Dr Wakefield's Inquisitioners Have Their Day

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/dr_wakefield.html

I have a friend in Maine who is a nephrologist. She consults on patients
who need dialysis. Just by asking the question, "When was your last
vaccine?" she has found nine patients - most with previously normal kidney
function - who developed acute renal failure within two to 28 days of the
shot. All but one needed kidney dialysis.
Wakefield's observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of
*some* autistic children, has been replicated by other researchers.
Japanese study: Detection and Sequencing of Measles Virus from
Peripheral Mononuclear Cells from Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
and Autism
NJ Medical School: Dysregulated Innate Immune Responses in Young
Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Their Relationship to
Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Dietary Intervention

Dr Wakefield's Inquisitioners Have Their Day
By Dr Sherri Tenpenny




February 14, 2010





I've been asked many times over the last few weeks to share my opinion on
the verdict of the U.K's General Medical Council (GMC) about Dr. Andrew
Wakefield and the retraction of his 1998 article, "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in
children" by the medical journal, Lancet. The many inquiries fall into four
basic questions.
Wakefield Inquisitioners Have Their Day
(continued)
Question #1:
What do you know about Dr. Wakefield's 1998 paper? Do you feel the response
of the GMC was appropriate?

Answers:
1. Dr. Wakefield's paper was SIMPLY a case study of 12 children. Hundreds
of case reports are published each year in the medical journals..and are
essentially ignored. He didn't make *any claims* in his original paper that
has gotten all the attention.
2. His original paper was simply a hypothesis, not a claim, of the
connection to Autism. Be sure to read the original paper;it's only 5 pages
long.
3. Wakefield published 32 peer-reviewed papers since 1998. NONE of these
were mentioned or retracted.

4. Wakefield's most recent research incriminates the use of hepatitis B
vaccines in newborns. The first phase of this monkey study was published
three months ago in the journal Neurotoxicology, focused on the first two
weeks of life. Baby monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B,
mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule, and were compared with matched,
unvaccinated monkeys. The vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated
peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.
Discrediting Wakefield's work over a perceived "ethical" issue would serve
to discredit this new research, protecting the vaccine industry once again.
5. Dr. Wakefield's research was never questioned by the GMC. The ruling
focused on what was called "unethical behavior" - drawing blood at a
children's party, even though the parent's who were present had given their
fully informed consent. In fact, in an open letter to the Lancet, the
parents of the 12 children in the study rebuke the GMC, politely calling
them liars.

6. Dr. Wakefield has never been "anti-vaccine." His work has always been
focused on finding an explanation for WHY so many autistic children have
terrible bowel disease.

7. Dr. Wakefield has always recommended single antigen vaccines. He
hypothesized that the three live viruses given together in the MMR vaccine
are the source of potential problems in at least SOME children.

Question #2: Do you have concerns over Dr. Wakefield's failure to disclose
financial links to a malpractice attorney and to patents he was working on
to develop a single vaccine solution?

Answers: I was rather surprised at the question and my response is, no. I
don't feel one bit concerned about that particular issue. I'm not even sure
the accusation is 100 percent true; it could be simply a pharma spin/smear.
There is so much impropriety among the Players in the vaccine business that
any singular accusation about Dr. Wakefield's work toward developing a
single-antigen vaccine to make things safer for children TRULY amounts to
"the pot calling the kettle black."

Consider this:
1. Dr. Paul Offit, who sat on the Advisory Committee of Immunization
Practices (ACIP) committee, the committee who approves all the vaccines
given to children and adults, holds the patent for the Rotavirus vaccine,
(the one that was withdrawn) AND a patent on the current Rotavirus vaccine
which is known to cause pneumonia and still some cases of intussusception.
It is rumored that he made millions on his vaccine patent and that big
pharma bought all his books, so he could make millions more.

2. Dr. Sam Katz sat for year on the ACIP committee having been the
developer of the MMR vaccine (particularly the attenuated measles vaccine).
He simultaneously consulted with all of the vaccine manufacturers.

3. Dr. D.A. Henderson, credited with smallpox vaccine eradication,
consulted simultaneously with all the vaccine manufacturers for year.


