he's through with little miss nasty big mouth and her Forbes facilitators. Rubbing all their noses in their filthy lies would be a public service.


I have no idea; except he has been fighting a bigger fight down in Texas - with people that have made it personal from the very beginning. Peole like Brian Lawrence Deer, and The GOdly woman (well she thinks she is) .

Perhaps it involves quanity of material- as in how many articles by one author has Time put forth vs Willingham -- I think this has been going at it for a while , and there is plenty of rope to now hang Emily. ---

I am not anything big Lawrence - I am perhaps well read but that is all --- I am sitting here in the mountians of Kentucky surrounded h helicopters circling the sky looking for drugs - meanwhile -guys are climbing up electric poles, or substations getting killed trying to collect copper wire for thei drug habit - while they are in some kind of bipolar mania --or once a week someone committs sucide from depression.

Meanwhile: - Brain injury is linked to mental illness; mental illness is comorbid with drug abuse.

The woman that works at Lone Star - strong as an ox came down with a blood clot and finds out to her suprise she has thyroid and diabetes.

We have research that comes out if you change the microbes in OCD mentally ill mice they get better.
We have people that are having all kinds of weird food allergies -- gluten (the bread of life) and chicken for God's Sake.
Is a child suppose to have a life threatened reaction to chicken?

W have Wakefield putting out a small case stuy of only 12 kids with many other authors on the paper and it is blown all to hell and he is up in front of some board of doctors what -- 12 years later (check my math on that one)

You tell me were common, clear thinking is in any of this.

You want answers or are you trying to confuse -- that question you must direct to yourself.


@Lawrence, it may well be that Time will be addressed in Time. I wish Jenny would take action against some of your peers who keep repeating that Jenny McC's son never even had autism- a blatant lie.


How does this work..they sneak something in the insert and it releases them from liability?April 25, 2014 Approval Letter - MMR II

Our STN: BL 101069/5569

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Attention: Donna Zacholski
P.O. Box 1000, UG2D-68
North Wales, PA 19454-1099

Dear Ms. Zacholski:

We have approved your request to supplement your biologics license application for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live (MMR-II®) manufactured in your West Point, PA facility, to add the term ADEM (acute disseminated encephalomyelitits) to the Adverse Reactions section of the US Prescribing Information (USPI).

Wendy Frye

When our son, James Frye, was diagnosed and we were looking to restore his health FIRST, someone at a health food store pointed out that vacienes could be the trigger. The first research we found was Dr. Wakefields paper in The Lancet. This was 1998. We never looked beyond the MMR jab - knowing it was responsible for our sons demise. We were able to have our merciful doctor order a blood test for titers. It came back flaming hot for measles. He never had the measles. He does have the telltale hearing loss. And an autism diagnosis. That paper saved us......it mattered. This vital study still matters, more than ever. Thank you, Dr. Wakefield.....thank you.


@Benedetta - very interesting again, because Wakefield's claim (or at least his statement) is that Emily's article will damage his business (what business is that again?) - but when you compare the damage from a blog post vs. an article in an International Publication like Time Magazine, which posits that the man is one of the Greatest Scientific Frauds of our Time, don't you believe that article would do much more significant damage to his reputation and business?

Sounds more like he's attempting to silence a critic than trying to address the truth.


See John Stone;
HE comes in with these little hit questions - all logical sounding -- that is the Lawrence I am familiar with.

Lawrence; A nature lesson.
A pack of dogs sets upon a cow and her calf. which one does she go after, if any.

Lawrence; A law enforcement lesson.

As a high way patrolman once said to my friend on why he was chosen among a large group of cars speeding down the highway -- it is like fishing -- you can't catch them all - so you catch what you can.


Question - why isn't he suing Time Magazine, which listed him as one of the "Great Science Frauds" of our time?


good, her malicious twisting of the facts is undeniable. I'm sure some pharma funding will try & back up her legal defence but she is clearly in the wrong.


Thank you Andy. We love you!


cia, if you look at the pending litigation it names her and forbes. That means they are separate defendants in the same motion. If Dr. Wakefield has adequate counsel he could easily bankrupt her. That is why I was happy to see he is finally getting aggressive with those who have defamed him. If Forbes were to continue to allow her to write for them they would be foolish indeed. That could be a costly mistake for them.

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you, Dr. Wakefield, for everything you do to help us protect and heal our vaccine/environmentally injured! I guess the mainstream has noticed that we've noticed that they are doing only the reverse.

cia parker

Wouldn't Forbes be responsible for her legal fees?


We support you Dr. Wakefield! One day, you will be vindicated!


Looks like Emily Willingham will have to get another job to pay for her legal fees. Forbes has been trying in vain to sell its magazine. Guess what? Not one buyer is stupid enough to touch this junk. Do you think anyone will line up now with lawsuits flying because of this ignorant person writing for them. They are losing money, advertisers, and subscribers like you wouldn't believe. The tide is turning and I like it. Going to get what they deserve.

