Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent

Post Reply New Topic

Y'all seem to love to display your ignorance like a badge of honor.

Free Radicals and Essiac Study Performed by: Pathology and Physiology Research Branch, Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1095 Willowdale Rd, MS/2015, Morgantown, WV

"...These data indicate that Essiac tea possesses potent antioxidant and DNA-protective activity, properties that are common to natural anti-cancer agents. This study may help to explain the mechanisms behind the reported anti-cancer effects of Essiac."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1622 ... stractPlus

Essiac and Prostate Cancer Study Performed by: Department of Biology, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN, USA.

"We found in vitro evidence of decreased proliferation of both noncancerous transformed (CHO) and cancerous prostate cell line (LNCaP) when Essiac was present in the culture media... Essiac preparations may be able to inhibit tumor cell growth while enhancing immune response to antigenic stimulation. This may be especially valuable in immune-suppressed individuals."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15353028





Actually, you don't know anything about this case (but you're in good company). These findings were replicated independently by Professor Walker-Smith (who was unjustly struck off the medical register with Wakefield) and Dr Amar Dhillon. As Wakefield explains, "These are the considered findings of one of the world’s leading pediatric gastroenterologists with an unparalleled experience of intestinal pathology in children, and a blinded review by an expert in intestinal pathology. These details were based upon histories and investigation findings that were independent of my input. The findings were faithfully reproduced in The Lancet paper..."

Really, only a handful of researchers were involved in fraud to discredit the vaccine-autism-GI findings. But, as a result, anyone who supports this hypothesis is, by definition, a fraud. Definitely not the kind of open environment necessary for healthy research to thrive. Y'all remind me of 'cliques' from grade school that exclude everyone whose different from them. Sadly, most people in the medical community appear to be like you--totally indoctrinated and unwilling to look at the objective facts. I won't try to convert you from your religion. Stay asleep.





The precautionary principle, in a nutshell, means that a chemical is "guilty until proven innocent". In other words, it needs to be reasonably demonstrated to be safe before it is widely used. So, can one of you buffoons show me even a single BIOLOGICAL (not epidemiological) study that finds Thimerosal/ethylmercury exposures from pediatric vaccinations to be harmless? That would be a cell culture, animal study, or double-blinded clinical trial with non-mercury control group. There must be some research to back up all of your faith in the pronouncements of the medical Gods... right?

There is no shortage of studies that have found the TOXICITY of thimerosal (aka Thiomersal, merthiolate, ethylmercury), for example:


In 1974, an FDA panel found that Thimerosal was unsafe for human use. The panel cited a number of studies demonstrating the highly allergenic nature of Thimerosal and related organic mercury products. For instance, they cited a Swedish study that showed that 26 percent of medical students had hypersensitivity to Thimerosal. Interestingly, the study also found Thimerosal to be an ineffective disinfectant. “The Panel concludes that Thimerosal is not safe for over-the-counter topical use because of its potential for cell damage of applied to broken skin, and its allergy potential. It is not effective as a topical antimicrobial because its bacteriostatic action can be reversed.” Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, Government Reform Committee. Mercury in Medicine Report. Washington, DC: Congressional Record, May 21, 2003:E1011-30.

See also Forstrom L, et al, Merthiolate Hypersensitivity and Vaccination. Contact Dermatitis 1980;6:241-245. (“…reactions can be expected in such a high percentage of Merthiolate (Thimerosal)-sensitive persons that Merthiolate in vaccines should be replaced by another antibacterial agent.”)

See also Kravchenko AT, et al, Evaluation of the Toxic Action of Prophylactic and Therapeutic Preparations on Cell Cultures Paper III: The Detection of Toxic Properties in Medical Biological Preparations by the Degree of Cell Damage in the L-132 Continuous Cell-Line. Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol 1983;3:87-92. (“Thus Thimerosal, commonly used as a preservative, has been found not only to render its primary toxic effect, but also is capable of changing the properties of cells. This fact suggests that the use of Thimerosal for the preservation of medical biological preparations, especially those intended for children, is inadmissible.”)

See also Mercury poisoning in child treated with aqueous merthiolate. MD State Med J 1983;32:523. (“Administration of aqueous Merthiolate (Thimerosal) resulted in a child dying from mercury toxicity.”)

See Ellis FA. The sensitizing factor in merthiolate. J Allergy 1947;18:212-13. (“…it may be dangerous to inject a serum containing merthiolate into a patient sensitive to merthiolate.”)

See also Warkany J, Hubbard DM. Acrodynia and Mercury. J Pediatr 1953;42:365-386. (Thimerosal-containing vaccines cause acrodynia [mercury poisoning] in infants and young children.)

See also Engley FB. Mercurials as disinfectants. Soap and Chemical Specialties 1956;200-5, 223-5. (Thimerosal was more toxic than other mercurials in medical/scientific use such as mercurochrome, phenylmercuric nitrate, mercuric chloride, mercresin, and mercuric cyanide.);

See also Davisson EO, Powell HM, MacFarlane JO, Godgson R, Stone RL, Culberston CG. The preservation of poliomyelitis vaccine with stabilized merthiolate. J Lab Clin Med 1956;47:8-19. (Thimerosal broke down into toxic ethyl mercury.)

See E. A. Nelson and R. Y. Gottshall, “Enhanced Toxicity for Mice of Pertussis Vaccines When Preserved with Merthiolate,” Applied Microbiology, May 1967, p. 590-593 (“Pertussis vaccines preserved with 0.01% Merthiolate are more toxic for mice than unpreserved vaccines prepared from the same parent concentrate and containing the same number of organisms. … An increase in mortality was observed when Merthiolate was injected separately, before or after an unpreserved saline suspension of pertussis vaccine.”)

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/Th ... lFINAL.PDF

So it turns out that the government and pharmaceutical companies are full of s**t.

You want us to accept replication by John Walker-Smith as evidence? The GMC, in determining that Walker-Smith was unfit to practice medicine and permanently erasing him from the medical register, said:

Please Bitterbonker stop trying to drown us in words, your verbosity continues. The wall of words does not beat me into submission it just makes it harder for you to make your point.

Wakefield claimed a link between regressive autism and the MMR jab, he did not claim a link between autism in general and the MMR. But the incidence of regresssive autism did not change when the MMR vaccine was introduced and it has not changed again after the mercury additive was withdrawn from the vaccines. To my mind this suggests that neither the mercury additive or the MMR was guilty of causing autism.

You bring up some sources which suggest that the mercury additives are toxic, but none of them are related to autism. What you are trying to is to use some sort of halo effect. Becuase something is good / bad in one way does not make it automatically good / bad in another unrelated matter. Please do not insult my intellect as this mind trick will not work on me.

I would like to know what you have against epidemiological work, the great problem in life is that it would be nice to know if smoking does cause lung cancer or not. We have the epidemiological work done by both the Germans in the interwar years and the post WWII work of Doll, we have animal studies and we have seen the biochemical mechanism by which smoking causes cancer but the final scientific proof would be to do an experiment where we get a large healthy cohort and get half of them to take up smoking for 25 years just to see what happens. The study will never be done for ethical reasons, and anyone who makes a serious suggestion of doing it has a moral defect.

In the same way we will never be allowed to experiment on humans to see if we can induce autism with chemical X, so you can not have a "double blind" study in humans.

We do not understand the mechanism by which autism appears, so we can not use cell lines and animals in the same way as cancer researchers use these things. While there is a lot we do not know about cancer, we do have a good understanding of the basic processes by which it appears.

While I do think that it is unreasonable to view "everything which is neither painful or acutely toxic as harmless", but when the epidemiological work gives a process, substance or activity a very clean bill of health then it is reasonable to assume that the process is not dangerous. As epidemiological work has shown that no relationship exists between common vaccines such as MMR and autism it is reasonable to assume that the MMR vaccine is safe (regarding the induction of autism). I think that the standard of proof that you are demanding for a chemical, substance or process to be decalred innocent is too high. As no evidence exists to suggest that cuckcoo clocks do not cause autism then I think your logic would require a ban on these clocks as they have not been shown to be safe. I would however say that the lack of evidence that these bird emitting clocks either cause or prevent autism suggests to me that no relationship exists between cuckoo clock exposure and autism. By the way when I was a child one of my uncles had a cuckoo clock and he used to adjust the clock to make it talk to us.

