Search Results for: wakefield

Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the MMR Vaccine: Time for the Truth

I, as a parent of two children in the Lancet study, have had to speak out about the vicious attacks on Dr. Andrew Wakefield by his own government, the US government and the media blaming him for the measles outbreak in Wales. The Lancet study was not paid for by the Legal Services Commission and our children were referred to the Royal Free Hospital because they were very sick and would still have had investigations done even if they were not part of the Lancet research as many more children have done after the Lancet study by other consultants at the Royal Free and other hospitals in London.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield listened to the concerns of many parents about their sick children suffering with bowel conditions and a form of Autism, a bowel condition and brain damage that was ignored by other professionals. These parents were demonstrably ‘black listed’ for saying their children became ill after the MMR vaccine.

Parents were speaking about this situation years before Dr. Wakefield came on the scene and our government also knew about these concerns years before the Lancet study yet they did nothing to investigate, leaving hundreds of other children at risk of side effects. Our government did not listen to parents but accused them of making the symptoms up and threatening to take their children away if they did not stop making a connection with MMR vaccine. As a result, these children and young adults live in a great deal of pain to this day (one doctor saying to my son ‘we believe you believe you are in pain’).  

There is much more I could say about the experience of my family and others but I want to make it clear that the children’s claims in relation to MMR were supported by many other experts in several disciplines all of whom provided reports for the court. I attach a list of them. These experts would all have given evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice on behalf of hundreds of children we claim were damaged by the MMR vaccine had the cases been allowed to continue. In addition the solicitors representing the claimants were in touch with and drawing on the expertise from many more than these, but many did not want to be formal experts. I don’t know how much the experts listed were paid, but they were all paid fees just as Dr. Wakefield was in the normal way that experts are paid in litigation cases (and probably much less than the defendants’ experts were paid!).

MMR Claimant Experts  (who produced reports that were served):

Professor M B Abou- Doniaprofessor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology and a professor of Neurobiology Duke University medical centre Pharmacology and neurobiology

Dr Kenneth Aitken, K. Aitken Consultancy, Independent Consultant Child Clinical Neuropsychologist

Professor William Banks, Professor in the Department of Pharmacology & Physiology, both departments at Saint Louis University School of Medicine Pharmacology and physiology

Dr. Edward Bilsky,  Associate Professor of Pharmacology University of New England College of Medicine Pharmacology

James Jeffrey Bradstreet, MD, Fellow, AAFP International Child Development Resource Center Adjunct Professor of Neurosciences Department of Psychology Stetson University Celebration, Florida Child development

Vera S. Byers, M.D., Ph.D, President of Immunology, Inc Immunologist

Professor Neal Castagnoli, Jr.,  Peters Professor of Chemistry Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA Chemistry

Dr A Peter Fletcher MB BS PhD FFPM (Dist) Former regulator Industry expert

Professor Noam Harpaz, Associate Attending Pathologist, The Mount Sinai Hospital, Director, Division of Gastrointestinal Pathology, The Mount Sinai Hospital, and Associate Professor of Pathology, The Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Pathologist New York.

Professor Ronald C. Kennedy, Ph.D Professor and Chairman of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center located in Lubbock, Texas Immunologist

Marcel Kinsbourne, D.M. (OXON), M.R.C.P. (LOND). Research Professor of Cognitive Studies at Tufts University and Professor of Psychology at the New School University in New York Neurologist

Arthur Krigsman MD, New York University Hospital Pediatric Gastroenterologist

Dr John March, Head of Mycoplasmology at the Moredun Research Institute (MRI), Edinburgh Vaccine development; molecular biologist

Professor John J Marchalonis, Professor and Chairman  Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine Tucson, Arizona Microbiologist and immunologist

Professor Johnjoe McFadden, Professor of Molecular Genetics at the School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford Genetics

John H. Menkes, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Neurology and Pediatrics University of California, Los Angeles Director Emeritus of Pediatric Neurology Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Neurologist

Dr Scott M Montgomery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden Epidemiologist

Professor John J. O’Leary, MD, DPhil, MSc, BSc, FRCPath, FFPathRCPI Professor of Pathology at Trinity College Dublin and Consultant Histopathologist, St. James’s Hospital Dublin and the Coombe Women’s Hospital Pathologist

