Whistleblower Contact’s Attorney: Andrew Wakefield “Hijacked The Story”

In a videotaped lecture given to the group “Moms in Charge,” de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield defended his outing of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whistleblower scientist William Thompson. While silently backing off from the previously dispelled claim that the disclosure was with Thompson’s permission, Wakefield suggested the outing was in cooperation with Thompson’s first point of contact outside the CDC: autism scientist and parent Dr. Brian Hooker. But like Wakefield’s earlier claim, his claim that his outing of Thompson was in cooperation with Hooker is in stark contrast to what really happened according to correspondence with an attorney he had been working closely with.

The below August 22nd-dated email sent to Brian Hooker by Attorney Robert Reeves – who has represented Hooker during his FOIA litigation against CDC and who also sits on the Focus for Health Foundation board with him – tells a story radically different from Wakefield’s. In particular, Reeves reveals that he and Hooker were trying to bring major media coverage for the whistleblower story when it was “hijacked” by Wakefield in contradiction to what he led Hooker to believe in previous discussions:


Hoping to talk to you about the Andy Wakefield situation – Andy revealing WB’s name on Robert Scott Bell radio. If this happens it  is about as nonstrategic as you can get.  It may kill the major media’s willingness to report this.  Don’t forget they are all owned by Phama-vaccine.

The last we need is for this to be a story to the autism community which is what Andy is doing.  Andy said on our conference call Saturday that this was your story and he did not want to appear on any shows with you.  He is doing the exact opposite.  He has hijacked the story that you and Focus Autism have worked so hard to get out.

I am sure Barry will call Andy re this is you ask him.

You have to stop him again.  As I told you late last night I will be the bad guy if need be.  You may need to go on CNN or Fox if they are interested and tell your story about the WB and hopefully not have to reveal his name.  It is already out on some Facebook pages.

We need to reveal other things WB has said re things like the flu shot for pregnancy and the false Price paper.  Have you talked to Morgan Spurlock at CNN?

I am tired of setting here stewing since 7 am, so I am going to exercise, probably play tennis.  Will have my cell phone in my pocket, but if running may not hear or feel it, so you may have to call multiple times.


Unbeknownst to Reeves at the time, Thompson was already outed in a video hosted by Wakefield and further publicized by the Age of Autism blog less than an hour before Reeves’ email to Hooker. What followed days later was the sudden deletion and eventual retraction of his study that confirmed the same results linking early measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccination timing with autism that Thompson and colleagues found but omitted from publication a decade earlier. The whistleblower and the cover-up were no longer the prevailing story in major media coverage, Wakefield’s hijacking and the retraction of Hooker’s paper that soon followed were the new hot-topics instead. Rather than denouncing Wakefield for what he had done, Hooker rewarded Wakefield for betraying Thompson by cosigning a complaint with Wakefield that was sent to the CDC.

Since then, Wakefield’s hijacking has been used to push vaccine exemption-eliminating legislation. And despite Wakefield claiming in his talk that “things are going well,” no visible progress towards Thompson testifying before Congress has actually been made even though nine months have passed since his statement confirming his research misconduct allegations against CDC.

Wakefield’s solution to getting the story out is a documentary he started making and raising money for shortly after Thompson’s outing, which Wakefield promoted and continued to raise money for at his talk. In doing so, attendees of his talk were charged at a rate of $60-per-plate according to the Orange County Register. Previously, he led a two-month campaign to raise up to $230,000 for his documentary. Approximately 1% of that target sum was all that was raised by just 55 people.

Wakefield denied the documentary was financially motivated, but did not reveal the substantial amount of money he pockets from being president of the Strategic Autism Initiative that is reliant on contributions from the same community to which virtually all of his audience members belong. Keeping center stage to that community is what helps drive his financial success.

