On Vaccines, Why are Doctors and Legislators Allowing Themselves to Be Used?
When is ‘Shaken Baby’ Syndrome Possibly Vaccine Injury Instead?

Dachel Media Update: Newsmax on Vax

Online newsBy Anne Dachel OurKids ad 2013

Read Anne's commentary and view the links after the jump.   The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and OurKidsASD, an online supplement retailer for patients with special needs.


6 Scientific Arguments Against Vaccines' Links to Autism

By Breana Noble

Here is what studies showing no connection between vaccines and autism have found:

1. The MMR vaccine showed no harmful association with those at a higher risk of developing autism. . . .

2. The total amount of antigens from vaccines received was the same between children with ASD and those without. . . .

3. Thimerosal, an ingredient in many vaccines, is not linked to autism. . . .

4. Timing is coincidental.

5. Rates of autism have increased, but vaccinations rates have not.

6. Gastrointestinal symptoms for autistic children who had vaccinations were the same as those who had not.

Breana Noble at NewsMax, like most reporters, happily dismisses a link between vaccines and autism, without knowing anything except what pharma-funded health officials tell her.

Anyone involved in this controversy easily sees how naïve and ignorant she obviously is.

". . .what studies showing no connection between vaccines and autism have found"?  Seriously, in journalism school, was she taught to CONSIDER YOUR SOURCES?


Did Noble learn that the first job of a reporter is to CHECK SOURCES?  She cites WebMD as a source.  WebMD?  Has anyone checked their prescription drug ads lately? ( I just hit their link and the first thing I saw was an ad for Linzess, a drug for constipation.)

Noble should be asking questions like, WHO FUNDED THE STUDIES she's convinced clear vaccines of a link to autism? WHAT RESEARCH OUT THERE DISPUTES THEIR FINDINGS?

Each claim she makes is more ridiculous than the last.  They may convince someone who is completely unaware of the issues involved, but otherwise, it is junk journalism.

Antigens?  ...That claim has been tried.  Let's talk about vaccine additives instead---mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, human DNA. 

Thimerosal? ...Noble forgets to mention that it's made from MERCURY and that it was never tested or approved by the FDA, yet it's allowed in vaccines.

And yes, it is in more than just the flu vaccine.  For instance, it's in one version of the meningitis vaccine that is now being promoted for young adults.

If regressive autism following vaccination is "coincidental," how come the government conceded the case of Hannah Poling? She was a healthy, normally developing toddler who suddenly and dramatically regressed into autism after receiving nine vaccines in one day.  Experts from Health and Human Services agreed that her autism was the result of the vaccines.  There was no mention of this being a coincidence. 

And what about the 83 cases of vaccine induced autism compensated by the federal government?  And while these cases were going on, the government still denied any link.  That should make Breana Noble at least a little curious about the contradiction in the government's claim that vaccines don't cause autism, except when they do.

Vaccination rates have not increased?  No, but the number of vaccines a child receives has more than tripled in the last 20 years.   Noble should also be concerned that no one has ever done a study on the cumulative effect of so many shots, so soon on the health of a baby.

Noble's last point is completely without merit.  She said, "Gastrointestinal symptoms for autistic children who had vaccinations were the same as those who had not." 

First of all,  that seems to show that there was a comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated autistic children.  It seems that GI problems affect autistic children who've been vaccinated at the same rate as autistic children who haven't been vaccinated.  We all know that IF THERE WERE A GROUP OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN WHO HAVEN'T BEEN VACCINATED, IT WOULD BE THE LEAD STORY ON EVERY NETWORK.  (Maybe Noble could go to officials and ask them why no one seems able to find a group of never vaccinated autistic children.)

Furthermore, regarding GI problems in and autism, research has shown that yes, children with autism do have more GI problems than other kids. 

Noble: "A study published by Andrew Wakefield in 1998 made the conclusion that measles-mumps-rubella vaccines are linked to the development of autism and other disorders."

Actually it's one combined vaccine with three strains of live viruses, and the "other disorders" she referred to include intestinal problems, something that Wakefield linked to the MMR vaccine.