4. Dr. Julie Gerberding, after serving eight years as head of the CDC, was
recently named President of Merck vaccines. This is one of the most visible
and blatant examples of a gross conflict of interest. Resigning from the CDC
on January 20, 2009 and assuming her new position with Merck on January 25,
2010 was just barely past the 365 day mandatory "wait time" imposed on
persons who pass from public service into private sector jobs. Does anyone
think she just might have insider information to share with her new boss,
and not just about vaccines?
Question #3: Do you think the Lancet was justified in pulling the paper for
pure scientific reasons?
Answer: It was inappropriate for the Lancet to retract his 1998 paper. What
did it prove? By focusing on this paper with such fanfare, the general
public has been lead to believe that Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper, a case
report, was the ONLY paper and the ONLY research Wakefield has ever done.
They sure paint it that way, don't they?

.. NOT ONE mainstream reporter mentioned the 32 research papers published in
peer-reviewed journals since 1998.
.. NOT ONE mainstream reporter interviewed Wakefield for "balanced
reporting." What does that say about the story...and the bought-and-owned,
generally lazy press?
.. AND NOT ONE mainstream reporter dared to report that Wakefield's
observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of *some* autistic
children, has been replicated by other researchers.
Japanese study: Detection and Sequencing of Measles Virus from
Peripheral Mononuclear Cells from Patients
with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Autism
NJ Medical School: Dysregulated Innate Immune Responses in Young
Children with Autism Spectrum
Disorders: Their Relationship to Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Dietary
Intervention
NO ONE has been told about the science that has been published supporting a
connection between vaccines and autism and other disorders, and yet the list
grows every day. Researchers studying vaccine-related illness have a hard
task; their research is not funded by drug companies. The drug companies and
the government don't want to know the answers.
It is the same reason the CDC refuses do a study of vaccinated vs.
unvaccinated kids, examining something solidly objective like number of
drugs they are on, number of days of school missed due to illness and number
of doctor visits between birth and 5 years of age for ear infections and
asthma.

This "issue" with Dr. Wakefield is a pharma-driven, media-manipulated power
move, meant to embarrass Wakefield so they can negate and call into question
his new, incriminating research on the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth.
No doubt this "media frenzied heyday" has been orchestrated to squash the
efforts of the massively growing, Vaccine Choice/ Vaccine Awareness
movement. The one-sided accusations in magazines and blogs rambling on about
the story even call the retraction, "a blow to the anti-vaccine movement."

Here's a common example: Just look at the title. This was published in
Popular Mechanics (a vaccine story in Popular Mechanics?)

At the end of the day, isn't that the point of all this rhetoric? The truth
about vaccine damage is gaining too much attention. The masses are listening
and questioning because they are (rightfully) suspicious of government and
they don't trust CDC, AAP, etc. Vaccination rates are falling, parents are
rebelling. They know that something is amiss as they watch their children
get sick, and even die, right before their eyes.

Question #4: Are you simply a blinded, "Dr. Andy Groupie"?
Answer: No, I am not. I clearly understand the reason why this has happened.
Could he have done things better?Probably. Could he have been more
forthcoming about certain events that he has been accused of? Of course.

But consider other scandals that have emerged in the scientific world, such
as research that was published using fake stem-cell lines. These studies
used fabricated data and were published in prestigious journals. Has anyone
heard Hwang Woo-Suk or Jan Hendrik Schön? Those were the researchers; they
were not publically crucified by the media.

I suspect that if any researcher's methods, associations and data were
scrutinized with a fine tooth comb like they have done for 12 YEARS with Dr.
Wakefield, the Lancet would be forced to retract many articles -- maybe all
of them. Looking at the Big Picture, one *has to see* that the issue with
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a witch hunt with an agenda. When the twisted
associations of those who have been out to crucify Dr. Wakefield are mapped
out, it is plain that he had not a chance of exoneration.

The Results of the Vaccine-Illness Connection
We have exchanged chicken pox for autism, flu for asthma, ear infections for
diabetes...and the list goes on and on. In the zeal to eliminate relatively
benign microbes, we have traded temporary illnesses for pervasive, life-long
diseases, disorders, dysfunctions and disabilities. And all of the Powers
That Be - doctors, politicians, corporate heads, andgovernment public health
officials - refuse to consider these expensive, pervasive diseases could be
caused by vaccines.

