Author Archives: Jake Crosby

Lilly Exec’s HHS Nomination Leaves Autism Problem to POTUS

Before the election, Donald Trump said of the problem that is the autism epidemic: “I’ll fix it.” He will fix it, not a surrogate.

That is all the more important to remember now that President Trump has just nominated former Lilly president Alex Azar to run HHS. Now more than ever, Trump must be held accountable for his promise.

From FiercePharma:

Ex-Eli Lilly executive Azar wins Trump’s nomination for top HHS post

by Eric Sagonowsky

President Donald Trump has picked a pharma insider to oversee the HHS. Just days after news that Trump was set to select ex-Eli Lilly executive Alex Azar for the U.S. government’s top healthcare post, he tweeted the nomination Monday morning.

Trump picked Azar for the HHS chief position above other candidates such as Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services director Seema Verma and FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, according to press reports on the selection process. Azar, who has served as an HHS deputy secretary during the George W. Bush administration and as Eli Lilly’s U.S. president, will be tasked with advancing the president’s repeal and replace push for the Affordable Care Act and ostensibly with tackling high pharmaceutical prices, an issue Trump campaigned on and has touched on during his time in the White House. But so far, critics contend the Trump Administration’s actions and proposals have only favored the industry. 


RELATED: Trump poised to nominate ex-Lilly executive Alex Azar for top HHS job: report

Trump famously said pharma is “getting away with murder,” and previously crossed party lines to endorse Medicare price negotiations. Still, drug pricing talk hasn’t gotten serious in Congress and four Congressmen wrote to the president last month to say his “inaction” on their Medicare negotiation proposal has left them with no option other than to press ahead alone.

Cowen analyst Eric Assaraf, for his part, wrote in a note seen by Business Insider that even though “Trump specifically called out lowering drug prices in his announcement of Azar, we don’t believe his appointment will mark a change in course in that realm.” After leaving Lilly as part of an executive shakeup earlier this year, Azar formed a consultancy as he explored “new leadership opportunities,” according to an online speaker profile.

Reacting to Azar’s selection, Senate Finance Committee ranking member Sen. Ron Wyden said the president “at every turn … has broken his promises to American families to lower health care costs, expand access and bring down the high price of prescription drugs.” Sen. Wyden said he’ll ask Azar to take “take decisive, meaningful action to curtail the runaway train of prescription drug costs.”

It isn’t the first time President Trump has selected an industry insider for a top government job. The president earlier this year tapped Scott Gottlieb—who was pharma’s top pick by a wide margin—for the crucial FDA commissioner post. During his time at the agency, Gottlieb has won praise for his moves to increase competition and provide relief on pricing, as well as to speed the FDA’s approval process.

Gottlieb’s name was one floated for the HHS chief position after former secretary Tom Price resigned in September, but the FDA commissioner said in a Reuters interview he felt he is “most effective” at the drug agency.

Azar’s nomination is sure to encounter more pushback. On earlier reports that the ex-Lilly executive was under consideration, Public Citizen founder Robert Weissman said if Azar wins the nod, “then Big Pharma’s coup d’etat in the healthcare sphere will be virtually complete.”

Azar has argued against drug price controls in the past, Weissman said at the time, making it “highly unlikely” he would “advance real reform” on the issue.

Anti-Vaxxers Are Right, “Vaccine Safety Advocates” Are A Farce

Yes, Autism Investigated said it. To say you are not anti-vaccine, but a “vaccine safety advocate” is to make yourself into a big farce. No offense to the people who identify with that term, but it’s true.

But before you attack Autism Investigated for the headline, ask yourself: what is a safe vaccine? What does one look like? What’s in it, and how would it be implemented?

The truth is you cannot answer those questions because the people behind vaccines refuse to answer themselves. They are the ones obligated to answer those questions truthfully, that they will not is not our problem. So why keep begging them too?

Over the years, nearly every major “vaccine safety” initiative has fallen flat. Hannah Poling is ancient history. Jenny McCarthy faded out of public view. And Andrew Wakefield “the fraud” is the so-called scandal.