In truth, members of the public, and especially parents in the autism community, are simply tired of reporters who promote the same lies we've heard for years. It's sloppy, lazy journalism.  If, as polls from last year show, 60 percent of Americans don't trust what they've told by the media, the press should be trying to improve their image.  They should be feverously exploring claims on both sides of an issue.  The fact that they don't indicates that they just don't care how worthless they sound.

Lee Silsby logo 09 The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and OurKidsASD.  Lee Silsby is one of the most respected compounding pharmacies in the country and is committed to serving the needs of the Autism community. OurkidsASD is an online retailer for nutritional supplements for patients with special needs. OurkidsASD carries thousands of products from more than 60 brands and offers free ground shipping on all orders.

Anne Dachel Book CoverAnne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism and author of  The Big Autism Cover-Up: How and Why the Media Is Lying to the American Public, which is on sale now from Skyhorse Publishing.



John Stone


Thanks. It is very interesting. It doesn't matter what it is they scapegoat Wakefield, that article and that press conference. The Department of Health and the MHRA are never responsible for anything. Whatever it is, blame Wakefield. In the case of Eindeker he ought to know better: he's an educated person who has been following these issues for many years and to trot out these long disproven allegations is beneath him.


Thank you John & Jenny Allen for providing more clarity on the Wakefield Witch Hunt. Eindeker is starting to sound a lot like Ben on one of the other articles on this site and it was obvious he was a troll. The idea is to cause confusion and distract from the fact that the newsmax article was a pure propaganda piece and that again the person who wrote it proves again without a doubt---Journalism is dead.

John Stone


Look, plainly you are trolling. Allowing single jabs was part of policy in February 1998, so plainly I have stated the truth and you haven't.

The big point here is that no one may be allowed to highlight vaccine damage: that is against policy and that is the way you talk. And there is no way of assessing how many infants get damaged because it isn't policy to talk about it or allow it to be EVEN EVER RAISED. Our children are dustbinised by the DH (Department of Health) and MHRA (UK licensing agency). What really scared the DH stiff was a doctor raising the issue of vaccine damage and investigating it: that on no account should ever be allowed. That was Wakefield's real transgression.

As to the point about rubella - and you keep on raising new points rather than answering old ones - the DH were plainly to blame because instead of putting their focus on that issue they linked rubella vaccination to the contra-indicated mumps vaccine which caused all sorts of trouble. So it was an incompetent and probably corrupt policy.


No, you are peddling demonstrable falsehood again. When Wakefield spoke at the press conference single vaccines were an option on the National Health - removed in the following months. He was asked to speak at the conference by the dean of the medical school and supported policy as it then was. TOSH John! MMR was introduced in 1988, 10 years before Wakefield's paper with 92% MMR uptake preceding the 1998 announcement. The single vaccines were only available on a very limited basis by then as Pasteur Merieux combined the individual components into MMR. Wakefield said "My opinion, again, is that the monovalent, the single vaccines, measles, mumps and rubella, are likely in this context to be safer than the polyvalent vaccine." All on the basis of a handful of self-selected children. Of course many parents wanted the single vaccine in the light of his pronouncement but there was none available to meet the demand. But why not go back to single vaccines & pander to the concerns of the worried-well ? Because there is a very good reason: the uptake of single vaccines is not as good, unfortunately this is well illustrated by the history of babies born in the UK with congenital rubella syndrome when single vaccines were introduced and then when the MMR became available: Rubella immunisation was introduced in the UK in 1970 for women of childbearing age and school girls. Since then there have been than 800 babies born disabled as a result of their mothers catching rubella in the early stages of pregnancy. In the same period there have been over 6,500 rubella related terminations. Since the triple MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988 in the UK there have been just 74 congenital rubella births and only 16 this century; the cases that are reported tend to be to women born abroad who were not immunised as children, and the women themselves have often acquired infection abroad So it's not an academic argument and Wakefield's ill judged comments on the basis of a handful of self-selected children did indeed propose a wholesale shift in vaccination policy: we are still seeing the after effects of this in the Welsh measles outbreak last year focused mainly in South Wales on teenagers not vaccinated in the early 1990's where the local paper ran a very pro-MMR-autism link campaign in the aftermath of the 1998 paper. (Luckily the measles outbreak stopped in it's tracks by an MMR catch up campaign)

Sophie Scholl

ASDfatherPA - point taken .she is young and very naive.