Professor Samuel Shapiro,  MB, FRCP(E). Visiting Professor of Epidemiology. Mailman School of School of Public Health. Columbia University. Emeritus Director. Slone Epidemiology Center. Boston University School of Public Health. Epidemiologist

Dr Orla Sheils, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology University of Dublin, Trinity College (TCD). Molecular pathologist

Dr Fiona Scott, BSc (Hons) PhD C.Psychol Chartered Psychologist University of Cambridge

Dr Carol Stott, BSc (Hons) PhD (CANTAB) C.Psychol Chartered Psychologist University of Cambridge

Professor SAMY SUISSA, Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics McGill University and Royal Victoria Hospital Montreal, Canada Statistician

Professor Richard Tedder, Head of the Joint Department of Virology,  University College London.  Also Clinical Lead for the UCLH NHS Trust Department of Virology and Clinical Head of Microbiology Services UCLH NHS Trust Virologist

Professor Edward J Thompson, Doctor of Medicine (MD, FRCP,FRCPath) and a Doctor of Science (DSc,PhD) Head of the Department of Neuroimmunology at the National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery Neuroimmunologist

Professor John Walker- Smith, Emeritus Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology in the University of London Paediatric gastroenterologist

Dr. Troy D. Wood, Associate Professor in Chemistry and Adjunct Faculty in Structural Biology at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA Chemistry and structural biology


The court case was not heard and parents did not lose. Legal Aid decided to pull their funds for the sick children at the last minute. Legal Aid is government run and the government took out an indemnity to protect the drug companies from parents suing and we as parents had no idea that the litigation case was set up to fail right from the start. The government could not afford for the children to win and thus they could not afford for the statements from the experts to be read out in court. I have these reports and am told they are sealed and I am not allowed to produce them here, however tempted.  Below is a summing up by Justice Keith when a few of us parents tried to continue the case without the support of Legal Aid and spoke in front of a room full of drug company representatives about our sick children. At the Royal Courts of Justice. I was very proud to be part of that group.

          “It is important for the claimants’ litigation friends to understand why their children’s claims are not being allowed to proceed.   It is not because the court thinks that the claims have no merit.   Although this litigation has been going on for very many years, the question whether the claims have merit has never been addressed by the court.   The reason why the claims have not been allowed to proceed is because everyone has realistically recognised for some time that it is just not practicable for the claims to proceed without public funding.   With no realistic prospect of public funding being restored for any of the claims save for the two which are now to proceed as unitary actions, the dissolution of the litigation became inevitable. 

          Before leaving the litigation, I wish to express my thanks to the defendants’ legal teams for the assistance they have given the court.   Although at all times advancing the interests of their clients as is to be expected in adversarial litigation, they recognised the needs of the claimants’ litigation friends, and provided them with all the information they needed, as well as affording them the occasional indulgence.   The assembly of the various bundles of documents, and the preparation of the skeleton arguments, were of an exceptionally high order.   But my final words must go to the claimants’ litigation friends.   As I said in an earlier judgement, no-one can fail to have enormous sympathy for the parents of the children to whom this litigation has related.   They have spoken eloquently and with great feeling of the tragedies which befell them when their children became ill.   They blame the vaccines produced by the defendants for damaging their children, and they are bitter over their inability to proceed with their claims.   But when they came to court, they always expressed themselves in a measured and moderate tone, despite their disenchantment with the Legal Services Commission which they believe has let them down, and at all times they treated the court with courtesy and respect.   They made my difficult task less wearing that it might otherwise have been.   I am grateful to them for that.”  Justice Keith.

Dr Andrew Wakefield made front page news over the last few days in some of the national papers prompting an immediate reaction that it is lunacy to give him space, and that what he says is “balderdash”. What is highly questionable (and vindictive) is to blame him for all the ills of MMR vaccine because he published a paper in the Lancet 15 years ago (which has neither been “discredited” nor did it claim that MMR causes autism) and because he suggested that children should be given the single measles vaccine.

The association between autism and MMR was never assessed by the UK courts because of the withdrawal of legal aid. In the USA and Italy the courts have awarded compensation for MMR vaccine damage. The USA also has an expert committee for assessing claims of vaccine damage and they have compensated other parents for damage caused by MMR which did not then need to go through the full legal process.