But perhaps Andrew Wakefield’s strongest motive for hijacking the whistleblower story comes from the misguided and egotistical notion that doing so will hasten his own historical absolving. Instead, it will be postponed because of what he has done.

See on The Epoch Times.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

47 Thoughts on “Whistleblower Contact’s Attorney: Andrew Wakefield “Hijacked The Story”

  1. Hans Litten on May 27, 2015 at 7:18 am said:

    Yes we have had a backlash against us because of the William Thompson story . No doubt .
    But its possibly all for the best in the long run Jake . I reached out to the media trying to get their attention ,they were never ever going to cover that story (the media is sewn up and bought out).
    This is going to take street protest , and civil disobedience . I see a unity amongst us , the vaccine resistance , that I havent witnessed previously . Yes we are riddled with informers, interlopers & betrayers but these guys must be concerned too , where is their exemptions from forced vaccination ?

    Here are the choices now as I see them :

    1. Accept the chemical lobotomy of your children by the state eg. sb277 and the murder of your parents & your unborns by the Hg-Flu vaccine policy .
    2. Or come out fighting hard , like you have never fought before . Break the law , resist the criminals .

    In my opinion sb277 is the blueprint for the International plan the CDC Bildebergs have for us all .

    • The long run is exactly what I’m worried about, Hans. I fear we have yet to bear the brunt of the consequences resulting from Wakefield’s actions.

    • Jennifer on May 28, 2015 at 2:14 pm said:

      I agree, and I am absolutely ready to come out and fight. There is not a world in which I will vaccinate my children any further (oldest is fully vaxed on delayed schedule, middle one vax with a bad reaction and autism diagnosis, youngest vax free). I personally do not think the WB and Dr Wakefield are a big problem/focus because regardless of what goes on there one thing remains the same…right now it’s about fighting the criminals that actually control this country (pharma and corps) and who are removing our freedoms.

  2. Eddie Unwind on May 27, 2015 at 7:22 am said:

    Couldn’t resist writing once more as this is such a pivotal topic – you are obviously much more informed about this than anyone in my shoes could possibly be, but I wonder if Wakefield doesn’t have much confidence in the idea of Thompson speaking before congress? For example, David Gorsky (and one would assume, others) might just have set the wheels in motion by suggesting that Thompson seems ‘fragile’, which is of course a small step from inferring he is ‘unhinged’, ‘unstable’, ‘unfit’ etc etc. As you well know, the brutal Richard Pan has already labelled him ‘another Wakefield’.

    So much – for now, virtually everything in fact – would depend (hypothetically) on Thompson getting it right in court. My thinking is that Wakefield, a real British bulldog, is at least partially concerned that he would lose his composure and consequently, appearing inept, will set things back further than they ever should have been. No doubt Wakefield has his own agenda, just as you say. But I equally doubt he’d be in a mood to take any such chances.

    Put simply, the Thompson-before-congress notion (and what on earth has been taking place over the past eight months while he’s still working at the CDC?), although theoretically offering the most ideal type of victory, might seem (for now, given the menacing degree of defensiveness and readiness on behalf of the vaccine-sponsors) fraught with danger and unknown repercussions.

    • No, Wakefield says himself in the video that he hopes to get this before Congress. The implication that Thompson is “fragile” is nonsense and is used by those trying to discredit him.

  3. Rebecca Fisher on May 27, 2015 at 7:35 am said:


    According to Anne Dachel at Age of Autism, during that talk Wakefield said:

    “Last summer, Dr. William Thompson, senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and someone working on the national immunization program came forward after 13 years and said, ‘We have known for 13 years, MMR vaccine causes autism and we have concealed that fact.’

    “He not only said it, he gave us all of the documents–all of the original emails, transcripts, data outputs, databases, draft papers, original analysis plans, exchanges with his colleagues where he had tried repeatedly to bring this to their attention. Right to the very top of the CDC. Right to Julie Gerberding, who was director of the CDC before she left to join Merck as their director of immunizations.

