CDC whistleblower reveals cover-up linking MMR vaccines to autism
- Thread starter Daisymay
- Start date
There appear to be two separate issues here: 1) What is the real story behind Andrew Wakefield and his 1998 paper; and 2) What is the real story behind the current charges?
Thanks to Alex's link to the published paper above, along with information revealed in subsequent posts, it is now clear that the second question is quite independent from the first, apart from Andrew Wakefield's participation in the video, which muddied the waters.
I have seen this charge repeated, but I cannot find any evidence behind it. As Brian Deer said (quoted in this CNN article):
The Wikipedia article, which has documented every single sentence in the following paragraph, goes on to say:
The Lancet also retracted Wakefield's paper - first partially in 2004, then fully in 2010. Although The Lancet is not infallible (it did publish the PACE trial paper), it is very hard to imagine that it would take these two separate, serious actions based on a smear campaign conducted by one individual. Specifically:
I have seen this. The GMC apparently went overboard here. But this does not by implication clear Wakefield.
The problem is not that he was wrong; errors are made in science. Wakefield was not barred from practicing medicine in the UK simply because he was wrong. The reason he was barred is summed up in this paragraph:
One of the reasons that The Lancet retracted the paper was that the results could not be reproduced. For example, there is this study from the New England Journal of Medicine, the most highly regarded general medical journal in the world. There is also this study from the BMJ. Reproducibility is an absolute requirement for scientific work to be considered valid.
From the Toronto Globe and Mail:
Many, if not most, parents who decline to have their children vaccinated don't just single out the MMR vaccine; they decline all vaccines. Please see this interactive map from NPR to see how preventable diseases have been spreading worldwide over the last five years.
Now you may think that nine lives lost is nothing. The families involved would certainly disagree with you. And that number nine is just for one disease for one year, and only counts the U.S. And for the 18,000 children who caught and recovered from a potentially fatal illness, this was no walk in the park for either them or their parents. So far there have been no deaths from measles in the U.S. since 2003, but the number of cases has recently risen sharply, with as many reported in the U.S. in the first half of 2014 as in all of 2013. As the anti-vaccination movement continues, and the number of unvaccinated children rises, the number of cases of measles, mumps, and rubella will also rise. The article The Comeback Killers: Diphtheria, Measles, Whooping Cough, Polio by Dr. Orin Levine, Director of Vaccine Delivery, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, explains the implications of this well.
Could you please supply some proof of the last statement? I'm sure the BMJ, The Lancet, and many others would be very interested if you would supply them with such proof.
Nor was she a big threat to the health of the children of the world.
If you want to blame this all on the drug companies, please furnish some proof.
The Wikipedia article has a primary reference (or multiple references) for virtually every sentence. There is really nothing in the article that isn't in the sources. Wakefield's side of the story is presented clearly in the article as well. My statements about Wakefield come not from the Wikipedia article, which I hadn't read until yesterday, but from journalistic sources that I have found trustworthy, and which corroborate each other.
I don't know; I've seen a number of drug scandals (such as Vioxx) reported by the media. The drug companies may buy a lot of ads, but there's still enough competition among the media that nobody is going to sit on a big story just so they won't offend an advertiser. If they lose their credibility, they'll lose their readers (or viewers), and that's a lot worse than losing an advertiser.
At this point, so do I. This is the second point I mentioned at the beginning of this post, and it is really divorced from the first. The accumulation of evidence at this point is making it look more likely than not that Dr. Brian Hooker's story is true. There were several reasons why I found it unbelievable at first:
I personally have no axe to grind in either direction. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor.) If there are bad vaccines out there - and there have been - they should be replaced with safe ones. But anti-vaccination campaigns should not be based on innuendo or rumors. Wherever the science leads, I will follow.
Thanks to Alex's link to the published paper above, along with information revealed in subsequent posts, it is now clear that the second question is quite independent from the first, apart from Andrew Wakefield's participation in the video, which muddied the waters.
I have seen this charge repeated, but I cannot find any evidence behind it. As Brian Deer said (quoted in this CNN article):
The Wikipedia article, which has documented every single sentence in the following paragraph, goes on to say:
The Lancet also retracted Wakefield's paper - first partially in 2004, then fully in 2010. Although The Lancet is not infallible (it did publish the PACE trial paper), it is very hard to imagine that it would take these two separate, serious actions based on a smear campaign conducted by one individual. Specifically:
I have seen this. The GMC apparently went overboard here. But this does not by implication clear Wakefield.