But this a vicious battle , do we, the offended against , need to be compassionate to anyone ,after all that has happened to our children and us. Breanna Noble is being used as a conduit to do their dirty work . The Media in general is where we should concentrate our attacks , they are the weakest point, they are very guilty.
The media is supposed to be the guardians of freedom and democracy and they really dont like it when people accuse them of being an integral part of a eugenics plot . Without the media's full cooperation , this would have all collapsed long ago .The media is supposed to be the watchdog of our system , to expose the wrongs , to expose the corruption . Instead the newspapers and the TV and the radio and now GoogleCIA(knowledge vault) are actually the major part of the problem because the incontrovertible evidence is all there in plain sight.

Jenny Allan

"John that is a whole world away from Wakefield's disgraceful press conference suggesting a whole sale change in vaccination policy, verbally linking MMR to autism on the back of a tiny & self-selected series of children with a whole load of undeclared conflicts hidden in the background:"

You don't give up do you Eindeker? You won't get the 'last word' on this thread.

Let's take this comment apart:-
1."Wakefield's disgraceful press conference suggesting a whole sale change in vaccination policy"

You are obviously very ignorant about UK vaccination history, Eindeker. Dr Wakefield merely suggested a return to the former UK child vaccination schedule, in use for 20 years prior to the introduction of MMR vaccine 1988. This schedule provided a single measles vaccination at around 18 months old, and for girls only a rubella vaccine pre puberty. There were no boosters or mumps vaccines. Mumps was considered benign in young children. Dr Wakefield had justified concerns about the MMR vaccine, which he considered unsafe. He called for more research into the MMR vaccine. (The Cochrane Collaboration later stated MMR vaccine trials had been 'inadequate', vindicating Dr Wakefield's stance.)

Can I interest you Eindeker in the latest CDC press release about their proposed future US and worldwide child vaccination plans? These new microneedle patches deliver ONE vaccine at a time. Apart from measles, these patches can be used to deliver most child vaccines, with a minimum of potenially harmful adjuvent. There seems to be NO plans to use this technology for mumps immunisation. This info came DIRECTLY from the CDC and is plainly a tacit acceptance of what Dr Wakefield was trying to tell us 17 years ago.


CDCNewsroom HomePress MaterialsCDC Newsroom Releases

"Microneedle Patch for Measles Vaccination Could Be a Game Changer Promises to Increase Reach of Immunization Coverage Globally"

2."verbally linking MMR to autism on the back of a tiny & self-selected series of children"

Again -IGNORANCE!! My autistic grandson was a patient at the Royal Free special child gastro clinic. 1998-2002 when he was chucked out(sorry discharged) courtesy of new Medical Director Prof Pepys, who disbanded the clinic. Apart from a plethora of constipation bottles, my poor grandson has since received no treatment for his painful bowel condition, which he still has. After the Wakefield fiasco, UK hospital doctors are terrified of acknowledging the problem, far less treating it. Thousands of children and now young adults are suffering unnecessarily.

My grandson was referred to Professor Walker-Smith too late to have been part of the Lancet research. Justice Mitting checked the referral process for the Lancet children and found this to have been in keeping with normal hospital procedures. The UK children were referred by their own GPs, as was my grandson.

In addition to the Lancet 12 children, another 50 or so children were investigated and diagnosed with the syndrome 'Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia'. An unknown number were investigated and found NOT to have the syndrome. "Self selection" referrals simply don't happen in our NHS. Referrals are conducted via GPs.

3."whole load of undeclared conflicts hidden in the background:"

Indeed. Dr Wakefield DID declare his litigation fees to the Lancet, as explained by John Stone. The GMC hearing was not a REAL court of law, and as such Dr Wakefield was not required to declare his litigation involvement beforehand. The GMC panel members and expert witnesses had similar undeclared conflicts of interest, including, in one case large holdings in MMR vaccine manufacturers GSK shares. When a member of the public pointed this out on a Wakefield friendly internet forum, he was threatened with 'contempt of court' charges by the panel chairman..........er NOT a real court of law.......NO POWER to charge with contempt of court!!!