    Do you know, does this documentation exist, Wakefield actually have any of this documentation, have you seen it (through your contact with Brian Hooker), and if so, when is it going to be released?

    Kind regards,


  4. Eddie Unwind on May 27, 2015 at 8:01 pm said:

    I know that much, Jake, and had watched the video. I don’t doubt at all that Thompson is perfectly compos mentis – and that it’s a ploy on behalf of the vaccine-lobbyists to paint him as the opposite (what I wrote previously is clear on this). Sure, Wakefield wants it to go to congress, but when, exactly? Perhaps after he gets his documentary out? I’d imagine that the timing is for him of paramount importance. He is a stage-setter. It is surely very difficult to know precisely what is going on behind the scenes at this point, and I think that Wakefield is doing his utmost to remain unpredictable. That is the underdog’s only strategy. When the powerful see what is coming they will always have all the answers.

  5. Eddie Unwind on May 27, 2015 at 8:52 pm said:

    Put simply, are you absolutely certain with regard to Thompson’s contingent that there isn’t a ‘smokescreen’ element involved?

  6. Eddie Unwind on May 27, 2015 at 11:04 pm said:

    My last point was poorly paraphrased. I’ll try again. Perhaps two possibilities:

    Wakefield may have his personal doubts about Thompson, or no? If yes, it would make sense that his actions may not always accord with any overall strategy devised by Thompson’s attorneys. And yet at the same time Wakefield would not wish to upset relations too greatly, and so his remarks are contradictory.


    Thompson’s attorneys, Wakefield and Hooker, are attempting to out-manoeuvre the vaccine-lobbyists by appearing to be in conflict with each-other, so as to get them to ‘relax’. This may sound far-fetched, but it’s a fairly typical strategy in the circumstances.

    Point being, how can one really tell for certain at this stage? And somehow I doubt, bruised though he may be, that one of Wakefield’s temperament is really a megalomaniac. That’s cartoon-type thinking – he doesn’t seem insane to me. A man of his capacity for deliberation is surely not so one-dimensional, albeit that he no doubt wants to see Deer to the inferno.

    • Wakefield is making an entire documentary out of the whistleblower, which is totally inconsistent with having “doubts” about him.

      The second scenario is the opposite of what’s true. Wakefield and Hooker are pretending to be working together when Wakefield hijacked the story and undermined Hooker’s work, as his email from attorney Reeves shows.

      As I’ve said, I think Wakefield is misguided and egotistical, but I never said he is insane.

  7. Eddie Unwind on May 28, 2015 at 5:06 am said:

    Ok, good enough. Difficult scenario to follow any which way, but ok!

    • Jennifer on May 28, 2015 at 2:31 pm said:

      I am thinking more along the lines of your logic, but time will tell. Truly, no one knows the behind the scenes truth, including Mr. Crosby. It seems there may also be something personal/biased going on there (just an assumption, no idea if that’s true). I hope time will prove Mr. Crosby wrong in his thinking and this all pans out well, but as I said earlier IMO this is small fries compared to the big picture. I know many would disagree and see this as related/relevant to the big picture, but forced vax was going to happen regardless.

  8. Hans Litten on May 28, 2015 at 7:24 am said:

    Whats up Rebecca – you seem to have softened ? Are you worried about forced vaccination (because its coming to Bath & everywhere else – Measles is a rampant killer – havent you seen them dying in the streets)?
    You dont have your Rockefeller exemption ? no ?

  9. Eddie Unwind on May 28, 2015 at 10:04 pm said:

    But you know Jake, if you’re right, it would be a typical result of this whole Wakefield-support thing being based upon false pretenses.

    – The anti-vaccine movement have found it most useful to utilise Wakefield – given his expertise and manner of conviction – for their own purposes.

    – Yet Wakefield is not really anti-vaccine himself, a fact which the AV’s ought to keep an eye on, especially as it is one Wakefield has inferred many times by stating his case for a single measles vaccine.