One of the most self-destructive arguments against vaccines over the last 10 years has been “only MMR and thimerosal was studied.” It is saying that they were already ruled out, when in fact they were lied about being safe just like the rest of the vaccine schedule. It is a talking point championed by Generation Rescue founder JB Handley and rehashed most recently in his Highwire with Del Bigtree interview.

Autism Investigated has requested to go onto Del Bigtree’s show – not to attack JB or anyone else – but to argue why anti-vaccination is the right position. Not only is it right because vaccinations are dangerous and the outcomes of vaccination are horrific, but because the people behind vaccination are totally corrupt.

We can talk about the “safe vaccines” all we want. We can talk about how we want the miracle potion of the “safe vaccine,” but it doesn’t exist. We all know it, but we all don’t want to say it.

It is the life’s work of Autism Investigated’s editor to dismantle the vaccine program in its entirety. Its creation was a disastrous mistake. It must be opposed and so too should vaccines in their present and only conceivable form. That is why Autism Investigated is anti-vaccine, and that is why you should be too.

Autism Investigated Wishes Senator Rand Paul A Speedy Recovery

Senator Rand Paul – doctor, vaccine choice advocate, and Autism Investigated’s pre-Trump favorite for president – has been brutally assaulted by a Democrat. The Democrats are of course those wonderful folks who have stripped vaccine exemption laws in two states and counting. The same people whose views are antithetical to liberty don’t have much respect for different opinions, what a surprise! Yet Paul’s attacker is claiming the attack was not political. Yeah, sure…

Poor Senator Paul can’t get a break from political violence. Just earlier this year, he narrowly managed to avoid being shot by a crazed Bernie supporter who opened fire on a baseball game of Republican congressmen.

Though Autism Investigated never endorsed Rand Paul, we can all respect him for speaking out in favor of vaccine choice. Democrat and most Republican presidential candidates were towing the party line. So please watch the below segment in his honor.

Autism Investigated does not agree with Paul on the merits of vaccines, but is grateful to him for standing up to vaccine mandates. May Dr. Rand Paul have a speedy recovery so he can get back to defending our liberty on the Senate floor. We need our rights protected now more than ever.

 

CureGear Goes Full Crybaby Gear, Bans Autism Investigated

Yes, it has happened. Autism Investigated was banned from the Facebook page of CureGear for turning CureGear’s troll attempt against itself. CureGear obviously went into CryBaby gear after seeing:

CureGear’s “Vaccines Cause Adults” campaign drew the notable support of both fake news and Chelsea Clinton. But as with the vaccine lobby’s previous troll attempts, Autism Investigated shot back with some trolling of its own.

Naturally, CureGear didn’t like that and blocked Autism Investigated from commenting on its Facebook page. The photo-shopped “Vaccines Cause Incontinent Adults” pics that AI’s editor left on CureGear’s Facebook threads were also removed. Before they were removed, however, they garnered the usual unintelligible responses from the vaccine crowd which is known for using fake accounts.

“Vaccines cause anti vaxers to be dicks,” one person angrily replied to Autism Investigated’s photo-shopped image.

CureGear did not reply to Autism Investigated directly, but did show that all it wanted to do was troll:

This post has opened our eyes to the misinformation and paranoia out there. Thank you anti-vaxxers who chimed in, because of you we’ll work even harder to raise money and educate everyone we can about the wonders of modern science and vaccines! 

Except wonders that aren’t wonderful.

 

Calling All Anti-Vaxxers! Troll CureGear’s Vaccine Troll Attempt!

The pharma front group CureGear has just started a “Vaccines Cause Adults” campaign to troll the people they poisoned. According to the Sacramento Bee (fake news):

Jessie Frenkel’s company, CureGear, debuted a t-shirt line with the slogan “Vaccines cause adults,” but the shirts created an online uproar when vaccination critics discovered the products. CureGear

Of course it did, and anti-vaxxers can cause an uproar right back!