John Stone


No, you are peddling demonstrable falsehood again. When Wakefield spoke at the press conference single vaccines were an option on the National Health - removed in the following months. He was asked to speak at the conference by the dean of the medical school and supported policy as it then was.

Where you demonstrate your bias is your view that people ought not to mention vaccine damage, they ought to just shut up. It doesn't matter how few these children were - it wasn't a statistical exercise - they deserved a hearing, and they still do.

Taking a blood test for research purposes is obviously not clinical treatment.

You really should know better. And you keep on coming back with different points having failed to defend your false positions on previous ones.

Barry Stern

Keep in mind Newsmax is a money-making machine. They blend fact, fiction and advertising to make a buck. Their articles are short, pithy and entertaining. Yet the quality of journalism embarrasses even a conservative like me.

On the other hand, Hillsdale College, where Ms. Noble apparently is an undergraduate student, has an excellent reputation. But even good colleges can produce stupid, dishonest people. Hope Ms. Noble can learn from this episode and work diligently to become an intellectually honest journalist if that is what she chooses to be. As for Newsmax, better to seek an internship elsewhere.


Experts regularly receive large fees for giving evidence in court. For instance Deer's pal Bustin had receive £225k in fees on MMR evenbefore he turned up to give testimony at Omnibus hearing. John that is a whole world away from Wakefield's disgraceful press conference suggesting a whole sale change in vaccination policy, verbally linking MMR to autism on the back of a tiny & self-selected series of children with a whole load of undeclared conflicts hidden in the background: the vast fees from legal aid funds, the business plan forecasting huge profits, the proposed analytical laboratories, the patent. Bustin was clearly employed by the team of lawyers, there was no attempt to hide that, rather different from Wakefield's shambolic press conference. I ask you & Anna again what is the essential difference between open pharma-sponsored studies with teams of clinicians & scientists involved and the one-man band that was hopelessly compromised.

"Wakefield wasn't qualified to treat children" but of course he wasn't treating children!!! No John but he took blood samples at kiddies parties (!!!) and ordered dangerous invasive procedures such as colonoscopies.

John I do not see how you can tar "pharma" with the corruption brush but totally accept Wakefield as a trustworthy individual with no hidden agenda

Angus Files

It is very sad these days when I meet normal people, people without vaccine damage first hand (very rare) but when they come along and discuss the "you cant believe the newspapers these days" topic, I just shake my head and think who do the newspaper owners think they are kidding...

Hardly an honest rag these days ,hardly one..telling any truth never mind the truth...and the public know it ..


Jenny Allan

Sorry -typing error:-
Professor Walker-Smith's High Court Appeal against the GMC guilty verdict took place during February 2012.

From Justice Mitting's conclusions
"1.For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion."

For the benefit of those person's who believe Brian Deer's assertion, Lord Justice Mitting let off Professor Walker-Smith on a 'technicality', the lengthy Court transcripts demonstrate the Judge carefully examined the individual evidence supplied for 11 of the 12 Lancet children;(the US child was outwith the Court's remit.)

When the GMC proceedings began in 2007, Professor Walker-Smith had been retired for 7 years. To subject this distinguished elderly paediatric gastroenterologist to this 3 year ordeal was shameful.

John Stone

Yes, you have to recall that on the first day of Andrew Wakefield's cross-examination at GMC, the GMC called the media in - and the big talking point was that the prosecution established that Wakefield wasn't qualified to treat children. It was all over media: "Wakefield wasn't qualified to treat children" but of course he wasn't treating children!!!

Jenny Allan

John- I think I am correct when I stated Dr Wakefield's "research contract with the Royal Free actually PRECLUDED any clinical patient contact." This would not prevent parents from informal discussions with him about their children's medical conditions, but, as you pointed out, child patients would have to be referred to the Royal Free clinicians, for diagnostic investigations and treatments.

John Stone


Just to be clear I do not think that Wakefield's contract precluded him from patient contact, it precluded him from acting as a clinician - any clinical decisions would have to be made by people like Profs Walker-Smith or Murch which was why they had to drag them through the GMC to get Wakefield.

But we are being diverted.

Jenny Allan

"But you accept Andy Wakefield's MMR paper without question when you know that he had been funded to almost £0.5m ($0.75m)by a firm of solicitors trying to build a case against vaccine suppliers, and this conflict of interest wasn't disclosed until Deer found it."