How long does it take the UK government to learn that cover-up is invariably a more serious matter than the original crime or mistake? It’s time the spotlight was turned on Professor David Salisbury, who had little or no background in immunisation and had only been in post a short time when he reassured his committee that they did not need to worry about the adverse effects of Pluserix despite its withdrawal in Canada and serious reports from Japan. It’s time to turn the spotlight on the process by which I believe Brian Deer was recruited by the Department of Health to help rescue their MMR programme. It is, of course, easy to conjecture and it needs a full enquiry which must come sooner or later, the results of which demand full media attention.

I am aware that in 1992 two of the three brands of MMR were withdrawn overnight on the safety ground that they caused viral meningitis and that when MMR was first introduced the Department of Health stated that the single vaccine would continue to be available. For their own reasons they changed their minds later. Had they not done so, those who had concerns could have continued to protect their children from measles and this present outbreak would not be happening.

I know that it is officially denied that there is any link between the vaccine and any form of autism (even though American and Italian courts appear to have accepted the link). What is not denied is that the rate of autism had increased substantially since the 1990s (from about one in 2500 to as many as one in 50). Instead of blaming Andrew Wakefield every time there is a measles outbreak why does the Government not put funding into finding the cause of this distressing condition? If it can be shown that the cause of the increase in autism has absolutely nothing to do with vaccines, then that will remove the suspicion that it does and you can all forget that Andrew Wakefield ever existed.

Governments should be putting huge resources into finding out what is causing this disabling condition which is putting an immense strain on families and draining the welfare resources of the UK and other countries, not attacking doctors and accusing parents of telling lies. By not listening to the Experts, families and more importantly to the children then this in my opinion has to come into the category of “child abuse”.

Professor John Walker Smith, who was part of the Lancet team, was exonerated in March 2012 in the Autism MMR GMC Case. The GMC issued the following statement following the judgement:

Mr Justice Mitting has made a number of criticisms about the inadequacy of the reasons given by the panel for the decisions they made on the charges facing Professor Walker-Smith. The panel of medical and non-medical members, having heard all the evidence, were required to set out very clearly why they reached the decisions they did. They failed to do that in relation to key questions, including whether Professor Walker-Smith’s actions were undertaken for the purpose of medical practice or medical research and whether procedures performed on the children were clinically necessary. These were important points that needed to be addressed by the panel in the determination and the failure to do so was the major cause of Mr Justice Mitting allowing the appeal. (Extract of official GMC Statement.)

In my opinion, this also stands for Dr. Wakefield who did not have the funds to challenge the GMC as Professor Walker Smith did.

Isabella Thomas 

Mother of two boys who were part of the Lancet study.

(The preceeding statement  has been published with Isabella Thomas’ kind permission.)



Dr. Wakefield Comments After the GMC Recants; Will Dr. Andrew Wakefield Be Next?

By Catherine Frompovich

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom has cleared the medical flack surrounding one of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s medical colleagues, Professor John Walker-Smith, and recanted their censure against him.  In a press release dated March 7, 2012, GMC cleared Walker-Smith by overturning its decision of “guilty of serious professional misconduct.”  Even the judge ruled that the hearings were a farce—wow!

In view of that happening, I asked Dr. Wakefield, “What’s the difference between medical practice and medical research AND whether procedures performed on children were clinically necessary?”  Dr. Wakefield answered, “Medical (clinical) practice is for the benefit of the individual patient whereas research is conducted to improve knowledge and hopefully provide future benefits to sufferers generally. The procedures performed on the Lancet children were deemed clinically necessary by the clinical team caring for those children.”

Doctor’s answer prompted me to ask, “Why is that seemingly so important to the GMC?” to which Dr. Wakefield said, “What appears to have been important to the GMC was obtaining convictions in spite of the evidence.”   After considering that, I could not help but ask, “Isn’t it within a medical doctor’s jurisdiction to perform tests needed to determine cause?”  Doctor’s reply was absolutely brilliant and something the GMC probably doesn’t want to consider, “Yes, and it could be considered clinical malpractice not to have done so.” 

Read the entire article here.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield takes legal action against Brian Deer, BMJ and Godlee

By Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

(NaturalNews) The scandal involving Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s case study research into the link between the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism may go down as one of the biggest cases of malicious fraud in history — but such fraud was not committed by Dr. Wakefield. In a new lawsuit, Dr. Wakefield is seeking to recover exemplary damages for the heinous libel, slander and defamation committed against him by the British Medical Journal(BMJ); Dr. Fiona Godlee, BMJ‘s editor; and pseudo-journalist Brian Deer, all of whom have worked tirelessly to destroy his life and career throughout the past year.