I have not read anything from Brian Deer until today; I have relied on the word of multiple scientific journals. I have never read the Sunday Times. And I assure you that I am properly skeptical about what I read from vested interests.
The problem is not that he was wrong; errors are made in science. Wakefield was not barred from practicing medicine in the UK simply because he was wrong. The reason he was barred is summed up in this paragraph:
One of the reasons that The Lancet retracted the paper was that the results could not be reproduced. For example, there is this study from the New England Journal of Medicine, the most highly regarded general medical journal in the world. There is also this study from the BMJ. Reproducibility is an absolute requirement for scientific work to be considered valid.
From the Toronto Globe and Mail:
Many, if not most, parents who decline to have their children vaccinated don't just single out the MMR vaccine; they decline all vaccines. Please see this interactive map from NPR to see how preventable diseases have been spreading worldwide over the last five years.
Now you may think that nine lives lost is nothing. The families involved would certainly disagree with you. And that number nine is just for one disease for one year, and only counts the U.S. And for the 18,000 children who caught and recovered from a potentially fatal illness, this was no walk in the park for either them or their parents. So far there have been no deaths from measles in the U.S. since 2003, but the number of cases has recently risen sharply, with as many reported in the U.S. in the first half of 2014 as in all of 2013. As the anti-vaccination movement continues, and the number of unvaccinated children rises, the number of cases of measles, mumps, and rubella will also rise. The article The Comeback Killers: Diphtheria, Measles, Whooping Cough, Polio by Dr. Orin Levine, Director of Vaccine Delivery, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, explains the implications of this well.
Could you please supply some proof of the last statement? I'm sure the BMJ, The Lancet, and many others would be very interested if you would supply them with such proof.
Nor was she a big threat to the health of the children of the world.
If you want to blame this all on the drug companies, please furnish some proof.
The Wikipedia article has a primary reference (or multiple references) for virtually every sentence. There is really nothing in the article that isn't in the sources. Wakefield's side of the story is presented clearly in the article as well. My statements about Wakefield come not from the Wikipedia article, which I hadn't read until yesterday, but from journalistic sources that I have found trustworthy, and which corroborate each other.
I don't know; I've seen a number of drug scandals (such as Vioxx) reported by the media. The drug companies may buy a lot of ads, but there's still enough competition among the media that nobody is going to sit on a big story just so they won't offend an advertiser. If they lose their credibility, they'll lose their readers (or viewers), and that's a lot worse than losing an advertiser.
At this point, so do I. This is the second point I mentioned at the beginning of this post, and it is really divorced from the first. The accumulation of evidence at this point is making it look more likely than not that Dr. Brian Hooker's story is true. There were several reasons why I found it unbelievable at first:
- The association with Andrew Wakefield, who most of the scientific community believes to be a fraud.
- The hokey, amateurish, melodramatic presentation of the video, which made it hard to take it seriously as science.
- The statement by Dr. Hooker about the first call he received, where he said, "It had a 404 area code, so I knew it was from the CDC." The 404 area code covers all of Atlanta plus many of its suburbs; a call from that area code could have come from anywhere in Atlanta. Furthermore, caller IDs can easily be spoofed. It appears now that the caller was real, but Dr. Hooker's statement led me to question his scientific rigor.
- Andrew Wakefield's statement that "It turns out we were right - at least partly." Here he is admitting what he has denied for so long - that there were errors in his original work.
- I was not aware of the published paper that Alex referenced, nor of the other sources that were made public later in this thread.
I personally have no axe to grind in either direction. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor.) If there are bad vaccines out there - and there have been - they should be replaced with safe ones. But anti-vaccination campaigns should not be based on innuendo or rumors. Wherever the science leads, I will follow.
Last edited:
zzzz, all the GMC charges against Wakefield (and Walker-Smith) that you listed were overthrown by a High Court judge as 'ludicrous'. Many on the GMC panel and leadership have strong links to and profit from to vaccine industry. Just saying...
If this CDC story is true - ie that the heads of public health agencies wilfully participated in burying vaccine-autism evidence by committing scientific fraud - do you really think they would think twice about fabricating charges against one little unprotected person??
PS you couldn't have known much about Deer - he published very, very little before or after that story. There is lots on how he came to 'investigate' it if you bother to find out, if not there is always the option of keeping on believing whatever story is most comfortable.
If this CDC story is true - ie that the heads of public health agencies wilfully participated in burying vaccine-autism evidence by committing scientific fraud - do you really think they would think twice about fabricating charges against one little unprotected person??