    – And Wakefield has found it most useful to be provided a podium by the anti-vaccine movement. At the same time, given his aforementioned convictions, he probably harbors a degree of contempt for their overall viewpoint.

    The AV movement and Wakefield are therefore simply using each-other for their own purposes, turning a blind eye to what are likely irreconcilable differences. And since Wakefield would be aware of the trade-off, he’s unlikely to have much of a conscience about ‘misleading’ the AV’s. Moreover, given the frequency with which he’s stated his case for a single measles vaccine, I doubt he’d feel he’s misleading them at all.

    In the end, a relationship based upon such incompatible fundamentals cannot work.

    • A lot of Wakefield’s supporters are not necessarily “anti-vaccine,” and I’m sure he doesn’t see them that way either. He obviously just convinced himself that what he’s done is right, which is how he justifies misleading his supporters.

  10. Eddie Unwind on May 30, 2015 at 10:21 pm said:

    Of course, Jake, my ‘AV’ is a simplification. To be sure, I think that the whole issue of ‘anti’ and ‘pro’ needs to be redefined as in many cases the conflict lies at a deeper level. For instance, there are those who are disillusioned about the arrogant attitude adopted by those who regard themselves as ‘progressive’. Perhaps the most offensive (and ultimately, misguided) aspect to the vaccine-lobbyist manner of argument is the notion that you cannot ‘act’ without being appropriately ‘informed’.

    This stance has, of course, a great many predecessors in Western culture, such as Bertrand Russell, who wrote that his enjoyment of eating an apricot is heightened by his knowledge of its terminology (i.e. ‘pre’ meaning ‘to ripen early etc). Or Richard Feynman, who wrote that those who don’t understand mathematics cannot properly appreciate the workings of nature. Or Richard Dawkins, who in his otherwise best book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ wrote that having faith was akin to a disease.

    Of course Russell and Feynman were very brilliant people (I have my doubts about Dawkins, to say the least), but all of these statements are inherently hostile on an intellectual level, serving to ‘sort out’ the informed from the ignoramus. When exercised as public policy – isolating the inferior population – it almost invariably translates into eugenics. Note also (as I’m sure you do) that all three people were the most vociferous of atheists.

    To my way of thinking such elements – entailing the right to appreciate something without knowledge (and a singular form of it at that) of its properties, and the right to sustain a belief, or have good faith (often when it’s merely circumstantial; Dawkins doesn’t differentiate) even without ‘evidence’ – are examples of what, for many, lies at the heart of this vaccine-debate.

  11. Eddie Unwind on May 30, 2015 at 11:11 pm said:

    PS: Naturally the previous assertion may be easily misunderstood, since the choice of vaccinating (or in moderation, or not at all), is not for any reasonable person a decision made based upon belief or faith. My point is that at core the issue is very complex (i.e. inextricably linked to different perceptions of Western values), and that the disillusionment felt by many people pertaining to the repeated failures in Western ‘advancement’ will invariably – as an outlet for such frustration – reach a culmination point in these sorts of debates.

    • Wakefield does not subscribe to that school of thought, especially since he regularly tells his followers to “trust your instinct.” He definitely has an over-inflated view of himself though.

  12. Eddie Unwind on May 31, 2015 at 9:38 am said:

    So would I if I had ‘evidence’ – and boy does he have a lot of it – that the entire world was against me! It almost got biblical for heaven’s sake, like poor Job. It’s actually quite impressive that he didn’t go insane, well, not yet anyhow.

  13. Barry on June 1, 2015 at 2:27 am said:

    You cant “out” a whistle-blower…. they either blow their whistle, or they don’t.

    In this weird instance, some CDC scientist supposedly decided to ” become a whistle-blower”, and reveal that data was concealed by the CDC linking the MMR vaccine to autism.