If we had an epidemic of blindness in 300,000 children, would doctors ignore
it and say, "We have no idea why it is happening. Guess we need to train
more seeing-eye dogs." But we have an epidemic of sick children losing their
brains. Doctors shrug and say, "It must be genetics." This is the best they
have to offer, despite scientific confirmation that there is no such thing
as a "genetic epidemic."

There are nearly 300,000 sets of parents with sick, autistic children; the
lion share of them saw it happen, with their own eyes, and rightfully blame
vaccines. These children are ill; and conventional doctors don't even try to
address their illnesses. When non-conventional practitioners try to help,
they are scoffed, ridiculed and even raided by the Feds.

There is one unifying factor affecting children, from sea to shining sea. It's
not genetics; genetics between families are different. It's not
environmental exposures; some kids live in the projects, some live in gated
communities. It's not food; some kids eat only organic, some eat mostly
McDonalds. It's not exercise; some kids are athletes; others are couch
potatoes. What touches almost all children and is the most likely 'smoking
gun' for the epidemic of chronic illness and autism across North America
(and beyond), are childhood vaccinations.

What is it going to take?
At the end of the day, it is going to take a tragedy in a high profile
doctor or politician for the VACCINE-ILLNESS CONNECTION (not just autism) to
get serious examination. I have a friend in Maine who is a nephrologist. She
consults on patients who need dialysis. Just by asking the question, "When
was your last vaccine?" she has found nine patients - most with previously
normal kidney function - who developed acute renal failure within two to 28
days of the shot. All but one needed kidney dialysis. All but two have
recovered, but to the tune of more than $200,000 in hospital bills -- EACH.
We pay and pay and pay for vaccines.

We pay drug companies to make them. We pay doctors and public health
officials to give them. We pay astronomical health insurance rates to cover
the health care costs of the illnesses they cause. Vaccines drive the
industry -- if only we were *willing* to look. WHAT other connections are we
missing because we don't want to know?

How conventional medicine can deny this is the real travesty. The Vaccine
Court (Federal Court of Claims) has awarded at least nine judgments in favor
of children who have become autistic or have had serious damage from MMR
vaccine. For heaven's sake, aspirin, antibiotics, and many other drugs can
be (and often are) deadly. Why are vaccines always considered to be harmless
and their side effects a coincidence?

Repeating History
Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician who was among the first to
perceive that birth-related deaths due to puerperal fever was caused by
doctors who didn't wash their hands before childbirth. He dared collect
andpublish data which admonished his peers and indicted the existing Medical
System. Despite various publications that demonstrated hand washing reduced
birth mortality below one percent, Semmelweis' practice was ignored by
doctors because his observations were in "conflict with established medical
opinions." Thousands of babies died as a result of arrogant doctors and
their unwillingness to change.

The tenacity of Semmelweis is a precedent for how Dr. Wakefield has been
treated by the GMC in the United Kingdom. Conventionally trained doctors
around the world have added thunderous applause, seemingly incapable of
questioning the lies they have been forced to swallow and have believed for
two centuries about vaccines.

The GMC, the press and the medical establishment have had their Inquisition.
But those of us who know the truth are not giving up. Like Semmelweis, our
research and evidence will eventually be proven correct. We must continue;
the lives - and brains - of the next generation of children are at stake.
Wakefield Inquisitioners Have Their Day
(continued)
Question #1:
What do you know about Dr. Wakefield's 1998 paper? Do you feel the response
of the GMC was appropriate?

Answers:
1. Dr. Wakefield's paper was SIMPLY a case study of 12 children. Hundreds
of case reports are published each year in the medical journals..and are
essentially ignored. He didn't make *any claims* in his original paper that
has gotten all the attention.
2. His original paper was simply a hypothesis, not a claim, of the
connection to Autism. Be sure to read the original paper;it's only 5 pages
long.
3. Wakefield published 32 peer-reviewed papers since 1998. NONE of these
were mentioned or retracted.

4. Wakefield's most recent research incriminates the use of hepatitis B
vaccines in newborns. The first phase of this monkey study was published
three months ago in the journal Neurotoxicology, focused on the first two
weeks of life. Baby monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B,
mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule, and were compared with matched,
unvaccinated monkeys. The vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated
peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.
Discrediting Wakefield's work over a perceived "ethical" issue would serve
to discredit this new research, protecting the vaccine industry once again.
5. Dr. Wakefield's research was never questioned by the GMC. The ruling
focused on what was called "unethical behavior" - drawing blood at a
children's party, even though the parent's who were present had given their
fully informed consent. In fact, in an open letter to the Lancet, the
parents of the 12 children in the study rebuke the GMC, politely calling
them liars.