PS you couldn't have known much about Deer - he published very, very little before or after that story. There is lots on how he came to 'investigate' it if you bother to find out, if not there is always the option of keeping on believing whatever story is most comfortable.
The charges against Walker-Smith were thrown out, as I have acknowledged earlier. The charges against Wakefield were not. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.
If the charges against Wakefield had been overturned, he would have had his license to practice medicine in the U.K. restored, as Walker-Smith did. But Wakefield's license was not restored, and for this reason, you never see him referred to as "Dr. Andrew Wakefield".
We are starting to get solid evidence of the CDC story. Where is the solid evidence that the charges against Wakefield were fabricated, especially years later? And if the charges were fabricated, why didn't his fellow scientists stand up for him? Were the journals that retracted his papers in on this conspiracy, or were they just not intelligent enough to figure it out?
It's true - I didn't know much about Deer. So I did a simple Google search and found that he has his own Web site, briandeer.com, which is filled with all sorts of articles on various topics, as well as some videos. He's apparently rather active.
Last edited:
They were charged with exactly the same things. The charges and the evidence against both guys were not fabricated or manipulated, they were simply LUDICROUS (in the words of the Judge). Bizarre and untrue.
The 'evidence' against both Walker-Smith and Wakefield was exactly the same. GMC 'verdict' against them was exactly the same.
The only reason Walker-Smith could go to court to clear his name, while Wakefield couldn't, was that Walker-Smith had professional indemnity insurance that covered such legal proceedings. He could afford it. Wakefield couldn't, so he didn't go to court. Everything else was the same. VERY simple, really.
SilverbladeTE
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,043
- Location
- Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
And Wakefield couldn't go to court in UK because...his application for Legal Aid (help with costs) was turned down by the judge, the judge who is the half-brother of the GSK CEO, the vaccine maker!
You don't say!
As I said before, the charges against him were not fabricated. He and Walker Smith were simply charged for a crime that did not happen. Not one real person was damaged and not one patient complained about the things that they were charged with.
Beyond bizarre.
It is a bit like you and I get charged for arson and vandalism in Xwyz Road. Yet there is no sign of any damage in that road, and no property owner has ever complained or shown that his/her property has really been damaged. We still get charged and get thrown in jail. My relatives are rich and pay for my appeal. I clear my name. You are still considered an arsonist and a criminal by some...
Actually, they weren't. You can find the full GMC hearing transcript here. There are separate sections for Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith, and even a casual reading shows that they are different. The two men had different roles, and the charges are appropriately different.
The word "ludicrous" does not appear anywhere in the High Court's judgment, the entirety of which you can find here. Googling for "Andrew Wakefield" and "ludicrous", I could find no utterances by the judge using this word, although it was applied to Wakefield quite frequently.
Evidence, please. I have seen stories to the contrary.
Evidence, please.
As I pointed out before, the scare caused by Wakefield and which turned into the anti-vaccine movement (led by knowledgeable experts such as Jenny McCarthy) caused large numbers of children not to be inoculated. Please see the map I referred to earlier. Also please see the article I cited nearby showing how when inoculation rates drop below a certain level, epidemics become possible.
So far, I have seen absolutely no documentation of any of the points supporting Andrew Wakefield. Perhaps there is none? I am beginning to suspect so, as I have requested proof or evidence a number of times, and have never received any. So please understand if I do not respond to additional posts on this topic that are documentation-free, as otherwise this could go on forever.
Last edited:
SilverbladeTE
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,043
- Location
- Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
ZZZ
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr_judge.html
forgot that Lancet AND GlaxoSmithKline
You do not seem to realize how the British system really works.
How it works is that some privileged scumbag gets himself and immediate family into important positions in MANY areas, executive positions, committees, "quangoes", etc
they form massive webs of nepotism and rule the UK, about 5000 people really hold the power in the UK and not democratically OR accountably.
hence the elite can get away with horrific crimes, never mind screwing Wakefield
and "studies" be damned, what folk also do not get is, if you threaten a $50 billion/year industry, they can and will kill you for it, if they have to, that's way beyond figures people get murdered over
however, they do not do such very often, as bribery, fraud, setting folk up etc are all much easier and less likely to cause issues.
~a researcher is subtly warned that his studies if they prove vaccines maybe harmful, "well, that could end all vaccines, millions could die, think of the children, stay silent!"