    But that decision was made almost a year ago… and we’re STILL waiting for a major media network to bring this story to the public!!

    No offense Jake, but while continue your vendetta against Andrew Wakefield … the real story is passing you by.

    • Well Wakefield clearly acknowledged on video that he did out the whistleblower, so you are wrong.

      We’re stilling waiting for a major media network to go cover this story precisely because of what Bob Reeves correctly predicted would happen as a result of what Wakefield did. Did Reeves have a vendetta against him, too?

      No offense Barry, but I think you should speak for yourself. It doesn’t seem like you’ve even watched Wakefield’s video or read Reeves’ email.

  14. Eddie Unwind on June 1, 2015 at 4:27 am said:

    Jake, I’ve been meaning to ask, perhaps I’m meant to know, but who is the fellow in the photograph? Is it Reeves? Thompson? The only photo of the latter I know of is one whereupon he looks about as distinguishable as a yeti. I’m guessing it’s Reeves…

  15. Hans Litten on June 4, 2015 at 9:40 am said:

    I can dream , cant I ? hopefully some of you are amused by this :

    CDC scandal: Tom Frieden given ovation by staff
    3 June 2015From the section America
    Tom Frieden was close to tears as he urged the staff to “stay strong”
    CDC president Tom Frieden has been given a 10-minute standing ovation by some 400 staff as he returned to its Atlanta headquarters a day after announcing he was to step down.
    Reportedly close to tears, he urged his “fantastic team” to “stay strong”.
    Mr Freiden stood down just days after he was re-elected, amid a corruption scandal engulfing world vaccination.
    Poul Thoresen has meanwhile denied rcving a $2m bribe to secure the faking of a vaccine safety study.
    Mr Freiden reportedly addressed staff in the same hall in which he announced he was resigning a day earlier.
    He emphasised the reform work that CDC now needed to undertake.
    Dr Anne Schuchat , assistant surgeon general, told the BBC that reform of CDC’s executive committee was key and that members should undergo integrity checks.
    She said it was not right for the president to say he was unable to monitor all of the executive committee members all of the time.
    Mr Frieden had made those comments as he responded to the arrest in Atlanta last week of seven senior CDC members – including two vice-presidents – as they awaited the CDC congress, arrests that precipitated the latest crisis.
    They were detained as part of a US prosecution that has indicted 14 people on charges of fraud, racketeering and money laundering. The US justice department alleges they accepted bribes and kickbacks estimated at more than $150m (£97m) over a 24-year period.
    US officials quoted in the New York Times also said on Tuesday that Mr Frieden, 59, was under investigation as part of the inquiry. They said they hoped some of the CDC figures charged would help to build a case against him.
    Despite the arrests and the indictments last week, Mr Frieden was re-elected CDC president two days later.
    However on Tuesday, Mr Frieden said it appeared his mandate “does not seem to be supported by every parent in the world “.

    How CDC makes and spends its money
    He said he would continue in his post until an extraordinary congress was called to elect a new president. It is expected to take place between December 2015 and March 2016.
    One outgoing CDC vice-president, Julie Gerberding, told BBC Northern Ireland he did not think Mr Frieden would be found guilty of corruption but that the president should have dealt with “criminals” in his organisation earlier.
    A separate criminal investigation by US authorities into how the chemical themiserol is ever considered safe to be injected into human beings is also under way.
    Chief CDC scientist William Thompson said in an open letter on Wednesday that the science to prove vaccine safety and efficacy was “not clean” and that he had shared what he knew with the authorities.
    Interpol has issued a wanted persons alert for two hundred former CDC officials, including Mercks head of vaccines division Julie Gerberding, as well as four corporate executives. All six were on the list of US indictments last week.
    ‘World policemen’
    South African Health Minister Fikile Mbalula has meanwhile launched a passionate defence of the country’s integrity over its vaccination schedule.