I think that the failure of any scientists (other than the Wakefield group) to observe a link between the MMR vaccine and autism suggests that Wakefield's results should not be trusted. It is important to note that Wakefield had a conflict of interest which relates to vaccines.

I suspect that you are going for a bit of pathological science, you have made up your mind first and then you are trying to make the evidence fit the answer rather than going the otherway around (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science).

It looks to me like Cargo Cult Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science - it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, an even tastes like a duck, but it is actually a really well trained chicken slathered in duck fat.

I wouldn't have a clue about the science (or pseudoscience) and don't care. My girl was 2 when out of desperation (she wasn't able to swallow, had become unable to recognise people, had an extremely lopside gait, couldn't use her left hand and spent all day and night screaming) I began chelating her with alpha lipoic acid.

It doesn't matter what the science is, in two days she began swallowing. Two weeks later she could walk without a limp, and her hand function began to return. Around the same time she took hold of my face, turned it toward her, and looking in my eyes began laughing.

I've got no axe to grind and I earn no money from saying this (unlike the many paid pharmaceutical trolls who dismiss heavy-metal-autism on every forum). But a hair test showed heavy metals loads at the 100th percentile (i.e. among the highest the lab had seen) and chelation alone caused a 2 day turnaround in a significant part of her disability (swallowing). Since then she's continued to progress, albeit within major limitations (no speech). But she laughs and plays with us, and understands a good deal of what we say.

There's no conspiracy to blame vaccines. Why would people like me (pro vaccine and utterly ignorant of heavy metals in them until my girl crashed after being born normal) feel anything but thankful toward vaccines for keeping us from whooping cough and polio?

But something is missing from the standard autism account and a major thing is missing from standard autism treatment (i.e. effectiveness).

The 'autism is genetic' story doesn't wash and never will. In my case there have never been learning disabilities until this generation. At most it's a genetic susceptibility to something environmental.

My child received a newborn Hep B jab containing mercury, before her blood-brain barrier was formed (the blood-brain barrier exists to stop toxins entering brain cells). The mercury in that jab was over a hundred times higher than the FDA's daily recommended exposure for an adult. All these facts are available by looking at the vaccine's ingredients list or contacting the producer, and by looking at the FDA's own website. All these things I did myself in the aftermath of my girl's amazing turnaround, not before. Indeed I had no reason to question vaccinal mercury until the heavy metals hair test and chelation results, because those two were utterly astonishing in the case of my girl.

Thank heavens Wakefield tried to examine a particular vaccine in case it was implicated.

My child shows me every day (laughing, playing with us, enjoying kisses) how happy she is that I chelated her back between the ages of 2 and 3, rather than letting her continue to spiral downward without meaningful intervention, as the medical system seems to prefer.

There are so many trolls (people employed to naysay otherwise-convincing comments... or personas invented by people employed in this fashion) that I'm hesitant to post here, but if anyone wants to simply say I'm using 'junk science' or 'quackery', the fact remains that junk science and quackery saved my child. No amount of scoffing or ill-will by people who earn their living from employment in the science sector will change what happened.

I think this just about covers it.

Actually, the incidence of regressive autism increased greatly, in correlation with the introduction of the MMR, and also increased Thimerosal exposure. The rise in autism happened alongside the expanded vaccine schedule starting around the mid '80s. This is not just due to an improvement in diagnostic procedures (a ridiculous and insulting claim). For starters, if that were the case, how come we have such distinct age classes of autism? In other words, where are the 30+ year old regressive autistics?






I already did show earlier that autism has numerous key similarities to mercury poisoning in its pathology. I was merely dumbing down my argument in the hopes that my point could get through. The point being, that Thimerosal has never been shown to be safe, and in fact has been shown to be harmful. Thus casting doubt on the gospel-like faith in the medical authorities.

It's not as if epidemiological studies are worthless, but they are easy to manipulate, and the studies that are used to "disprove" an MMR/Thimerosal and regressive autism link are fundamentally flawed. (I have already discussed some examples of this, I could talk about it more, but that might be too "verbose" for you). Anyways, you can't conduct an epidemiological study without releasing a substance into the population--which is reckless, if you haven't shown that it's safe in a biological setting. It's the same thing as human experimentation.





Actually, the results have been replicated many times:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wakefield_c ... tions.html

Furthermore, the GMC board had numerous conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline, which were FAR more lucrative than anything involved with Wakefield's group.






Then why is it that *you* are dismissing the "anecdotal" evidence provided by EricaBandanna and hundreds of other real people whose experiences validate the results of Wakefield and company? This is pathological science at its finest.

Interesting,

1. How do you know your daughter had autism ? The symptoms you list include many which are not normally thought to be associated with autism. Also at the age of two when it is impossible to question a normal child how does anyone make a good diagnosis of autism. Currently there is no blood test, brain scan or other physical marker which a doctor can use.

The symptoms you list in a a typical young person would be like to cause most doctors to bundle the person rapidly into a neurological ward. I would expect that such symptoms would match a stroke, brain tumor or some other dire insult to the brain. Why was your daughter still at home with you ?

2. How do you know that the "medcine" made such a rapid difference, a "cure" in two days sounds to me like a "bibical cure". In a real heavy metal poisoning case I would expect a person to need more than two days to get better.

3. Why did you choose that drug, genuine expert doctors who deal with heavy metal poisoning have far better drugs for doing chelation treatment. I have done plenty of toxic metal chemistry, the drug you mention looks to me like a substance which could do more harm than good. As a responsible scientist I would like to point out that Z. Gregus et. al. in a paper (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1992, 114 (1): 88–96.) found showed that the drug decreased the rate of methyl mercury removal via the bile in rats. Also when I look at the drug molecule it does look like a possible solvent extraction agent which will make toxic metals move from the aqueous part of a person into the fatty parts of the body (such as the brain).

4. I would have thought that the blood brain barrier would have been working normally in a neonate, modern work on rabbits suggests that adult rabbits and new born rabbits have blood brain barriers which work just as well.

I would like to point out that anecdotal evidence is far weaker and is worth much less than epidemiological evidence. I could dig up anecdotal evidence to support almost anything, how about aliens are kidnapping children and turning them into fish fingers. This has been reported by a national newspaper in the UK. ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 12217.html ).

This isn't autism, and you should have taken her to an emergency room, not treated her with home remedies. It also seems like these symptoms developed well after the vaccination, which seems pretty unlikely if the vaccination caused them.



If you have no axe to grind, why are you trying to claim that people who dismiss heavy metal autism are "paid pharmaceutical trolls," which is to say, astroturfers? Isn't it remotely possible that people could disagree with you honestly, based on their own research?

The symptoms she listed included "had become unable to recognise people, had an extremely lopsided gait, couldn't use her left hand and spent all day and night screaming". Degradation of social interaction is a hallmark of autism, and I know of numerous severe cases of autism where children scream constantly. We are dealing with Autistic SPECTRUM disorders, after all. It also appears her daughter suffered mild paralysis on one side of her body, which can result from neurological damage (and is a well established vaccine adverse reaction). As Dr. Russell Blaylock points out, “Most neurological disorders, both acute and chronic, have a common set of pathological events despite their varying clinical presentations.”





Alpha lipoic acid is valuable because (uniquely) it is both fat-soluble and water-soluble, so it works in both the inner and outer cell environments. Your last statement, that it would "make toxic metals move from the aqueous part of a person into the fatty parts of the body (such as the brain)", is completely unsupported by the literature. Generally, though, alpha lipoic acid is administered with another chelating agent, such as DMSA or MSM, which help transport the toxins to the urine. For all your bravado, you appear to know very little of which you speak.

The Gregus study also found that "the biliary excretion of inorganic mercury...was dramatically enhanced (12- to 37-fold) by LA administration." This is significant because, according to Dr. Paul King's analysis of one study*, during the metabolic process the “harmless” ethylmercury compound, Thimerosal, is converted into the KNOWN (admitted) toxic methylmercury. And then, the harmful methylmercury is metabolized into long-term toxic inorganic mercury that is retained in bodily tissue. So even if you deny that Thimerosal itself is dangerous (though there is no good reason to do so), it still can convert into chemicals that are uncontroversially harmful.


*Rodriques JL, Serpeloni JM, Batista BL, Souza S, Barbosa Jr F. Identification and distribution of mercury species in rat tissues following administration of Thimerosal or methyl mercury. Arch Toxicol 2010; 84: 891-896. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20386881


(Note that the above study involved oral administration, so it is not strictly comparable to subcutaneous exposure as in vaccines; furthermore, it is a study in rats, who have substantial physiological and anatomical differences from humans including body weight, lifespan, and brain size/development)





Setting aside your totally irrelevant analogy, I would like to point out that the goal of medicine is SUPPOSED to be responding to the patient's needs, so when doctors are ignoring what a patient is telling them because it appears to disagree with what is written on paper, or with what is politically correct, then we have a serious problem. That said, a single patient can be dismissed, but when numerous people report similar "anomalies" to established dogma, then the "responsible scientist" will take heed.

And don’t you find it the TINIEST bit strange that children can be developing normally, passing all their milestones, and then suddenly they start to regress, sometimes almost immediately after receipt of MMR or DPT, etc.? For a child to *regress* is VERY abnormal… even though we’ve become somewhat used to the idea, since it happens so often these days.

And we have re-challenge in many of these cases too—parents note regression after the first vaccine, but they either don’t immediately jump to conclusions, or else they are coerced to give boosters by overzealous health authorities, and they note further deterioration after the booster. These are very strong indications that the vaccine is causally related. These parents aren’t stupid, or hysterical, or any of the other condescending labels given to them by people who have a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss their testimony.

[I wrote those same two paragraphs earlier, I wonder if any of you even noticed]

Keep in mind, too, that the majority of these regressive autism diagnoses were confirmed by a qualified professional. For example, Hannah Poling was diagnosed with full-blown DSM-IV autism, but the government only conceded that she had "autism-like symptoms" triggered by receiving nine vaccines at once. In fact, you can't bring a vaccine-injury case before court if you claim the injury is "autism". This shows how utterly biased and corrupted even the courts are.

Last edited by bitterbonker on 12 Feb 2012, 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

And it is this world-wide, discipline-wide conspiracy against Quackery that made you so bitter?

Actually, it's mostly how you keep making ad hominem attacks, instead of addressing my points with evidence and reason.

'Protect the "system" at all costs. The "system" is the only ultimate sacred cow--not any particular law or constitution, but only "the system." Because, ultimately, it is the system which makes certain that the individuals functioning within it--from judges to lawyers, to prosecutors, to politicians, to businessmen--have their places and positions, and opportunities and pecking order, and future.

'And, though it is unfortunate, that on occasion the protection of the "system" requires the deliberate sacrifice of perfectly innocent people, that is hoped overall to be the exception rather than the rule. But without the "system" ... '

-John DeCamp, "The Franklin Coverup"

Assuming that you understand what "ad hominem" means, I think that you would be very hard-pressed to find any ad hominem attacks in any of my posts, unless you really believe that the General Medical Council's judgement is also a part of this worldwide (and now ad hominem) conspiracy against Quackery.

See? I even gave it a respectful Capital.

Very cute. I suppose this is all I could expect. In the words of Dave Chappelle, "The worst thing to call somebody is crazy. It's dismissive. I don't understand this person, so they're crazy. That's BS."

If you want to use the word "conspiracy" as an epithet, to denounce me as a tin-foil-hat wearing "quack" because you can't debate with me head-on, there's nothing I can do to help you. Quack, quack, quack. You sound like a duck, and I don't talk science with waterfowl. However, this is about more than science, but politics and economics as well.

I assume you're not so naive, that you don't understand the influence of money on the way the world works. If you take two people accused of the same crime, one rich, one poor, who's more likely to walk away? So tell me that this doesn't apply here too. In the one corner we have the multi-, multi-billion dollar vaccine/pharmaceutical industry telling us that it's appropriate to inject mercury and other poisons into the bloodstream of infants, and that the people who are reporting adverse effects are just imagining things. In the other corner, we have... the multi-billion dollar anti-vaccine industry??? What's wrong with this picture?

Consider:

- Sir Crispin Davis became a non-executive director of MMR manufacturer Glaxo SmithKline (one of three defendant drug companies) in July 2003. He was simultaneously an executive board member of Elsevier, publishers of the Lancet which removed Wakefield’s 1998 paper. The High Court judge who denied parents whose children were treated by Wakefield was Sir Nigel Davis, brother to Lancet proprietor/GSK director Sir Crispin Davis.

- Dr. Surendra Kumar, the Chairman of the GMC Fitness to Practice Panel who ruled against Dr Andrew Wakefield, would not answer questions about his shareholdings in GlaxoSmithKline. As Martin Walker points out, "Not only is it the case that anyone adjudicating in the Wakefield fitness to practice hearing has the power to raise or lower the price of the shares, there is inevitably a question that has to be answered about the individuals commitment to that company and how they came by these shares; it is well known that shares are GSK's considered method of payment for work done for the company."

- Prof. Denis McDevitt attended meetings that discussed warnings from other countries about an early form of the triple jab, using the Urabe strain of mumps virus, which caused encephalitis and meningitis. (see: http://www.stanford.edu/~siegelr/mathakia.html ) Despite warnings and the fact that this vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, the Urabe-containing jab was introduced in the UK in 1988. Some of the 12 children whose medical history featured in the controversial 1998 Lancet paper, drawn up by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues and which suggested a possible link between the jab and bowel disease and regressive autism, had received the Urabe-strain vaccine - as indeed had some of those children in the high court litigation with manufacturers.

- The person who commissioned Brian Deer, the Sunday Times reporter who popularized the charges against Wakefield et al., was Paul Nuki--son of Professor George Nuki. George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories' Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval. Sitting on the CSM with Professor George Nuki was Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Sir David Hull. It was David Hull in 1998 who, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, started the attacks on Wakefield's work.

- Professor Sir Michael L. Rutter, one of the expert witnesses for Glaxo in the MMR litigation, failed to disclose in at least four papers published between 2005 and 2009 that he had a crucial conflicting financial interest as a highly paid expert witness for the vaccine industry (and for the U.S. Government that defends industry in Vaccine Court) in at least three major litigation projects, U.S. litigation concerning mercury (thimerosal) as a cause of autism, the U.K. MMR litigation, and the U.S. Omnibus Autism Proceeding (concerning both MMR and thimerosal as causes of autism). Professor Rutter’s non-disclosure of a conflicting financial interest is precisely the same as that alleged against Dr. Wakefield (involvement in MMR litigation), but far more extensive. Rutter is also a former (recent) Deputy Chairman of the immensely wealthy Wellcome Trust (founded by the Wellcome Foundation which is now Glaxo). See http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/grou ... 002987.pdf , page 2. The Wellcome Trust has assets of over £14 billion, and hands out millions every year and can dictate a great deal of what research is carried out around the world.

-----

So there are SOME of the conflicts of interest on the GMC panel working against Wakefield et al. Dr. Wakefield was only serving as an expert witness to over a thousand families who had a case for vaccine injury. He created a legitimacy crisis for the UK government, and he threatened the bottom line of some of the biggest corporations in the world. As a result, he was crucified. I've seen this happen to countless whistleblowers in all disciplines; this is a textbook case.

Really, the vast majority of the people who are against Wakefield are not part of a "conspiracy" to deliberately cover this up; they have just been duped by this massive smear campaign, like you. The fact that you can't listen to real people who are expressing actual dangers of these vaccines shows how far modern medicine has strayed from its goals. Hippocrates said, "First do no harm". You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves if you're going to write these victims off so casually. It disgusts me.

By the way, here is more of the clinical confirmation of Wakefield, Murch, and Walker-Smith's findings: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... rview.aspx (list of clinical confirmations lower on the page)

Last edited by bitterbonker on 13 Feb 2012, 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was working in the same hospital as Andrew Wakefield when he was preparing his first autism paper, and formed my views on his character long ago, so please add me to your list of totally untrustworthy, conflicted individuals.

I also have no interest in yet another tedious interview with an ex-doctor who has been erased from the medical register - I too have better things to do with my time, such as anticipating your next essay on this subject.

Mercola promotes quackery, so you already know what to expect from the interview.

It's strange how Wakefield's and his supporters' conflicts of interest are irrelevant, but any conflict of interest - no matter how minor - automatically disqualifies opinions or decisions against Wakefield's work.