The lawsuit, filed in Travis County, Texas, District Court, namesBMJ, Godlee, and Deer as the defendants for having maliciously published deliberate lies about Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 case study paper that was published in The Lancetback in 1998. These lies, which officially began their spread back in early 2010 when Dr. Wakefield’s paper was forcibly retracted, include falsely accusing Dr. Wakefield of fabricating and manipulating research data, and using autistic children for his own personal gain (

BMJ first published Deer’s “investigative” hit-piece on Dr. Wakefield, entitled Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Case Against the MMR Vaccine was Fixed, back on January 5, 2011. This was followed by several corresponding editorials written by Godlee that were published just a few days later.

Read the entire article here.

Ongoing Investigations by Dr. David Lewis Refute Fraud Findings in Dr. Andrew Wakefield Case

By Dr. David Lewis

Well-known Whistleblower Calls for Withdrawal of British Medical Journal Article Alleging Fraud

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

AUSTIN, Texas, Nov. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — The Strategic Autism Initiative (SAI), an autism research foundation, reported today that an ongoing investigation into the allegations of fraud against Dr. Andrew Wakefield concerning a paper published inThe Lancet in February, 1998 is being conducted by an internationally respected scientist, Dr. David Lewis. Early results of his investigation, which were  published on November 9, in The British Medical Journal (BMJ) and The Journal Nature, reveal thatThe Lancet paper in question accurately reported the results provided to Dr. Wakefield by the collaborating specialists at the Royal Free Hospital in London, contrary to the findings of a series of articles published by the BMJ in January 2011.

According to Dr. Lewis, “There was no fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield.  The crux of the matter in Wakefield’s case, so far as research fraud is concerned, is whether Wakefield fabricated the diagnosis of non-specific colitis for 11 of the 12 Lancetchildren as claimed in Table 1. Drs. Paul Dhillon’s and Andrew Anthony’s grading sheets clearly show that Wakefield did not fabricate the diagnoses of non-specific colitis reported in the Lancet article.” In addition to his work as a scientist, Dr. Lewis directs the Research Misconduct Project of the National Whistleblower Center in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Wakefield, executive director of SAI, upon learning of these early results, said, “In a bid to justify their position, the BMJ claim now to have commissioned, and plan to publish, expert analyses rebutting these findings.  But they miss the point. BMJ cannot accuse a professional of fraud and then claim that, ‘he just reported the findings he was given, but our new experts 13 years later say those findings were wrong.’

Read the entire article here.

Post-Cervarix Syndrome Victim: Emily, Wakefield, Yorkshire

Story as told by Caron, Emily’s mum

Post-Cervarix Syndrome Victim

My daughter Emily has always been bright, fit, healthy and energetic. She’s a member of many of the school sports teams, she dances competitively and lights up any room when she walks into it because every pore of her body exudes life – she’s an absolute joy to be around. Or, that was the case until last October when she began her course of Cervarix vaccinations.

Until last October, her medical history had been ‘unremarkable’, as noted on a recent letter from her pediatrician. She has always been extremely healthy and fit and has enjoyed a healthy, balanced diet. She is allergic to penicillin and suffers from hay fever.

She received her course of HPV jabs (Cervarix) through her school in October (2010), December (2010) and May (2011).  When she brought home the consent form, I wasn’t aware of any serious adverse effects and she was really keen to have the vaccination as it had been discussed at school.  The official literature claimed only mild and temporary side effects.

Three weeks after her second jab she became extremely ill with a flu like virus: vomiting, fever & chills, headache, muscle aches and weakness, extreme exhaustion, sore throat, severe abdominal pains, rash on her face and torso & dizziness. Medical advice was plenty of fluids and rest – she was in bed ill for three weeks. We put it down to a bad bout of ‘flu.’

Then the fun started! She would appear to be on the mend, then relapse with exhaustion, nausea, abdominal pains and dizziness. Her muscles frequently ached, her joints, particularly her knees often hurt and she had a constant sore throat and regular headaches.  This went on and on and for over 6 months. She had three full blood tests which were ‘normal’ and negative for glandular fever. The doctor diagnosed ‘Post Viral Fatigue’.