John Stone has fully answered this query from Eindeker, but US readers are woefully uniformed about the 1998 Lancet Wakefield et al paper,"Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children", which was just one of a number of research papers published by the Royal Free Multidisciplinary team. The authors included Professors Walker-Smith and Murch, who provided qualified paediatric clinician expertise. Both professors were 'dragged' before the GMC alongside Dr Wakefield and like him, found guilty of all charges, (although Prof Murch was allowed to keep his licence as a junior team member). It was necessary for the GMC to build a 'conspiracy case' against all three doctors, since Dr Wakefield's research work was not part of the GMC's remit, which is SUPPOSED to be about patient safety, and Dr Wakefield, based in his laboratories, had no clinical 'patients'.

Lead clinician Professor Walker-Smith is stated in the paper to have compiled the 12 Lancet children's medical histories. Dr Wakefield not only had no input into the children's medical histories, but his research contract with the Royal Free actually PRECLUDED any clinical patient contact.

Brian Deer's 'fanciful' claims about Dr Wakefield deliberately altering clinical and GP notes are quite ridiculous. In the UK primary care and hospital casenotes are kept completely separately, although Prof W-S did contact some of the children's GPs and some clinicians in other hospitals, when these were relevant to individual cases. This was part of his job as a clinician and he was assiduous in his duties. Justice Lord John Mitting completely exonerated Professor Walker-Smith following his High Court Appeal, February 2015. The Judge had some scathing comments to make about the GMC's 'superficial and inadequate' examining of the evidence -obligingly supplied by Brian Deer- who was also permitted to write prejudicial articles in Murdoch's Times about the GMC case. This would be strictly forbidden in a REAL UK court of law.

The GMC has been forced to change their procedures. There are no more of these farcical conflicted 'courts'. Instead complaints against doctors are conducted along less formal industrial tribunal lines. The GMC hearing against Dr Wakefield and his clinician colleagues lasted three years and cost an estimated £8million (around $12million). Professor W-S called the stainless steel GMC premises a 'torture chamber' and the proceedings 'an inquisition'.
Yes this entire shameful episode was conducted like a 'witch hunt'. I would like to think those persons responsible will one day be held publicly responsible for this outrage. John has named only SOME of them.

Incidently, in the UK, qualified expert fees for compiling legal medical evidence, are currently around £400-£500 per hour, and this would have been paid to the GMC experts who testified against the 3 doctors, including Profs Booth and Rutter; (the latter also failed to declare his fat fees for testifying on behalf of vaccine manufacturers in a US court). The MMR group litigation involved more than 1000 child litigants. Perhaps John can confirm Dr Wakefield donated a large proportion of his fees to the Royal Free. His 'dream' was to enlarge the clinic to treat more child patients with autism related bowel disease. (The American Academy of Paediatrics now officially acknowledges the link between autism and bowel disease)

Instead, new incoming Medical Director Professor Mark Pepys got rid of Dr Wakefield and then set about dismantling the special clinic. Professor Pepys then started up the UCL-spin out Pentraxin Therapeutics, in partnership with MMR manufacturers GSK, but not before 'pulling' the development of Dr Wakefield's immunotherapy treatment 'Transfer Factor'. Needless to say Prof Pepys also got knighted for his part in the professional annihilation of Dr Wakefield. Pentraxin Therapeutics seems to been a complete failure, and has swallowed up public cash by the bucket load. GSK CEO Andrew Witty (also knighted!)is attempting to placate his shareholders over the sharp fall in GSK shares following all the revelations about bribery and corruption in China, and apparently several European countries. Not a cheep in the UK press about GSK's $billion fine in the US over Avandia-but that's par for the course in the UK. Only the financial pages ever report on these scandals.

John Stone


Experts regularly receive large fees for giving evidence in court. For instance Deer's pal Bustin had receive £225k in fees on MMR evenbefore he turned up to give testimony at Omnibus hearing.


But also historically - and certainly still in the 1990s - giving evidence in court was not recognised as a conflict which is why the Lancet didn't start to pretend it was retrospectively till 2004.

