It is facts like these that BMJ, Brian Deer, and the rest have conveniently Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been shamelessly mocked, repeatedly lied about, and cruelly defamed for his legitimate scientific research into the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. But Dr. Andrew Wakefield is now fighting back against those responsible for viciously denigrating his work and his character by filing a lawsuit against the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which published lies about him, and journalist Brian Deer, who authored many of those lies.
The lawsuit cites several articles and editorials published in BMJ that include “false and defamatory allegations” about Dr. Wakefield and his work. Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, an article written by journalist Brian Deer that was published in BMJ, and an accompanying editorial by Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of BMJ, are two of the defamatory writings named in the suit.
But ignored in their witch hunt to destroy the career and life of Dr.Andrew Wakefield, who has hardly been given the chance to present his side of the story before the public. This is why many still falsely believe, for instance, that Dr.Wakefield fabricated his research data. This accusation was entirely made up by those that Dr.Wakefield is now suing — or that he is no longer a doctor just because the GMC banned him from practicing in the UK.
Such malicious slander against a man who dared to conduct honest science about a condition that afflicts more and more children every year is outrageous. But it is precisely becauseDr. Wakefield’s science conflicts with the medical status quo that the full arsenal of hatred and vilification was drawn upon to destroy him.
Many “scientific” studies are literally nonsense. This is not a conspiracy theory. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association [2005;294(2):218–28] published a paper showing that one-third of “highly cited original clinical research studies” were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies. The supposed effects of specific interventions either did not exist as the original studies concluded, or were exaggerated. It is not unusual for the “science” of today to degenerate into tomorrow’s fiction.
Vaccine studies are often funded by vaccine manufacturers. The lead authors of important studies that will be used to validate the safety or efficacy of a vaccine are often beholden to the manufacturer in some way. They may own stock in the company or are paid by the manufacturer to travel around the country promoting their vaccines. Lead authors may receive consultation fees, grants or other benefits from the drug maker. Although many people consider this unethical or corrupt, in the world of immunizations this is an acceptable practice, condoned by the CDC and FDA.
Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not uncommon to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine’s apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a landmark study published in Pediatrics [2003;112:1039-48] found that cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines “resulted in a significant positive association with tics” and “increased risks of language delay.”
In other words, babies that received two or more vaccines containing mercury showed signs of neurological damage. This crucial information can be found in the body of the study. However, the authors concluded that “No consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.”
Sadly, the media is reluctant to publish anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program. Newspaper articles about vaccines, and reviews of vaccine studies that are published, merely mimic the original spurious conclusions.
Often, important information is missing from a study. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine [2007;356:1915-27] published a paper on the HPV vaccine. It concluded that the vaccine “was highly effective” even though data in the study showed that vaccine efficacy was just 17% against high-grade cervical lesions. However, truly vital information that would help families to make informed vaccine decisions was never mentioned in the paper.
A secret FDA study [VRBPAC Meeting: May 18, 2006] had already found that the HPV vaccine may “enhance cervical disease” in girls who are sexually active prior to vaccination. In other words, the vaccine seems to work best in virgins and may actually increase a young woman’s chance of developing cervical cancer if she was previously exposed through sexual intercourse to HPV strains included in the vaccine.
In some instances, study results may be preordained. For example, when the vaccine-autism link became a public concern, vaccine proponents hastened to produce authentic-appearing studies that contradicted genuine data. Years ago, tobacco companies used this very same ploy. They financed numerous bogus studies ostensibly “proving” that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. The real studies got lost in the muddle. Sadly, it’s all too easy to obfuscate truth and deceive the public.
At the infamous Simpsonwood conference held in Norcross, Georgia [June 2000], CDC and FDA authorities knew that mercury in vaccines was damaging children. They had irrefutable proof: a comprehensive study conducted by the CDC itself. However, instead of making this important information public, they hatched a plan to produce additional “studies” that denied such a link. In fact, vaccine proponents had the audacity to claim in some of these papers that mercury in vaccines not only doesn’t hurt children but that it actually benefits them! In the topsy-turvy world of overreaching vaccine authorities, the well-documented neurotoxic chemical mercury somehow makes children smarter and more functional, improving cognitive development and motor skills. Of course, this is nonsense. Numerous real studies document mercury’s destructive effect on brain development and behavior.