~another researcher has a new lab assistant, who's really an ex or serving member of MI5 or CIA, this spook ensures data is corrupted as needed (yes the intelligence agencies do have folk who have degrees etc and James Randi proved you could screw research very easily)
~The head of a university or budget committee is told that their tenure or pension is in jeopardy if this research grant or current research proves vaccines are harmful, so funding is denied or screwed with
etc
that is how the REAL WORLD WORKS
see tobacco and nuclear industry for evidence
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr_judge.html
forgot that Lancet AND GlaxoSmithKline
You do not seem to realize how the British system really works.
How it works is that some privileged scumbag gets himself and immediate family into important positions in MANY areas, executive positions, committees, "quangoes", etc
they form massive webs of nepotism and rule the UK, about 5000 people really hold the power in the UK and not democratically OR accountably.
hence the elite can get away with horrific crimes, never mind screwing Wakefield
and "studies" be damned, what folk also do not get is, if you threaten a $50 billion/year industry, they can and will kill you for it, if they have to, that's way beyond figures people get murdered over
however, they do not do such very often, as bribery, fraud, setting folk up etc are all much easier and less likely to cause issues.
~a researcher is subtly warned that his studies if they prove vaccines maybe harmful, "well, that could end all vaccines, millions could die, think of the children, stay silent!"
~another researcher has a new lab assistant, who's really an ex or serving member of MI5 or CIA, this spook ensures data is corrupted as needed (yes the intelligence agencies do have folk who have degrees etc and James Randi proved you could screw research very easily)
~The head of a university or budget committee is told that their tenure or pension is in jeopardy if this research grant or current research proves vaccines are harmful, so funding is denied or screwed with
etc
that is how the REAL WORLD WORKS
see tobacco and nuclear industry for evidence
A.B.
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,780
What was Wakefield's serious misconduct?
Errrr, has it ever occurred to you that one cannot 'evidence' the negative. I cannot produce evidence that I didn't vandalise your property - you have to provide evidence that I did.
In this case there is not even any sign of damage to your property, let alone 'evidence' that I did it. Yet you are asking me to provide proof that I didn't do it? Funny world, this ...
LOL that is even more bizarre, to claim that one should produce evidence AGAINST this, when this wasn't even what he was charged with in the GMC case
or what he COULD be charged with, even in theory. ... as you should well know the GMC can only act when there is professional misconduct between a doctor and his/her patient, wrong medical advice etc. There was no such thing in this case - no patient complained, no direct medical advice was given. Yet they charged him with professional misconduct against patients. And to make things even to more absurd than they are AW was a researcher, didn't even see patients etc.
Funnier and funnier, but lets get distracted some more from the real fraud that went on at the CDC ...
How about this for a conspiracy theory.
Andrew Wakefield fixed the results of the study because he had a patent for a single shot measles vaccine.
That is just as credible as the other conspiracy theories posted.
Until I see some credible evidence that this whistleblower story is accurate, I remain skeptical.
Science has laid to rest the link between vaccination and autism.
Barb
Andrew Wakefield fixed the results of the study because he had a patent for a single shot measles vaccine.
That is just as credible as the other conspiracy theories posted.
Until I see some credible evidence that this whistleblower story is accurate, I remain skeptical.
Science has laid to rest the link between vaccination and autism.
Barb
SilverbladeTE
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,043
- Location
- Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
Science is corrupt when it comes to the pharmaceutical companies PROVEN FACT
Barbc56,
the judge in that case should have by law recused himself from that case, as his half brother was very much involved in it (The lancet and GSK exec), but he didn't....
is that not odd?
Barbc56,
the judge in that case should have by law recused himself from that case, as his half brother was very much involved in it (The lancet and GSK exec), but he didn't....
is that not odd?
Err, how about the whistleblower coming forward and revealing his identity as one of the authors of the fraudulent paper, for starters
Yes, and it certainly looks like it did that by twisting, manipulating and hiding the real data!
Warning: if you click your heals too many times your feet might start to bleed.
SilverbladeTE
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,043
- Location
- Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
We cannot be 100% sure there has been corruption in the research that didn't support Wakefield
but we do know 60%+ of research from pharmaceutical companies has been accused of being biased to outright fraudulent by many sources including many peer review editors etc
All Science rests on the absolute reliability of the base data, otherwise NOTHING of any use can be taken from it.
Pharmaceutical corps make billions from sale of each major drug or vaccine....
Researchers sometimes have commercial rewards themselves from their work, which is horribly, unacceptably unethical, because they then have ever reason to cover up problems
Exactly like the financial collapse, the regulators of the drug industry often turn out to have worked in, been execs or have financial ties to the drug companies or their products, hence unethical, unreliable and a massive threat to *true* national security