As to the paper, there is nothing wrong with it. The data is acurately reported (except in Deer's stupid articles), it makes no false claims, and it withstood the scrutiny of a High Court judge.







So John, cutting to the chase, you don't consider the Wakefield paper in any way compromised by the small fortune in legal aid monies paid to him to specifically to look for evidence for use in the proposed class action? Do you consider this somehow essentially different from pharmaceutical funded clinical trials?
In any case it is my understanding the disclosure of the much larger sum of money paid to him (£400k) only came to light during Wakefield's litigation against the Channel 4 documentary in 2005.

My point was to compare and contrast Anna's railing against allegedly shoddy journalism in the article but the AoA carte blanche acceptance of the Wakefield publication with the other conflicts of interest apart from the funding issue

Tony Bateson

I am sure that the USSA has thousands of small town newspapers of which I receive only a tiny fraction in my inbox. But I have seen many hundreds of small town reports about how Wakefield has been debunked and there is no link between autism and vaccines. I'll tell you where the links are, they are between the commonality of the language, the identities of the authors, almost always a small town MD no-one has ever heard of, and their illiterate advice to 'ensure your kids get vaccinated'. I imagine they get churned out by a 'propaganda shop' tucked away in New York somewhere with a very limited agenda. Where is it?

Tony Bateson, Oxford UK

John Stone


Anyone should certainly check out the lying trash put out about Wakefield by Brian Deer and in this case by the Lancet as well.


Best of AofA: Lancet Boss Failed to Disclose Own Conflicts to Parliament while Denouncing Wakefield

Managing Editor's Note: This post first ran in March, 2010.

By John Stone

Sir Crispin Davis, until recently chief executive of Reed Elsevier which owns the Lancet, failed to disclose his own conflicts while denouncing Andrew Wakefield to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in March 2004. Sir Crispin failed to disclose either that he was a non-executive director of MMR defendants, GlaxoSmithKline, or that it was his own brother Sir Nigel Davis who had endorsed the Legal Services Commission’s decision to pull the plug on the funding of the case in the High Court 3 days before (HERE).

This was barely more than a week after allegations had been levelled against Wakefield by Lancet editor Richard Horton, and Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer. Nor do Davis’s conflicts ever seem to have been mentioned by Horton.

Remarkably, these relationships had been mentioned in Sunday Times article about Sir Crispin, just weeks earlier:
"Family get-togethers could become galling for Davis if he ever slips up, such is the incredible success he and his brothers have achieved. One of them, Ian, is managing director of McKinsey, the management consultancy, another, James, is a partner at the top law firm Freshfields, while a third, Nigel, is a High Court judge.

"Davis’s only other City job is as a non-executive board member at Glaxo Smith Kline, a position he secured last year."

This did not stop Sir Crispin accusing Wakefield as he was cross-examined before the committee by Dr Evan Harris MP who had accompanied Deer to the Lancet offices 12 days earlier. He told Harris:

“At the time of the submission of the article there was no admission of conflict of interest. Three months later there was a written letter. I think I have got it somewhere here.“

To which Harris interjected:

“I have it here as well, 7 May 1998.:

And Davis responded:

"It actually says, 'There is no conflict of interest'. Should the editor then—"

However, what the interchange hides is the fact that Wakefield disclosed his involvement with the litigation while denying that there was a conflict - all of which had anyway long been known to the Lancet (AoA Smoke and Mirrors , AoA The Last Day of Wakefield's Defence). In the letter published on 2 May 1998 Wakefield had stated:

"A Rouse suggests that litigation bias might exist by virtue of information he has downloaded from the internet: from the Society for the Autistically Handicapped. Only one author (AJW) has agreed to help evaluate a small number of these children on behalf of the Legal Aid Board. These children have all been seen expressly on the basis that they were referred through normal channels (eg, from general practitioner, child psychiatrist, or community paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms. AJW has never heard of the Society for the Autistically Handicapped and no fact sheet has been provided by them to distribute to interested parties. The only fact sheet we have produced is for general practitioners, which describes the background and protocol for the investigation of children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. Finally all those children referred to us (including the 53 who have been investigated already and those on the waiting list that extends into 1999) have come through the formal channels described above. No conflict of interest exist."