Dan Burns

With you as always, Andy. See you in Chicago.


horrific hemolytic reaction right after an MMR
So he had to have a blood transfusion?????


Imagine how much beneficial gastrointestinal research Dr. Andrew Wakefield and colleagues could have done over the past decade had they not been unjustly vilified for honesty.

Perhaps Willingham would instead be thanking Dr. Wakefield today.

Especially because Willingham's tone is tinged with psychological defense mechanisms. The reader might conclude that she and/or someone for whom she cares is suffering from the gastrointestinal dysfunction and loosely labeled "anxiety" so common in children and adults with autism spectrum disorders.


Thank you Dr. Wakefield for not giving up on our kids and their families! God Bless you!

Jenny Allan

@ Carol reporting Willingham's 2011 Wakefield utterances:-

"This is someone I've been only a few feet away from twice in restaurants, and his mere presence filled me with an indescribable mix of emotions and urges, ranging from confrontation to immediate departure and from pushing away my plate to vomiting........always keep an eye on him."

What a creepy woman and she appears dangerously obsessed with Dr Wakefield. The rest of Carol's post demonstrates this woman is definitely a stalker.


I posted the following several months ago after reading some of Willingham's writings from 2011. They suggested that she hadn't entirely confined herself to cyberstalking Dr. Wakefield:

"I admire venality as much as the next person, but I'm not sure even with that appreciation, I can admire Andrew Wakefield. His record speaks for itself. This is someone I've been only a few feet away from twice in restaurants, and his mere presence filled me with an indescribable mix of emotions and urges, ranging from confrontation to immediate departure and from pushing away my plate to vomiting. Yet, the man is like the antagonist from a horror movie. Even after you've poked at it and assured yourself that it's vanquished, the damned thing rises up again, sneaking up behind unsuspecting you on the most benign-seeming of Wednesdays."

Wow! That sounded so promising, with the vomiting and all, that I followed the hyperlinks about her two close encounters with Andrew Wakefield. The first post just said that he looked tired and ate salad. (I'm serious.) But she adds that she "always keeps an eye on him," which is...disturbing.

The other post had more substance: "....He's a large man. Everything about him looms, from his seemingly constantly contracted brow to his height. Had he been anyone else, my observation would simply have been to think how sweet it was to see this dad there, having an evening with his boy, enjoying sports together and obviously enjoying one another's company. But I got distracted by other thoughts. Thoughts like, how would his boy see him later in life? Would his father be to him a prince or a pariah? We all change in our opinions of our parents as we get older, shifting our perceptions as our understanding grows. What will happen with this boy as he--if he--learns more about his dad?

Of course, the other people I was with turned the conversation to, yes, MMR and vaccine reactions...and they did it without even knowing how odd the nexus was of the topic and the large man sitting right there. One of my friends has a son who had a horrific hemolytic reaction just after having MMR, and although I'd heard the story, another of us had not, and the entire thing was related again...."

Say what? Her friend's son had a horrific hemolytic reaction just after having MMR and she thinks the problem is Andrew Wakefield? And, I point out, neither of these accounts hints at any desire on her part to confront, flee, push away her plate or vomit. So what the flip's she talking about?


My favorite saying these days is "go the distance" - every time I start to set down a project with the intention of just letting it rest until I come back to it, I instead tell myself to just "go the distance" and finish it up. Thanks for going the distance, Dr. Wakefield. It's the biggest, nastiest ole project, but it needs to be finished up.

Sam Kloss

Thank you Dr Wakefield!!

R stone

When no doctor could give a clear diagnosis for my vaccine damaged child; I stumbled upon
Dr. Wakefield's vaccine gut connection (my child didn't have the MMR.) From there I began healing my child's intestine, and now I have a vibrant healthy kid! A miracle in aleopsthic eyes. THANKYOU Dr. Wakefield for your courage and bravery. You have more fans than you know!

Love & Blessings,
The Stone Family

Anne J.

We are all behind you Dr. Wakefield!!! Thank you for all you have done and continue to do for our children!

Aimee Long, CNHP

Thank you Dr.Wakefield for your research, persistence, and bravery in sharing the truth. Our son has recovered from his vaccine injury & mercury poisoning because we took a chance and believed this was the cause, which lead us to detox these poisons with chelation, herbs, & homeopathy. That was 14 years ago, and today I practice Natural Health because of the need to help people like our son. Thank you again. Our thoughts & prayers are with you.


Fight for the truth Dr. Wakefield!!!! We are with you!

Jenny Allan

For the benefit of the Forbes readers here is the Autism Speaks review of the Paediatrics article referred to by Emily Willingham. (AS also supplies a link to the article).

Extract from above:-

“With this rigorous, new synthesis of the medical literature, it should be clear to all that GI issues are significantly more frequent among children who have autism,” says developmental pediatrician Paul Wang. Dr. Wang is Autism Speaks senior vice president and head of medical research. He was not involved in the new analysis.
“We were hearing this message from our families well before this article published,” Dr. Wang adds. “This is why Autism Speaks is making a historic investment in research on autism and the GI system.”