6. Dr. Wakefield has never been "anti-vaccine." His work has always been
focused on finding an explanation for WHY so many autistic children have
terrible bowel disease.

7. Dr. Wakefield has always recommended single antigen vaccines. He
hypothesized that the three live viruses given together in the MMR vaccine
are the source of potential problems in at least SOME children.

Question #2: Do you have concerns over Dr. Wakefield's failure to disclose
financial links to a malpractice attorney and to patents he was working on
to develop a single vaccine solution?

Answers: I was rather surprised at the question and my response is, no. I
don't feel one bit concerned about that particular issue. I'm not even sure
the accusation is 100 percent true; it could be simply a pharma spin/smear.
There is so much impropriety among the Players in the vaccine business that
any singular accusation about Dr. Wakefield's work toward developing a
single-antigen vaccine to make things safer for children TRULY amounts to
"the pot calling the kettle black."

Consider this:
1. Dr. Paul Offit, who sat on the Advisory Committee of Immunization
Practices (ACIP) committee, the committee who approves all the vaccines
given to children and adults, holds the patent for the Rotavirus vaccine,
(the one that was withdrawn) AND a patent on the current Rotavirus vaccine
which is known to cause pneumonia and still some cases of intussusception.
It is rumored that he made millions on his vaccine patent and that big
pharma bought all his books, so he could make millions more.

2. Dr. Sam Katz sat for year on the ACIP committee having been the
developer of the MMR vaccine (particularly the attenuated measles vaccine).
He simultaneously consulted with all of the vaccine manufacturers.

3. Dr. D.A. Henderson, credited with smallpox vaccine eradication,
consulted simultaneously with all the vaccine manufacturers for year.


4. Dr. Julie Gerberding, after serving eight years as head of the CDC, was
recently named President of Merck vaccines. This is one of the most visible
and blatant examples of a gross conflict of interest. Resigning from the CDC
on January 20, 2009 and assuming her new position with Merck on January 25,
2010 was just barely past the 365 day mandatory "wait time" imposed on
persons who pass from public service into private sector jobs. Does anyone
think she just might have insider information to share with her new boss,
and not just about vaccines?
Question #3: Do you think the Lancet was justified in pulling the paper for
pure scientific reasons?
Answer: It was inappropriate for the Lancet to retract his 1998 paper. What
did it prove? By focusing on this paper with such fanfare, the general
public has been lead to believe that Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper, a case
report, was the ONLY paper and the ONLY research Wakefield has ever done.
They sure paint it that way, don't they?

.. NOT ONE mainstream reporter mentioned the 32 research papers published in
peer-reviewed journals since 1998.
.. NOT ONE mainstream reporter interviewed Wakefield for "balanced
reporting." What does that say about the story...and the bought-and-owned,
generally lazy press?
.. AND NOT ONE mainstream reporter dared to report that Wakefield's
observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of *some* autistic
children, has been replicated by other researchers.
Japanese study: Detection and Sequencing of Measles Virus from
Peripheral Mononuclear Cells from Patients
with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Autism
NJ Medical School: Dysregulated Innate Immune Responses in Young
Children with Autism Spectrum
Disorders: Their Relationship to Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Dietary
Intervention
NO ONE has been told about the science that has been published supporting a
connection between vaccines and autism and other disorders, and yet the list
grows every day. Researchers studying vaccine-related illness have a hard
task; their research is not funded by drug companies. The drug companies and
the government don't want to know the answers.
It is the same reason the CDC refuses do a study of vaccinated vs.
unvaccinated kids, examining something solidly objective like number of
drugs they are on, number of days of school missed due to illness and number
of doctor visits between birth and 5 years of age for ear infections and
asthma.

This "issue" with Dr. Wakefield is a pharma-driven, media-manipulated power
move, meant to embarrass Wakefield so they can negate and call into question
his new, incriminating research on the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth.
No doubt this "media frenzied heyday" has been orchestrated to squash the
efforts of the massively growing, Vaccine Choice/ Vaccine Awareness
movement. The one-sided accusations in magazines and blogs rambling on about
the story even call the retraction, "a blow to the anti-vaccine movement."