It was a terrible six months and as a family we ran the full gamut of emotions. ‘Tiredness’ seemed a lame excuse for missing school, so I put pressure on Emily to attend when she wasn’t well enough and felt terribly guilty for doing so, arguments were frequent as my husband I disagreed about what, if anything, was wrong and what to do about it. Emily became upset thinking that we didn’t believe how ill she felt and her classmates sometimes gave her a hard time about it.

As a mother I knew something was very wrong, something had turned off the light inside my daughter and I felt as though gradually her body was gearing down bit by bit. She looked and acted as though the life had been drained out of her.

Then one day in July the penny just dropped and I realized that her illness had started after her second HPV jab. A morning’s research on the internet confirmed there were many more girls experiencing the same symptoms – exactly the same symptoms! Everything fell into place.

From there, I contacted Freda Birrell through the SaneVax website. She has been my guide, giving me strength, putting me in touch with other parents and keeping me sane! Emily was referred to a pediatrician at Pinderfields Hospital(Wakefield), who diagnosed Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and said there was no treatment, she would gradually get better.  Two days after this pediatrics appointment, we were in A&E because Emily had lost the feeling in her right arm and right leg.  At the moment we’re waiting for Emily to get a referral to a different consultant for a second opinion – our GP has been very supportive and is currently researching the best option for us.

Emily is much better than she was at the start of the year, but still suffers bouts of fatigue and lethargy. She has a constant sore throat, frequent headaches and abdominal pain. Her symptoms change, so we never know what will present next. The latest has been a breathlessness that she gets from the slightest activity, like running up the stairs. She has good days and bad days, but her good days are equivalent to a pre-vaccination bad day.

None of the doctors we have consulted stated that they believe the vaccine to be responsible for Emily’s illnesses, although none have totally discounted it. From the morning the penny finally dropped for me, I have had no doubt whatsoever that Emily’s problems are a direct result of her Cervarix vaccinations and as I speak to other parents and research the vaccine, it merely confirms what I already know.

The final confirmation came recently when I requested Emily’s school attendance record. I had thought that Emily had been fine with her first jab, but three weeks after her first jab she was off school for one day in that week and three days in the following week.  Three weeks after her second jab she was very ill for three weeks.  Three weeks after her third jab, we were on holiday, during which she was tired, lethargic, emotional and moody throughout.

The three week lag between the jab and symptoms had stopped me from making a connection between the vaccine and the reaction and so my daughter went on to have all three jabs.  How many other parents are not making that connection and how many doctors are not making that connection? What would the adverse reaction statistics for the vaccine look like if parents reported all health problems for six months after each vaccination?

We are not warned that these side effects exist in the severity they do and for the length of time they do. And we are not warned that side effects can take weeks to become evident and that we should report them when they do.  When will GlaxoSmithKline be held accountable for keeping this information from the girls, parents, doctors and nurses?  It’s an absolute scandal that this is allowed to go on without further investigation.

The girls need answers, the families need answers and this pain and suffering has got to stop.

Andrew Wakefield, MD Speaks to Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Dr. Wakefield speaking at the 68th Annual Meeting of AAPS.

BMJ had secret financial ties to Merck during publication of articles attacking Wakefield

By PF Lewis

(NaturalNews) When a corrupt medical group wants to discourage dissidence from within, it targets a high profile figure to disgrace. This intimidates others from doing the right thing if it disrupts the lies and profits of Big Pharma.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield was a high profile scapegoat, smeared with lies from the media and medical journals to protect the UK from vaccine injury payouts while maintaining high profits for the vaccine industry.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s Research

Dr. Wakefield arrived at Royal Free Hospital in London to coordinate and record research that had already started for seven children. This number increased to twelve and consequently was called the Wakefield 12 two years later. The gastroenterology treatments and study had started on the original seven and was headed by Dr. John Walker-Smith.

Parents of those twelve children took them to the Royal Free Hospital because of its reputation for Pediatric Gastroenterology. Their family doctors had failed to diagnose and/or treat their kids. The kids were suffering terribly from bowel disorders and exhibiting autistic behavior, pushing the parents to the limit. These were not mere tummy aches and diarrhea.

After Dr. Wakefield joined them, he published his findings in a paper for the 1998 British medical journal Lancet. A few years later, Wakefield’s Lancet paper’s conclusion was intentionally twisted by journalist Brian Deer in order to launch a government/vaccine industry attack on doctors Wakefield and Walker-Smith.