Davis’s evidence was defective in not mentioning that Wakefield had made a disclosure while denying – correctly – that there was any conflict in the paper (nor was he corrected by Harris). He was also wrong in implying that Wakefield had taken 3 months to respond. The letter was published only 9 weeks after the original paper, and was responding to a letter from Dr Rouse dispatched only four days after publication, the delay being determined entirely by the Lancet and not by Wakefield.

The delay quickly became a key part of the Lancet’s defence, with Horton claiming that he took Wakefield to mean that he had been engaged by the Legal Aid Board after the publication of the paper. Horton responded to Wakefield in the Journal on 17 April 2004:

"We do not accept Andrew Wakefield and colleagues' interpretation of the letter published in The Lancet on May 2, 1998,..which was, in any event, only published 3 months after the original 1998 Lancet paper."

And when Horton was examined by Sally Smith QC at the GMC in August 2007 the delay was beginning to extend to four months:

“Smith: Looking at the wording of the sentence you referred to "only one author that agreed to evaluate a small number of these children on behalf of the Legal Aid Board", you say you took that to mean since the publication of the paper and we are now some three or four months on.”

To which Horton responds with a single word:

“Yes” (First amended complaint). This delay – which seems to have been so important to Horton’s and the Lancet’s case against Wakefield - has never had any basis in fact.


In fact it was also established at the hearing that the Lancet had known about Wakefield's involvement in the litigation for nearly a year before the publication.


PS Crispin Davis received his knighthood in the birthday honours in June 2004, directly after this incident.



Seriously, in journalism school, was she taught to CONSIDER YOUR SOURCES? IF SOMEONE GOES TO OFFICIALS WHO OPENLY DISCLOSE DISCLOSE THEIR VAST FINANCIAL TIES TO THE INDUSTRY THEY OVERSEE, THESE REPORTERS GOING TO GET THE PRO-INDUSTRY VERSION OF A PRODUCT. But you accept Andy Wakefield's MMR paper without question when you know that he had been funded to almost £0.5m ($0.75m)by a firm of solicitors trying to build a case against vaccine suppliers, and this conflict of interest wasn't disclosed until Deer found it. Please explain the difference, unless of course I've got it wrong and you do dismiss the Wakefield paper?
Reply | Edit | 8 minutes ago on Dachel Media Update


Here's the lowdown on Ms Noble, from LinkedIn:


If you will notice, Breana is a very new writer from Newsmax. And she comes from a seemingly Conservative Christian background (like me). So, by all rights, she should be wary of reporting without checking out sources, since we tend to dislike that kind of reporting when it comes to issues like Climate Change, Evolution vs Creation, Politics, and more. So if any of you want to reach out to her,keep this in mind. She is still a youngster and maybe we can challenge her to become more disciplined...... more like Sharyl Atkisson, maybe?


Hi, I'm Breana Noble, a Christian student currently attending Hillsdale College. For the longest time I wanted to be a middle school math teacher, but after taking the Advanced Journalism class and working on my school's newspaper my senior year of high school, my future was changed. I've always loved to write and now my passion for journalism, for finding and sharing the truth, is something I know I want to do for the rest of my life.



Newsmax Media, Inc.
May 2015 – Present (2 months)|Washington D.C. Metro Area
Write articles on trending issues in 30 to 45 minutes for The Wire section of the website and more in-depth looks at certain subjects in which Newsmax readers are interested for the Fast Features area. Assist with broadcast interviews when needed.


National Journalism Center
May 2015 – Present (2 months)|Reston, VA
Through the National Journalism Center's internship program, I was placed to work with Newsmax Media, where I receive real-world journalism experience as well as participate in journalism training seminars that include hearing from reporters themselves, discussions, and trips to the D.C. area to learn more about covering certain issues. Along with the program, I am also participating in the additional Investigative Journalism and Broadcasting Journalism seminars.

Assistant News Editor and Collegian Reporter

The Hillsdale Collegian
August 2014 – Present (11 months)|Hillsdale, MI
Interviewing students, faculty and community members to write articles in a variety of genres, including news, city news, sports, spotlight and arts.
Collegian Freelancer: Aug. 2014 - Dec. 2014
Collegian Reporter: Jan. 2015 - Present
Assistant News Editor: Apr. 2015 - Present

Student Employee Athletic Administration

Hillsdale College Athletics Office
September 2014 – Present (10 months)|Hillsdale, MI
Helping with secretarial and office jobs, such as making copies, filing, printing and stuffing envelopes, and importing data, as well as graphic designing for electronic signs and event passes.