Here's a common example: Just look at the title. This was published in
Popular Mechanics (a vaccine story in Popular Mechanics?)

At the end of the day, isn't that the point of all this rhetoric? The truth
about vaccine damage is gaining too much attention. The masses are listening
and questioning because they are (rightfully) suspicious of government and
they don't trust CDC, AAP, etc. Vaccination rates are falling, parents are
rebelling. They know that something is amiss as they watch their children
get sick, and even die, right before their eyes.

Question #4: Are you simply a blinded, "Dr. Andy Groupie"?
Answer: No, I am not. I clearly understand the reason why this has happened.
Could he have done things better?Probably. Could he have been more
forthcoming about certain events that he has been accused of? Of course.

But consider other scandals that have emerged in the scientific world, such
as research that was published using fake stem-cell lines. These studies
used fabricated data and were published in prestigious journals. Has anyone
heard Hwang Woo-Suk or Jan Hendrik Schön? Those were the researchers; they
were not publically crucified by the media.

I suspect that if any researcher's methods, associations and data were
scrutinized with a fine tooth comb like they have done for 12 YEARS with Dr.
Wakefield, the Lancet would be forced to retract many articles -- maybe all
of them. Looking at the Big Picture, one *has to see* that the issue with
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a witch hunt with an agenda. When the twisted
associations of those who have been out to crucify Dr. Wakefield are mapped
out, it is plain that he had not a chance of exoneration.

The Results of the Vaccine-Illness Connection
We have exchanged chicken pox for autism, flu for asthma, ear infections for
diabetes...and the list goes on and on. In the zeal to eliminate relatively
benign microbes, we have traded temporary illnesses for pervasive, life-long
diseases, disorders, dysfunctions and disabilities. And all of the Powers
That Be - doctors, politicians, corporate heads, andgovernment public health
officials - refuse to consider these expensive, pervasive diseases could be
caused by vaccines.

If we had an epidemic of blindness in 300,000 children, would doctors ignore
it and say, "We have no idea why it is happening. Guess we need to train
more seeing-eye dogs." But we have an epidemic of sick children losing their
brains. Doctors shrug and say, "It must be genetics." This is the best they
have to offer, despite scientific confirmation that there is no such thing
as a "genetic epidemic."

There are nearly 300,000 sets of parents with sick, autistic children; the
lion share of them saw it happen, with their own eyes, and rightfully blame
vaccines. These children are ill; and conventional doctors don't even try to
address their illnesses. When non-conventional practitioners try to help,
they are scoffed, ridiculed and even raided by the Feds.

There is one unifying factor affecting children, from sea to shining sea. It's
not genetics; genetics between families are different. It's not
environmental exposures; some kids live in the projects, some live in gated
communities. It's not food; some kids eat only organic, some eat mostly
McDonalds. It's not exercise; some kids are athletes; others are couch
potatoes. What touches almost all children and is the most likely 'smoking
gun' for the epidemic of chronic illness and autism across North America
(and beyond), are childhood vaccinations.

What is it going to take?
At the end of the day, it is going to take a tragedy in a high profile
doctor or politician for the VACCINE-ILLNESS CONNECTION (not just autism) to
get serious examination. I have a friend in Maine who is a nephrologist. She
consults on patients who need dialysis. Just by asking the question, "When
was your last vaccine?" she has found nine patients - most with previously
normal kidney function - who developed acute renal failure within two to 28
days of the shot. All but one needed kidney dialysis. All but two have
recovered, but to the tune of more than $200,000 in hospital bills -- EACH.
We pay and pay and pay for vaccines.

We pay drug companies to make them. We pay doctors and public health
officials to give them. We pay astronomical health insurance rates to cover
the health care costs of the illnesses they cause. Vaccines drive the
industry -- if only we were *willing* to look. WHAT other connections are we
missing because we don't want to know?

How conventional medicine can deny this is the real travesty. The Vaccine
Court (Federal Court of Claims) has awarded at least nine judgments in favor
of children who have become autistic or have had serious damage from MMR
vaccine. For heaven's sake, aspirin, antibiotics, and many other drugs can
be (and often are) deadly. Why are vaccines always considered to be harmless
and their side effects a coincidence?