Simply take the above picture of Frenkel and insert a side-effect that vaccines cause. OR – send it to Autism Investigated and AI will do it for you. Then post the photo-shopped image in the comments under  CureGear’s Facebook image.

Possible ideas include but are not limited to: epileptic, seizing, self-injurious, head-banging, autistic, non-verbal, institutionalized, bed-ridden and of course incontinent (thank you very much). Please also tweet it with the hashtag #VaccinesWork and #VaccinesCause[insert negative adjective]Adults as well! Don’t forget to also tweet it to CureGear directly!

Autism Investigated is already pissing these child-poisoners off! One obviously fake Facebook account just replied:

“Vaccines cause anti vaxers to be dicks”

If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen! Vaccinationists prove that time and time again. Let’s continue helping them prove it. Now go create your own photo-shopped correction to Frenkel’s photo and post it on CureGear’s Facebook page today!

How A Smallpox Inoculation Campaign Killed Benjamin Franklin’s Son

The vaccine industry dismisses anecdotes of vaccine injury but loves to hijack anecdotes of infectious disease. One such example is Benjamin Franklin’s son, who died of smallpox while still a toddler. Pro-vaccinationists use this to bash anti-vaccinationists, pointing out that his son was not inoculated. Ironically, it was inoculation that likely spread smallpox to Franklin’s son and by-extension killed them.

Inoculation – poking people from puss extracted from smallpox postules – was the precursor to vaccination. The logic was that it was supposedly safer than catching wild smallpox. Even if so, inoculation had a deadly secret: inoculated people could spread the virus to uninoculated people without showing symptoms. This made smallpox much easier to spread.

So while Franklin’s son was not inoculated, people he came into contact with almost certainly were. So inoculated people shed the virus and Franklin’s young son caught it. Since he was already sick, smallpox was especially dangerous to him. As a result, Franklin’s son died at the age of four – killed ultimately as a result of inoculation. Yet it is still occasionally trotted out by pro-vaccinationists to make the case for vaccination. In reality, it is a cautionary tale that is historically analogous to modern vaccine safety issues.

AI Needs YOUR Help Tracking Down Lancet Father 11, Richard Demirjian

Letter from father to Brian Deer and Dan Olmsted, 2011 – BMJ Deceived Lancet Parent Into Attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Citation 5

His name is Richard Demirjian. His alma mater is UC Berkeley, and he is an engineer. His wife’s name is Aida, and they apparently donated a large sum of money to found an autism charity in the early nineties. Autism Investigated has reached out to the charity, but there’s no obvious way to get through to him directly.

So Autism Investigated is reaching out to you the reader. We need help tracking down Mr. Demirjian and confronting him with the fact that he’s been misled by the British Medical Journal (BMJ). If you have any information about his whereabouts and/or contact information, feel free to post in the comments below.

It is not enough to out Mr. Demirjian, we need him to publicly take back what he is quoted as claiming in the BMJ. That has partially happened, but not fully happened. So we want BMJ’s sole parent witness to denounce the journal and take back what he said about Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Demirjian owes it to the entire autism community and to himself.

He and his wife did apparently commit $60,000 to found the California non-profit, Behavioral Intervention for AutismAutism Investigated has reached out to this group to hopefully get through to Mr. Demirjian. Any further help though would be greatly appreciated.

BioMedCentral Admitted to Scientific Fraud, Cover-Up of Vaccine-Autism Link By Pulling Brian Hooker’s Reanalysis

Maria Kowalczuk, “Research Integrity Manager” for Springer Nature – overseer of BMC

In the below 2016 email to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s Iraxte Puebla, Dr. Maria Kowalczuk revealed that her publisher BioMedCentral committed scientific misconduct. In particular, she stated they deleted Dr. Brian Hooker’s MMR-autism reanalysis because his results implicated vaccines in causing autism. She also fabricated non-existent conflict of interest policies that he “broke.” And finally, she lied that his paper was subjected to post-publication “peer review” when it was summarily retracted after they demanded he conduct multiple studies!