Does Newsmax have a comment section?

Sophie Scholl


" (In ancient times, doctors often made people sicker with quack cures like bleeding.)" & vaccines

Sophie Scholl

Breana Noble (@RightandNoble) | Twitter
The latest Tweets from Breana Noble (@RightandNoble). Journalist @
Newsmax_Media, Assistant News Editor @HDaleCollegian, @Hillsdale Student,

The correct question to ask is how stupid is BREANNA NOBLE

but just so all know , over here , in the UK , the BBC is maintaining a perfect news blackout on sb277 and the magnificent protests . They have never ever reported the William Thompson story at all .
The BBC just doesnt talk about autism much at all anymore .
I'm taking the credit for that , lol .

Lowell Hubbs

They can falsely claim to that vaccine injuries are rare, ONLY because they fail repeatedly to acknowledge them. Doctors and Pediatricians through their big pharma directed and schooled training are not given information nor training that would provide for recognizing and treating vaccine injuries. Instead they are told that the incidence of vaccine injury is so rare, being one chance in a million doses; that they likely will never even see it a avccine injury, in their practice and their during their entire career. And they simply and in error, believe this.

Thus each and every time it happens and right in front of them, they deny that the outcome has had anything to do with vaccines, and claim that all of it just has to be again a coincidence. It just has to be something else for causation, which again and of course they never get to the bottom and root cause of, as to the diagnosis.

The we have the VAERS reports with a known only 1 to 10% reporting factor, as well that remains entirely ignored as again just another unproven coincidence, and the entire game. They each and every time of course claim they looked at VAERS, and find nothing for concerning and common and similar occurences. They are literally either blind, or lying.

And how many vaccines have they actually looked at in those several larger epidemiological studies that they claim have exonerated vaccines in the causation of autism, and or any other adverse effect, health outcome, affliction? The answer, is one vaccine, the MMR. How many vaccine ingredients did they look at as well in those said epidemiological studies? The answer is one, Thimerosal.

So lets look at a well done analysis of those said epidemiological studies. Found were, flawed study designs, the use of unreliable data, predetermined outcomes to the study, unsupported by the data; and as well major conflicts of interest regarding the studies funding sources.


Where are the vaccine profile studies regarding the physiologiclally based and looked at safety profile of the current 2015 CDC vaccine schedule? Where are the studies regarding the safety in injecting from 5 to up to 9 or more vaccines in a single day and office visit? Where are the vaccine aluminum adjuvant safety profile studies? Considering all the vile substances that vaccines are grown on, and produced from; Where are the studies regarding the safety profile of injecting vaccines with, shown, known and unknown vaccine contamination in them? This is a serious issue that no purification step process known to man, has been able to resolve.

Oh, and again a recent and new study finds and shows that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, and that vaccines cause nothing. The mislead sheeple, then flocking right in to claim to that it is, and again now proven, true.

No MMR-Autism Link in Large Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Kids

Author Affiliations
1The Lewin Group, Falls Church, Virginia
2Optum, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
3A. J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This is the study they are referring to in the said articles. The Lewin study.

What the News Isn’t Saying About Vaccine-Autism Studies

Debunking “Autism Not Linked To Vaccines” Study (again)

The Lewin Study: Another Backward Epidemiological Exercise That Proves Nothing, (published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)

NEW STUDY VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM, LEUKEMIA, LYMPHOMAS: Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology. Nevada Governor 2014

Here is the said study; and regarding the use of vaccines that have been production made with the use of human diploid tissue, (aborted fetal cell tissue)


Speaking of junk journalism, the NYT seems to be following the same path as the lame stream media in Canada where they promoted the Conservatives and were stunned to see the NDP sweep in Alberta. NYT tried to characterize Trump as a "tone-deaf financier" like Mitt and referred to his celebrity status. I think people just like his honesty. He can't be bought.

Love your book Anne !!!

Junk journalism! What a perfect description'

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.)