Repeating History
Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician who was among the first to
perceive that birth-related deaths due to puerperal fever was caused by
doctors who didn't wash their hands before childbirth. He dared collect
andpublish data which admonished his peers and indicted the existing Medical
System. Despite various publications that demonstrated hand washing reduced
birth mortality below one percent, Semmelweis' practice was ignored by
doctors because his observations were in "conflict with established medical
opinions." Thousands of babies died as a result of arrogant doctors and
their unwillingness to change.

The tenacity of Semmelweis is a precedent for how Dr. Wakefield has been
treated by the GMC in the United Kingdom. Conventionally trained doctors
around the world have added thunderous applause, seemingly incapable of
questioning the lies they have been forced to swallow and have believed for
two centuries about vaccines.

The GMC, the press and the medical establishment have had their Inquisition.
But those of us who know the truth are not giving up. Like Semmelweis, our
research and evidence will eventually be proven correct. We must continue;
the lives - and brains - of the next generation of children are at stake.

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:52:10 -0000, "john" wrote:



Wakefield's observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of
*some* autistic children, has been replicated by other researchers.

No it hasn't

Japanese study: Detection and Sequencing of Measles Virus from
Peripheral Mononuclear Cells from Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
and Autism

I hate to break this to your osteopath but even Wakefield admitted the
results from this study were wrong.

What do you know about Dr. Wakefield's 1998 paper? Do you feel the response
of the GMC was appropriate?

Answers:
1. Dr. Wakefield's paper was SIMPLY a case study of 12 children.

I'm afraid it wasn't a simple case study - that's one of its major
failings. It was _presented_ as a case series study but in fact the
children had been hand picked. Most of the researchers involved were
not aware of this at the time.

He didn't make *any claims* in his original paper that
has gotten all the attention.

No, he did it in the press conference he called to publicise the
paper.

4. Wakefield's most recent research incriminates the use of hepatitis B
vaccines in newborns. The first phase of this monkey study was published
three months ago in the journal Neurotoxicology,

And promptly retracted.
..
5. Dr. Wakefield's research was never questioned by the GMC.

It most certainly was. The fact that the children who were presented
as a case series had been specifically selected was not revealed by
Wakefield and completely negated any conclusion the study reached.

Other errors in his work, such as the faulty analysis by Unigenetics,
were irrelevant to the disciplinary hearing.

6. Dr. Wakefield has never been "anti-vaccine."

He just liked turning up at anti-vaccine gatherings? He also worked
for a time as "Research Director" for the International Child
Development Resource Center.

7. Dr. Wakefield has always recommended single antigen vaccines. He
hypothesized that the three live viruses given together in the MMR vaccine
are the source of potential problems in at least SOME children.

A hypothesis sunk without trace by the discovery that Unigenetics did
not discover measles virus in Wakefields samples.

Question #2: Do you have concerns over Dr. Wakefield's failure to disclose
financial links to a malpractice attorney and to patents he was working on
to develop a single vaccine solution?

Answers: I was rather surprised at the question and my response is, no. I
don't feel one bit concerned about that particular issue.

Now that is a surprise.

I'm not even sure the accusation is 100 percent true;

Why not - Wakefield admitted it.

Question #3: Do you think the Lancet was justified in pulling the paper for
pure scientific reasons?
Answer: It was inappropriate for the Lancet to retract his 1998 paper.

It was built upon dishonesty - there was no possible alternative but
to retract it.

. AND NOT ONE mainstream reporter dared to report that Wakefield's
observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of *some* autistic
children, has been replicated by other researchers.

As explained above, it hasn't.

Question #4: Are you simply a blinded, "Dr. Andy Groupie"?
Answer: No, I am not. I clearly understand the reason why this has happened.
Could he have done things better?Probably. Could he have been more
forthcoming about certain events that he has been accused of? Of course.

He could have been honest from the start, he chose not to be.

john wrote:
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/dr_wakefield.html

I have a friend in Maine who is a nephrologist. She consults on patients
who need dialysis. Just by asking the question, "When was your last
vaccine?" she has found nine patients - most with previously normal kidney
function - who developed acute renal failure within two to 28 days of the
shot. All but one needed kidney dialysis.

How many patients did the nephrologist have who had acute renal failure
who did not have vaccine with 2 to 4 weeks of their developing acute
renal failure?

garbage deleted