    *******Given up the spoof at this point / & allowing the original article to continue :

    US officials allege South Africa paid a $10m bribe in exchange for support for its 2010 bid from Mr Warner and several other members of the North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf).
    Mr Mbalula denied South Africa had paid a bribe, saying the money in question was above board and went towards an approved programme to support football among the African diaspora in the Caribbean.
    Mr Mbalula railed against those who sought to be “world policemen”, adding “we believe in multilateralism not unilateralism”.
    He added: “It is for the British and the Americans to fight their battles and… we’ll never be part of the vested interests. We have fought colonialism and defeated it and we still fight imperialism and we will fight it whenever it manifests itself.”

    Analysis: Richard Conway, BBC Sport, Zurich
    Sepp Blatter’s key advisers cut dejected figures last night as their boss announced he was stepping aside.
    The air of despondency in Zurich contrasts sharply with that in the rest of Europe. English Football Association chairman Greg Dyke and others who have pushed for reform rejoiced at the news that the man who has controlled Fifa with an iron grip since 1998 was finally going.
    The question now turns to who will replace Sepp Blatter. What sort of Fifa will the winner inherit if the promised radical reforms take place? What next for the World Cup hosts Russia and Qatar?
    Unless the electoral process changes dramatically, Asian and African countries will once again be the power brokers.
    Given anti-European sentiments amongst many nations in those continents, the winner will need to be acceptable to all sides.
    With Prince Ali of Jordan backed by Uefa, could he now return and claim the Fifa crown he was denied by Sepp Blatter last Friday?

  16. Amused? Or disgusted that more isn’t done to ensure children’s safety? I am disgusted by them all.

  17. Hans Litten on June 15, 2015 at 9:35 am said:

    Now is the time to be busy Jake ?

  18. Hans Litten on June 21, 2015 at 8:35 am said:

    The guilty parties in the uk (vaccine injury deniers) :

    •Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
    •Professor Judith Breuer (University College Hospital)
    •Dr Peter Elton (Greater Manchester, Lancashire, South Cumbria Strategic Clinical Network)
    •Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
    •Mr Chris Liffen (lay member)
    •Ms Anne McGowan (National Public Health Service for Wales)
    •Dr Andrew Riordan (Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation)
    •Professor Claire-Anne Siegrist (Geneva University Hospital)
    •Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
    •Dr Peter Baxter (Sheffield Childrens NHS Foundation Trust)
    •Alison Lawrence (lay member)
    •Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
    •Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
    •Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
    •Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)

    They have just rolled the aluminium containing meningitis B vaccine . Efficacy not declared on the BBC .
    Vaccine planned for many millions of unsuspecting families & children .
    BBC not all shy about showing sad pictures of children with missing limbs (why wont they show the pictures of before and after vaccination ? )
    Children adversely affected by meningitis B annually ? 4 , guess-estimate ?
    Meanwhile the Autism Pandemic continues without question .

  19. Hans Litten on June 21, 2015 at 9:01 am said:

    Dan Olmsted – its time for you to move on – you do not belong in this fight .
    Why bring up homophobia ? its just not relevant to the parents (but you aren’t a parent are you ?)
    What is the reason you have involved yourself in the “Autism by vaccine” crusade ?

    Move along Dan Olmsted ! You don’t belong in this . You have been weak and half hearted in our precious TV interviews . You have diluted the message at every turn .

