On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:24:40 -0000, "john" wrote:



It is ironic for a number of reasons. How can the British government, itself
drowning in deception at every level, dare accuse anyone of fraud?

It didn't.

The panel assembled by the government and academia to judge Wakefield,
ironically, dares to speak of fraud, yet their main complaint is that his
findings "might endanger the 'sacrosanct' vaccine program," not that his
principal findings were wrong.

The disciplinary board wasn't set up to establish if his findings were
right or wrong - something they made clear from the beginning.

However, many others had quite independently discovered his findings
were not merely wrong but fraudulent.

In fact, several independent researchers
found the same measles vaccine-related colitis that he described.

Only if they had samples tested by Unigenetics, the laboratory set up
by Wakefield to carry out tests for the court case he was supporting.

A recently released charge by the BMJ editors is that Wakefield was poised
to get huge profits from a product stemming from his research results.

He was. The criticism however was not that he was hoping to profit
but that he hid this from his fellow researchers and the publishers of
his paper.

Virtually every paper published on drugs, such as statins, is authored by
individuals having financial links to as many as three to four
pharmaceutical companies each.

And the authors declare their interest - Wakefield didn't and tried to
hide it.

A growing number of British have suffered from vaccine complications,

There are? We must have missed it, where are the figures to show that
statement is true?

they are rightly concerned about vaccine safety.

The reverse actually, although there are still the serial nutters like
JABS around they have largely lost what little support they had and
vaccination rates in the UK are returning to their pre-Wakefield
levels.

Even this year, after we witnessed a 20-fold increase in miscarriages and
stillbirths among women vaccinated with the H1N1 vaccine last year,

No we didn't.

This falsified research is protected by academia, the media, and government
agencies. Yet, they have the audacity to stand in judgment of Wakefield.

Wakefield wasn't just biased, he lied, he invented data and when he
didn't get the results he wanted from an independent laboratory he
went to his tame one which produced what he ordered.

Yet, why is there no open disclosure as to the connections between the rabid
media, the investigating panel, the Lancet and BMJ journal editors, reporter
Brian Deer, the British government, and the manufacturers of vaccines?

There is, it just doesn't suit rabid conspiracy theorists because it
doesn't align with their preconceptions.

When
one examines these articles professing to prove the lack of a connection
between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, it is shocking to see
that virtually all of the authors have extensive financial connections to
the pharmaceutical vaccine makers.

No they don't, and where they do the authors declare the interest,
unlike Wakefield.

These same companies advertise heavily on all of the major media outlets and
the media understands very well that reports endangering vaccine sales can
mean a huge loss of advertising revenue.

In the UK drug companies are not allowed to advertise prescription
only medicines to the public. There are no vaccination advertisements
by drug companies. What loss of revenue would occur?

So, why is Wakefield being attacked and his reputation ruined

Because he was a fraud. An out and out fraud.

By careful manipulation of the media, the pharmaceutical companies have
created the illusion that the entire link between vaccines and
neurodevelopmental brain damage is hinged solely on Wakefield's article,
implying there is no other evidence suggesting a powerful link.

Probably because there isn't any such link.

The truth is that the Wakefield article's main theme was that they found
bowel inflammation (colitis) in a small number of children vaccinated with
the live measles vaccine and that the inflammation was caused by the measles
virus from the vaccine itself.

The fundamental flaw of course was that it subsequently became clear
that they DIDN'T find any live measles vaccine in the guts of the
children examined. Wakefield knew this for two years before the
information became public.



He only proposed, almost in passing, that there might be a link between such
bowel inflammation and autism,

He proposed a link between MMR and autism, a link his paper did not
establish even on his manipulated results. As subsequently became
clear his business plan relied upon people accepting this wholly
unsubstantiated claim.

Don't you find it rather odd that Wakefield, before publishing the
Lancet paper, employed a personal PR representative? He is probably
the only medical researcher in the UK ever to have done so.

The truth is that the case against the present vaccine schedule is very
powerful and built on the findings of some of the most prestigious
researchers in the world.

Geir and Geir?