Claims that Dr. Wakefield and his team concluded that MMR vaccinations are totally responsible for autism are completely inaccurate. Wakefield’s Lancet paper simply advised that measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations should be done separately instead of all at once until further research is done on the safety of MMRs.

The parents had voluntarily mentioned that their children’s unusual and intense bowel disorders as well as autistic behaviors occurred shortly or immediately after the kids received their MMR vaccination. Dr. Wakefield simply included the parents observations in his Lancet report.

Dr. Wakefield also included the medical fact that the same viral strain of measles was found in all of the children’s intestinal tracts in his journal report. These discoveries were made after the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) shots were given to those twelve children and their symptoms were apparent.

Wakefield’s Published Findings Confirmed by Others

The viral measles discovered by the Wakefield/Walker-Smith team of doctors were not wild virus measles. They were of the type prepared for MMR vaccines. Recently, even the London Mail reported similar results from other studies of children with autistic behaviors and strange, severe bowel disorders.

One study was in Dublin, Ireland in 2001. The other report was from Wake Forest Medical School in the USA in 2010. In the USA study, 70 out of 82 autistic children were found with the same unusual bowel disorder, autistic enterocolitis, and the same non-wild measles strain.

You’d think this would create a public vindication and restore Doctors Wakefield and Walker-Smith’s right to practice medicine in the UK. But it hasn’t. That’s the tragedy. The vaccine industry/government conspiracy succeeded.

Read more….

Wakefield’s Autism Research Is Cited by Researchers Who Say They Can’t Replicate It

By Gaia Health

Something rather strange is going on in autism research. Andrew Wakefield was smeared, his reputation trashed, his career torched, and his work labeled every negative thing conceivable—including fraud. The Lancet pulled his work off their site; they disappeared it. Everything conceivable was done to discredit Wakefield’s work and make it disappear.

So why are researchers who have disavowed Wakefield and his work, and who have stated that it isn’t replicable, now citing his papers extensively? The only thing they don’t do is use the initials M, M, and R in one breath.

The journal PLoS one has just published an article on autism and gastrointestinal disorders entitled, Impaired Carbohydrate Digestion and Transport and Mucosal Dysbiosis in the Intestines of Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Disturbances. It discusses, as a fully accepted concept, that many autistic children suffer from severe gastrointestinal disorders. This is the arena in which Andrew Wakefield was working when he came afoul of the powers-that-be.

Read more….

KILLING PEOPLE-Deadly Inoculations: Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Part One:


Part Two:

BMJ admits that fraud claim against Dr. Andrew Wakefield has no basis in fact

By PF Lewis

(Natural News) Big Pharma, the FDA, AMA and other medical associations falsely accuse conscientious healers of crimes that they themselves routinely commit or cover up. Unfortunately, they get away with it since they are the “authority”, and the mainstream media (MSM) usually favors authority’s version of events. Dr. Andrew Wakefield was a victim of the BMJ’s (British Medical Journal) injustice, which also helped hide vaccine injury science from public awareness.

What Wakefield Actually Did

Dr. Wakefield was organizing clinical research on Crohn’s disease, colitis and gastrointestinal disorders in young children. The research intended to determine if there was a link between those disorders and measles at the Royal Free Hospital in England. Dr. Wakefield published the results of this clinical study in the U.K. medical journalLancetin 1998.

Children were brought to him because of his interest, but contrary to all accusations, he never treated them. He described himself as “the thinker” when Health Ranger Mike Adams recently interviewed him. In this particular study, he was the thinker for the team of doctors directly involved with the treatment.

Another accusation, that Dr. Wakefield asserted a definite link of MMR vaccines to autism was never published. He never made that claim. Some of his team colleagues put forth their interpretation that MMRs were linked to autism, but that was not part of Wakefield’s Lancet paper. Dr. Wakefield was looking into the possible link of those commonly experienced gut disorders in children under five years old as a precursor to their autism related behavior.

That link to MMRs was actually made by the parents of those 12 participating children. They were doing fine until they received MMR vaccinations, and the parents reported this to Dr. Wakefield’s team. Dr. Wakefield included the parents’ reports in the case study findings. Including parents’ observations in case study reports is highly appropriate.

Dr. Wakefield’s only conclusion was the measles/gut disorder connection to autistic behavior possibilities merited further study.

Learn more….