Despite all that, Committee on Publication Ethics would later state that BioMedCentral “acted appropriately.” COPE’s chair is an adviser of the “research integrity” committee that Kowalczuk oversees.

Dear Iratxe,

Thank you for bringing this second complaint to our attention. We have reviewed our handling of this case and related correspondence again and we are of the view that BioMed Central has adhered to COPE Code of Conduct and COPE guidelines. As this complaint has not been brought by the author himself we are limited in what information can be divulged to a third party.

With regard to the specific questions from COPE, we provide a summary of our handling of the case below:

  • The article was received on April 17th 2014 and  published on August 27th 2014 in the journal Translational Neurodegeneration.

The article reanalysed CDC data and claimed to show a positive association between MMR vaccination and the risk of autism in Afro-American boys.

  • A reader flagged that there were undeclared competing interests related to the article: the author, Dr Hooker, was on the Board of Directors for Focus Autism which supports the belief that MMR vaccine causes autism.  We were concerned enough about the allegations and the content to remove it from the public domain immediately because of the potential harm to public health, and posted this message in its place as a temporary measure:

This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation.

The author was informed of this plan before we removed the article.

  • Our investigation concluded that the author did have an undeclared competing interest. We also found that the peer reviewers were also likely to have undeclared competing interests.
  • On August 29th, we removed the above notice,  reinstated the article and published this expression of concern:

The Publisher of this article [1] has serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions because of possible undeclared competing interests of the author and peer reviewers. The matter is undergoing investigation. In the meantime, readers are advised to treat the reported conclusions of this study with caution.

Further action will be taken, if appropriate, once our investigation is complete.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4150057/

The author was informed before we posted this Expression of Concern.

  • We obtained a further, independent expert peer review of the article because we were concerned about the original peer reviewers’ potential competing interests. That further peer reviewer reported concerns about the statistical methods used. We decided to retract the ­­­­­article with this notice on 3rd October 2014:

The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article [1] as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused.

http://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-9158-3-22

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128611/

The author was given an opportunity to respond to all the concerns raised and was informed before we retracted the article.

Our actions were in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

 

We provide a point by point response to Mr Crosby’s specific points below:

“Publishers should work with journal editors to:

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:
    – Editorial independence

All the actions were taken in consultation with and with the explicit agreement of the Editor-in-Chief of Translational Neurodegeneration. Editorial independence was not undermined at any stage.

– Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

None of the above were raised as issues in the course of the investigation.
– Authorship

No authorship issues were raised in the course of the investigation.
– Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

We took action to ensure integrity of the published record in light of the concerns regarding conflicts of interest and the methods and statistical analysis that came to light after publication of the article. We acted in a transparent way throughout the process.


– Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

External post publication peer review, that involved the editor, was conducted when concerns were raised about the article.
– Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
    • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
    • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
    • Maintain the integrity of the academic record”

BioMed Central policies comply with COPE recommendations and are accessible on our website. We regularly review issues that might affect our polices (sometimes in collaboration with COPE) and update our policies as necessary. Our Editors are required to follow our Code of Conduct for Editors and COPE Best Practice Guidelines. BioMed Central has a team dedicated to dealing with research integrity issues and maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.

Please do let us know if you need any further information or clarification.

With best wishes,

Maria

 

Maria Kowalczuk, PhD 
Biology Editor,

Research Integrity Group 

BioMed Central

Floor 6, 236 Gray’s Inn Road
London, WC1X 8HB

+44 20 3192 2000 (tel)               

+44 20 3192 2010 (fax)

E-mail: Maria.Kowalczuk@biomedcentral.com

STAT News Takes The Fall For Paul Offit Misrepresenting Himself

The below email exchange with STAT speaks for itself:

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:37 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Dear Stat News,

At least two of your articles including one very recent one by Helen Branswell falsely described Paul Offit as chief of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.(1)(2) He is not and hasn’t been since 2014.(3)(4)(5) Yet he continues to misrepresent himself in his resume downloadable from his website (attached).(6)(7)

Best,

Jake Crosby, MPH 

1.https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/21/trump-vaccine-commission-robert-kennedy
2.https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/13/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-medical-research/
3.http://www.autisminvestigated.com/paul-offit-misrepresents/

4.http://www.chop.edu/doctors/zaoutis-theoklis 
5.https://web.archive.org/web/20151003024625/http://www.chop.edu/doctors/zaoutis-theoklis
6.http://www.autisminvestigated.com/paul-offit-misrepresents-himself/

7.paul-offit.com 

From: “Branswell, Helen” <helen.branswell@statnews.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2017 10:48 am
To: info@autisminvestigated.com

Mr. Crosby;

I wrote one of the STAT articles where Paul Offit’s position at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia was incorrectly stated. The error was mine; I had interviewed him in the past and didn’t realize he’d given up the department chairmanship.

We have corrected my story and the other one you pointed out, by David Nather. David no longer works for STAT.

Best regards,
Helen Branswell
Senior Writer, infectious diseases and global health

Autism Investigated will keep readers updated if any other media outlets that have reported the error respond as well.

BMJ Deceived Lancet Parent Into Attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The British Medical Journal (BMJ)’s commissioned writer Brian Deer duped the father of the 11th child described in The Lancet paper into believing his son’s case was misrepresented. That father, Richard Demirjian, was led to believe the paper said his son’s autistic symptoms began weeks after vaccination when the report said no such thing. The Lancet paper was perfectly consistent with what Demirjian said happened to his son.

So Autism Investigated wrote BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee about how Deer misrepresented Demirjian’s son. Yes, it was that Dr. Godlee who Autism Investigated’s editor confronted back in 2011.

Despite past history, she replied cordially:

Thank you for your message. Might you or Richard Demirjian send a rapid response to the article on BMJ.com. We can then ask Brian Deer to respond. Best wishes. Fiona Godlee

But two months after Autism Investigated submitted a rapid response at her invitation, she coldly rejected it:

I have now had an opportunity to discuss this with our lawyer. We will not be publishing your rapid response. It is highly defamatory of Brian Deer and the allegations you raise have already been refuted in detail by Brian Deer on his website. Best wishes, Fiona Godlee

When asked for details, Godlee gave no reply.

In any case, read the below response and see for yourself if it defames Brian Deer. It doesn’t, but it shows Deer and the BMJ defamed Wakefield – in large part by deceiving parent Richard Demirjian.

Lancet father 11 hammers a nail into the coffin of Deer’s fallacious allegations

Brian Deer republished his Sunday Times accusations in the BMJ knowing that they were refuted in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 58-page press complaint against him and against the newspaper that ran the article two years prior.(1) Deer’s justification for doing so was the GMC’s ruling in favor of his earlier accusations of unethical research.(2) He has also misled a parent of one of The Lancet paper children (child 11) into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented the child’s case, but the wording in The Lancet paper itself confirms that the child’s case was not misrepresented.(3) The GMC’s findings have been overturned,(4) and a letter from the parent corroborates that The Lancet paper accurately represented his son’s condition.(5)

Two months after the article was published, Brian Deer received a letter from the parent of The Lancet child 11 that directly contradicts Deer’s account. Yet no correction has ever been made in the BMJ.

In the first article of Brian Deer’s MMR series for BMJ, Deer wrote of The Lancet Child 11:

But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.(6)

However, Deer’s claim that child 11 regressed before the vaccine was disputed by child 11’s father in the letter he wrote to Deer (that is currently posted on Deer’s website):

One of the incorrect statements in my son’s discharge report was that autistic symptoms were seen from 13-18 months, while the vaccination was at 15 months. This is clearly inaccurate as his symptoms began several months after the MMR, as reflected in my initial correspondence to the Royal Free requesting my son be included in the research study.(5)

In the private meeting between Deer and father 11 that was referenced in Deer’s article, Deer had apparently misled the father into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented his son’s case. In that same letter to Deer, father 11 echoed Deer’s false statement that The Lancet paper put child 11’s first autistic symptoms at one week after the vaccine when in fact, the paper makes clear that that was only when child 11’s first behavioral symptom (associated, as also described in Table 2, with recurrent “viral pneumonia”). The first symptom, that could have been any of a number of behaviors such as permanent or chronic change in sleep pattern, occurred after vaccination. The table father 11 referred to in The Lancet paper makes no mention of onset of first autistic symptoms.(3) Father 11 corroborates The Lancet paper and contradicts Deer’s BMJ article.

Despite Deer being told by father 11 directly that his son did not regress until after his vaccination, Deer made no effort to correct the misinformation in his BMJ article. On Deer’s personal website, he even continues to cast doubt on father 11’s account:

Which is true for child 11? Who can say, years later? The father says one thing, the medical records another. Nobody can time-travel back to the 1990s. And in lawsuits, it is the records that usually count. But, whichever version is right, Wakefield’s story was not. Neither can be reconciled with The Lancet.(7)

The fact is there is only one correct version: The Lancet paper account corroborated by father 11 twice, both in his correspondence with the hospital and with Deer. The incorrect version is the faulty discharge summary exploited by Deer to mislead. This is not the first time that evidence was submitted to BMJ that dismantles the article’s veracity post-publication.

When other evidence was previously brought to the journal in November 2011 that also supported The Lancet papers findings,(8)(9) Deer deflected by referring back to the GMC findings.(10) Though Deer cited them to add credibility to all his allegations, the findings themselves have been deemed unsustainable by an English High Court ruling.

In 2012, Justice Mitting overturned the GMC decision that The Lancet paper had misrepresented its patient population, was unethical and was part of a litigation-funded project.(4) By extension, the paper’s lead author Dr. Andrew Wakefield could not have been dishonest for not disclosing that the paper was funded by litigation or was part of that project when neither was the case.

In fact, the court decision refutes all the GMC findings that Dr. Wakefield broke any rule of professional conduct as laid out in GMC’s Good medical practice guidance.(11)(12)(13) Likewise, there is no existing justification for the paper’s retraction.(14) The Lancet knows this. When I confronted The Lancet ombudsman, Dr. Malcolm Molyneux, with the fact that the GMC findings that served as the basis for the retraction were killed, all he could say was:

In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.(15)

As the above statement reveals, the ombudsman is unable to state a single reason for the paper to remain retracted. Furthermore, there can be no “other elements on which the decision was based” since the retraction statement only cites the GMC findings – now overturned.(14)

Of Brian Deer’s many false claims, among the most egregious is his deceiving father 11 and misrepresenting child 11’s case.

1.     http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Complaint_to_UK_PCC1.pdf

2.     http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

3.     See Table 2: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

4.     http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.rtf

5.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted-child-11.pdf

6.     http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

7.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted.htm

8.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/09/re-how-case-against-mmr-vaccine-was-fixed

9.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/17/re-pathology-reports-solve-%E2%80%9Cnew-bowel-disease%E2%80%9D-riddle

10.   Deer dismissed slides from The Lancet paper co-author Dr. Andrew Anthony later supplied by Dr. David Lewis on the excuse that Dr. Wakefield could have tampered with them. The only supporting evidence Deer offered of tampering was the GMC’s ruling that Dr. Wakefield had been “dishonest” based on the disciplinary findings that were since overturned. http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-2.htm

11.    See 12a, which proves Dr. Wakefield was not professionally obligated to disclose his personal connection to litigation or his patent application to the editor of The Lancet. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/30191.asp

12.    See page 8, endnote 7, which refers to the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) rules for when Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval is necessary. (NRES link in endnote no longer works) http://www.gmc-uk.org/Good_practice_in_research_and_consent_to_research.pdf_58834843.pdf

13.    NRES rules prove Dr. Wakefield’s birthday party blood draws did not require REC approval because they were not done on patients, therefore falling outside GMC’s authority to make any judgement on the matter. http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2013/09/does-my-project-require-rec-review.pdf

14.    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/fulltext

15.    http://www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/