  20. Hans Litten on June 23, 2015 at 1:22 pm said:

    The aussies fighting back – at last – come on Australia (Murdoch is part of this criminality)


  21. Anita Donnelly on June 26, 2015 at 5:41 am said:

    FOLKS! This is divide and conquer!
    Andrew Wakefield has given his entire life for autism, and he has faced scorn, derision, etc. To BLAME him and use him as an excuse for the mainstream media to not pick up this story–is crazy. It’s just crazy. Either what Andrew W said was the truth, or it wasn’t. What the Whistleblower says was the truth, or it wasn’t. The truth is the truth, and AW deserves to have broken this whatever way he wanted.
    The mainstream media campaign still would have worked, they simply would have ignored Andrew Wakefield like they always do. Do not abandon our friends. Do not let people divide us. We are all in this together. AW’s work saved my son from 5 straight years of painful bowel issues. I refuse to hang him out to dry because he’s not in the “cool” group. No. We all stick together, we all hang together. DO NOT LET any of us be scapegoated. DO not fall for it. IT’s a tactic. Eitehr they were going to main stream media, or they weren’t. Either media would cover this, or it wouldn’t. AW involvement is just an excuse not to cover it. They would have found another. Do NOT let them divide us! Thanks!

    • Other than Wakefield, the media would be hard-pressed to find an excuse not to report on a senior federal scientist who authored some of the very research cited to refute a vaccine-autism connection coming out and saying research that “debunked” it was fraud.

    • chemfreemom on July 3, 2015 at 12:32 pm said:

      I agree with you Anita. There are so few of us willing to speak out on this issue (relatively speaking), and even fewer with credentials, that I think it would be a horrible mistake to start attacking each other. If the pro-vaccine, anti-choice side sees an opportunity to divide and conquer, they will pounce on it.

      This is surprisingly, maybe, the first time I’ve heard Andrew Wakefield attacked by OUR side, so maybe I’m not fully informed, but from what I’m gathering, in his zeal to prove what he’s been saying all along (and understandably, in a desire to defend his horribly slaughtered reputation too), he told people there was a whistleblower and what the whistleblower said. If I were him, I think I’d be chomping at the bit to get this info out too! If it did have negative consequences (and I’m not sure his action did per se), I’m quite sure it was not intentional on his part. Wakefield has every reason to want this whistleblower story to advance the argument against vaccines, even if he is not opposed to vaccines outright (and I’m not sure he is–I think some credentialed people who are personally against vaccines make sure to preface any questioning of vaccines with “I am pro vaccine, but…” for two reasons; to protect their reputation, and to lend credibility to their message in the eyes of the current prevailing powers that be)–that does not mean his questioning of any component of any vaccine is not helpful to the cause. I see how attaching Wakefield’s name to the whistleblowers story could weaken it in the eyes of the uninformed, but I don’t think the blame for that belongs to Wakefield. The blame is on those with a vested interest in attacking anything and anyone who questions vaccines. Perhaps, the story would have gotten more coverage if Wakefield didn’t talk about it, but I doubt it. But even if it would have; the most important thing to remember is that, like it or not, the vast majority of people credit the whole entire anti-vaccine movement to Andrew Wakefield (and/or Jenny McCarthy), so attacking either one of them is the equivalent of attacking ourselves in the eyes of most people. If we have any chance of beating this, it will only be by sticking together.

      • “like it or not, the vast majority of people credit the whole entire anti-vaccine movement to Andrew Wakefield” – Now that he has hijacked the story as Bob Reeves said, they do.

        • chemfreemom on July 18, 2015 at 4:57 am said:

          Jake, I’ve been discussing, and even arguing, with people for years and I can’t tell you how many people truly believe the entire anti-vaccine movement is due to “one fraudulent study by Andrew Wakefield.”. And, many media reports about disease outbreaks, where they blame those who don’t vaccinate, also attribute their decision to Wakefield’s study. This was happening before he “outed” Thompson. Wakefield is the person most credited with the anti-vaccine movement and has been since he was originally attacked. It will harm our common cause to attack him. Besides, no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. This man has been a huge champion of autistic children, and put his career and reputation on the line to let people know he believes there’s a link between MMR and autism. He’s been put through absolute hell by the pro-vaccine side because of it. Can’t you cut him some slack? Thompson’s complicity in the cover up for years has allowed many more children to be injured, and you don’t appear to have the same vitriol for him as you do for Wakefield. I don’t get it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation