"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:56:39 -0000, "JOHN" wrote:


Dr. Andrew
Wakefield has worked so hard to maintain his work and to help autistic
children and he (and his family) have paid the high price of leaving our
home country in order that this can continue.

The "high price" of earning more money and enjoying a vastly better
standard of living than he could ever have hoped for had he stayed in
research or in the UK?

it is clearly intended to destroy his reputation world-wide.

The only reputation he has world wide is hardly worth protecting.

Throughout the 1990's Dr Andrew Wakefield, a research scientist at the
Royal
Free Hospital and his colleagues, were contacted by parents of a large
number of children suffering from a form of inflammatory bowel disease
with
a regressive developmental disorder.

Actually he was contacted by the solicitors for a small number of
children trying to put together a compensation claim. He was paid
about $6-800,000 at the time for his work.

In February 1998, a press briefing was organized by the Dean of the
medical
school at the Royal Free Hospital to coincide with the publication of a
peer-reviewed case series in the The Lancet.

One which was not attended by Professor Walker-Smith as he disapproved
of medical research being debated prematurely in the mass media. He
has recalled that the only enthusiasm for the conference came from
Wakefield.

At the press briefing, Dr
Wakefield suggested the precautionary alternative that there could be a
return to single vaccines whilst concerns regarding MMR were investigated.

I don't suppose this would have had anything to do with him having
patented a single vaccine some time before? His "precautionary"
recommendation was not included in the Lancet paper and not in any way
supported by it.

You mean like Paul Offit?



Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years

The screaming started four hours after 8-month-old Chaise Irons received a
vaccination against rotavirus, recommended in June 1998 by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for every infant to prevent serious diarrhea.
Within a day he was vomiting and eliminating blood. Doctors performed
emergency surgery, saving him by repairing his intestines, which were
folding in on one another. A doctor later figured out the vaccine caused
Chaise's problem. In October 1999, after 15 reports of such incidents, the
CDC withdrew its recommendation for the vaccination -- not because of the
problem, the agency claims, but because bad publicity might give vaccines in
general a bad name. But a four-month investigation by United Press
International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines
recommended by the CDC -- and a web of close ties between the agency and the
companies that make vaccines."
- Mark Benjamin, United Press International, UPI Investigates: The Vaccine
Conflict


There are few parents of young children today who remember the disastrous
introduction of the first Rotavirus vaccine in June, 1998 and its withdrawal
from the market due to adverse events only 13 months later. Of course, the
parents of children who experienced severe bowel intussusception, like the
child described in UPI's investigative piece quoted above, remember it all
too well.


The Rotashield introduction and withdrawal was such a fiasco it triggered a
Congressional investigation, and a blistering report from the Committee on
Government Reform which was released on August 21, 2000 and titled,
Conflicts in Vaccine Policy (HERE).


And who would you guess was at the center of the Congressional report's
criticism? You guessed it: Dr. Paul Offit.


Continue reading "Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years
(1998-2003)" »


Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding a Hungry Lie


There is a very, very hungry lie, and the lie needs more food. Dr. Paul
Offit is this lie's public chef, but it also gets fed by the Centers for
Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other parties who
have a vested interest in protecting our current vaccine program. The
problem with a lie as big as this one is that it never knows when it has had
enough to eat, and it always needs more food.


It's a simple lie, really. And, it's being told with more and more frequency
lately, which is really no surprise. Lies like this tend to get fatter and
fatter and hungrier and hungrier before they explode, and many, many people
need this lie to be true.


Like many lies, this one has evolved. The lie-tellers used to tell
half-truths, but they seem to have abandoned the half-truths and just gone
for the big, big lie. That's how hungry a lie tends to get. Don't feed me
half-truths, the lie screams, feed me lies!


Like other very big lies, this one retains a lot of credibility with people
who have a lot of credibility. And, we have seen this movie before, whether
it's Colin Powell blessing the presence of WMDs in Iraq or the SEC blessing
the trading prowess of Bernie Madoff. We know how the movie ends.


Stephen Greenspan, a psychologist and expert on gullibility, explains this
recurrent experience of smart people falling for big, hungry lies as due to
"the tendency of humans to model their actions-especially when dealing with
matters they don't fully understand-on the behavior of other humans."
Continue reading "Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding
a Hungry Lie" »


By J.B. Handley


In March of 2007 I wrote an essay titled "Bernie Versus Bryna, the Trouble
with Autism Speaks" that was widely circulated on the web (full text at the
end of this post). At the end of the letter, I encouraged parents to write
Autism Speaks directly to express their frustration with the organization's
direction.


Continue reading "Best of: Bernie vs. Brynna The Trouble with Autism
Speaks" »



Not a single member of the team which produced the paper publicly
endorsed Wakefield's anti-MMR stand. Wakefields claim was repudiated
by Professor Zuckerman and by the paediatricians in his own team. Dr
Murch, Dr Thomson and Professor Walker-Smith subsequently wrote to The
Lancet to disassociate themselves from Wakefield's call for separate
vaccines

The GMC took more than three years to frame their charges against Dr
Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, none of which
questioned the underlying scientific and medical findings in the original
paper.

Others have discredited that paper so comprehensively that most of the
authors withdrew their names from it. The measles virus it claimed
was found was simply laboratory error, no one else has reproduced its
results.

In the attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield and the other defendants, the
prosecution, employed and paid for by the GMC, has suggested that none of
the children referred to the Royal Free Hospital were actually ill. In
order
to support this suggestion, they have had to ensure that none of the
parents
of vaccine damaged children appear at the hearing.

Probably because no such claim was made.

In the following weeks, the organisations endorsing this statement will
join
together in providing clear documentation in support of the science to
date.

That will be a change.

Web
Results 1 - 10 of about 797 for Paul A. Offit vested interest in vaccines.
(0.21 seconds)