"The analysis showed that, overall, children with autism were four times more likely to have generalized GI problems than were children without the disorder. Chronic constipation and diarrhea were both three times more common among the children with autism. And children with autism were twice as likely to indicate they had abdominal pain."

AoA readers and contributors are only too familiar with their autistic childrens' GI pain and suffering. My 21 year old funny and clever 'Wakefield Babe' grandson would be outraged by Willingham's glib assertion his gut disorder and pain was all caused by 'anxiety'. When he was a Royal Free child patient, under the care of Profs Walker-Smith and Murch, his severely impacted bowel had to be regularly 'cleared out' in order to prevent blockages and preserve his colon. We bless these dedicated clinicians for helping our children, at great personal cost to themselves. Dr Wakefield was employed as a medical researcher by the Royal Free. His contract precluded ANY clinical contact with patients.

As for 'anxiety'. I wonder how Willingham would feel if she experienced very real physical abdominal pain, and was repeatedly told it was all an imagined emotional response, or Brian Deer's assertion, the Lancet autistic childrens' GI pain and distress was invented by the parents!!

tony villar

Good Luck dr. Wakefield. You are against a very powerful and corrupt Pharma drug companies.

Go. Go Go.

We are with you.

Joe Sulaco

Here's my response to Willingham's "who me?" disclaimer today, saying she was "only" quoting the authors of the paper in questin:

You do NOT first quote what the authors say about the stalling of the gut research. You instead maliciously spin their opinion to make it seem that they considered Wakefield’s research a “noxious cloud” – a term which appears nowhere in the authors’ text.

Shall I remind you of your own text, Emily?


Well, the Pediatrics review by McElhanon et al. happens to cite that reason several times: Wakefield’s MMR/autism/gut red herring and the subsequent noxious cloud that his fraud (link added 5/2/14) left over any research examining autism and the gut.


Quite the ad hominem little devil, aren’t you? In my view, you are a malicious destroyer who attacks with insults instead of addressing the issues. Sure, hide behind the praise of your (always posting) regulars. We all know them for praising incessantly your “cogent” analysis.

They’re not deceiving anyone. Give us a break already.

In my view, your overconfidence and snark led you astray this time, as it was inevitably bound to do so. Forbes gave you too much leash, and you hung yourself on this one.

Jenny Allan

When you are in a hole you stop digging -right?
WRONG -when you are Forbes and being hit with a de3famation suit.
Forbes has now published an outrageous follow up to Emily Willingham's blog, the author this time is Peter Lipton (see Ann Dachel's review in AoA above)

Amongst others, Peter Lipton suggests Dr Wakefield's work is on a par with medical experiments done by the Nazis when he states:-

"Research that comes with a ton of ethical baggage, such as eugenics and experiments done by Nazis on prisoners raise important questions. In this case it’s not the ethical baggage but the outrageous actions by a single person."

Lipton states Dr Wakefield "pushed his ideas (ideas based on junk, falsified science) widely and rates of MMR vaccination dropped. Measles and mumps, having nearly been eradicated, are now popping up in the UK and the US in numbers we haven’t seen in decades...............Has this question become difficult to study because of the baggage piled one by Wakefield’s actions, actions that have injured the public health of the US and the UK?"

Can I remind readers (now including the Forbes readership after a link was provided to Dr Wakefield's letter), the 1998 Lancet article had THIRTEEN well qualified multidisciplinary authors, and it was the lead clinician Professor Walker-Smith, NOT Dr Wakefield, who wrote the Lancet childrens' medical histories. Professor Walker-Smith was COMPLETELY EXONERATED in the High Court and his medical licence restored. It took Lord Justice Mitting four days to dismiss all the GMC's flawed evidence, mostly supplied by Brian Deer, in that now notorious three year £8million 'inquision' (as Prof W-S calls it in his memoir). The GMC was subsequently forced to COMPLETELY OVERHAUL their disciplinary procedures.

I hope Forbes has plenty of money!!


I was wondering what was happening with this defamation case.

Good luck Dr Wakefield.

Elizabeth Gillespie

Jenny Allan

Forbes has now responded (see link above) and has provided readers with a link to the Age of Autism copy of Dr Wakefield's letter:-

"Despite dismissal of that suit on jurisdictional grounds, Wakefield insists that documents in that case will show that “the scientific research conducted by [him] and published in the Lancet paper was not fraudulent”

NOTE -Forbes does NOT inform readers directly, the jurisdictional verdict is presently under appeal in a Texas court.

Shell Tzorfas

I stand with You Dr. Wakefield as so do the families of healed children. Many hugs. Shelley Tzorfas of the paperback,"Recovering Autism, ADHD, & Special Needs."

Once this is over… I hope to sit with you!

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.)