Category Archives: Science

PLANNED OBITUARY for Senior Turncoat John Walker-Smith

John Walker-Smith, Telegraph

Autism Investigated is scooping its planned obituary for senior turncoat author John Walker-Smith when he dies. He turns 82 this year.

Gastroenterologist and senior Wakefield turncoat author John Walker-Smith has just died. Before retiring in 2000, he was a colleague of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s at the Royal Free Hospital where they published a number of papers on autism and bowel disease. One of those was their seminal 1998 paper that first described a connection between autism, bowel disease and vaccination. Walker-Smith would later infamously retract the possibility of a vaccine link with nine other coauthors in 2004.

Despite his betrayal of vaccine-injured children in doing so, many of their parents continued to support him. When he was practicing medicine, he had treated and helped many children with autism whose gastrointestinal symptoms were dismissed by other doctors. Had his medical contributions ended there, he would be rightly seen as a hero. But that was not to happen, as he would betray the very children he helped.

The year after Walker-Smith retired from medicine, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was run out of the Royal Free Hospital for their research. Following his dismissal, the hospital’s GlaxoSmithKline-backed Head of Medicine Mark Pepys launched an aggressive campaign to discredit the work Walker-Smith and Wakefield conducted and obstruct vaccine injury litigation. Wakefield never wavered, but Walker-Smith eventually did.

Pepys started his attacks first by intimidating the 1998 paper’s coauthors still employed at Royal Free. Then through leaking medical records to a freelance opposition researcher, Pepys targeted Wakefield and Walker-Smith directly. Within weeks of allegations of unethical research publicized against them both, Walker-Smith signed his name to the infamous retraction.

Although he would successfully appeal the allegations and strike them down in court, he kept his name on the retraction. Not once did he demand the journal reinstate the 1998 paper nor demand his medical board reinstate Dr. Wakefield’s license.

Yet Walker-Smith still enjoys considerable support in the autism community which he does not deserve. No one has done more to make censorship of vaccine injury more publicly acceptable than John Walker-Smith. His betrayal of vaccine-injured children will be his everlasting legacy.

Mark Pepys Made Wakefield Coauthors Sabotage Vaccine Litigation

rescuepost.com

“But people were taking that as further evidence of a link with MMR that we never claimed and unwittingly we were adding fuel to the fire.” – Wakefield turncoat author Simon MurchThe ObserverNovember 2, 2003

Pharma superstar Mark Pepys made 10 coauthors retract the interpretation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 autism-vaccine paper. But even before that, Pepys made two of them withdraw authorship from another Wakefield paper. One essentially admitted doing so to sabotage the litigation against vaccination.

Simon Murch and Michael Thomson withdrew their names from a November 2003 paper also coauthored by Wakefield. The withdrawal happened after the paper was accepted for publication in May and both approved the version as it would be published. Remarkably, Murch cited not wanting to build a case against vaccination to justify his withdrawal:

“I have withdrawn because the data was being justified in a way I couldn’t agree with. All the work I have done shows evidence of subtle inflammation of the intestine in many but not all autistic children. But people were taking that as further evidence of a link with MMR that we never claimed and unwittingly we were adding fuel to the fire.”

As Andrew Wakefield made clear, Simon Murch could not have withdrawn for scientific reasons:

“He cannot make that claim because he signed up to have it published. We were not going to publicise this but after what Simon Murch said we did. He is distancing himself because of the hierarchy where he works.”

Not “adding fuel to the fire” as Murch put it could have only meant not fueling the fires of litigation that should have burned GlaxoSmithKline. Both Thomson and Murch were also coauthors of a 2002 study that showed measles virus in guts of children with autism and bowel disease. Such a study was pivotal for planned litigation against the vaccine industry. Their later withdrawal from the 2003 paper coincided with the termination of legal aid for vaccine injury litigation in the United Kingdom.

At the time, Murch and Thomson were still employed at the Royal Free Hospital under pharma “superstar” Mark Pepys. If they didn’t pull their names, they would not have remained employed under him as Wakefield wasn’t.

Mark Pepys Made Medical School and Journal Lie Wakefield was Conflicted

pepys

Sir Mark Pepys, Head of Medicine at Royal Free Hospital (1999-2011) giving the 2016 Commencement Address at Cedars-Sinai

“Had the advice of the Institutions been sought at the time concerning conflict of interest, they would undoubtedly have advised that any potential conflict should be declared, so that others could judge whether such conflicts were real.” – Royal Free University and College Medical School Statement in The Lancet

“Funds received from the Legal Aid Board were paid into, and properly administered through, a research account with the special trustees of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.” – Dr. Andrew Wakefield proving Royal Free lied above

Sir Mark Pepys needed a fake scandal to make his employees’ fraudulent retraction of the Wakefield paper’s interpretation seem legit. So he made the hospital release a bogus statement that lead author and ex-employee Dr. Andrew Wakefield had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Pepys also leaked medical records of children in Dr. Wakefield’s paper to a freelance writer who could claim credit for the allegation.

The Royal Free’s statement and the hospital employees’ imminent retraction pressured The Lancet editor to sign onto the lie that Dr. Wakefield had a secret conflict of interest. But the lie that the hospital didn’t know about the “conflict” would unravel the day the allegation was made. The lie the journal didn’t know would unravel that week.

Wakefield and two brave coauthors responded that he disclosed his litigation involvement in the journal six years earlier. Horton rejected the disclosure with a completely contradictory excuse:

We do not accept Andrew Wakefield and colleagues’ interpretation of the letter

Yet Horton then acknowledged (boldface mine):

[Wakefield’s] letter was written in response to a letter from Dr A Rousepublished in the same issue. Dr Rouse’s letter raised concerns about whether children investigated in the 1998 paper had been referred to the authors by the Society for the Autistically Handicapped, and simply mentioned that his concerns arose out of a fact sheet produced by a firm of solicitors

Right after Dr. Wakefield was acknowledged by the editor as discussing the period before publication, he completely contradicted himself (boldface mine):

Although the letter made it clear that Dr Wakefield “has agreed to help evaluate” some children for the Legal Aid Board, it does not indicate that in fact such work had been commissioned and was being undertaken well before the 1998 paper was published.

Wakefield disclosing the work was done in a discussion about the time period before publication does not indicate the work was done before publication? Is “has agreed” not past tense? Horton makes no sense, because he lied. Liars make no sense.

Unfortunately, it didn’t matter by then because the Wakefield turncoat coauthors already announced their fraudulent retraction. Never mind that the Lancet editor’s story completely fell apart, as did the Royal Free Hospital’s. Never mind that the interpretation’s own retraction also made no mention of Wakefield’s litigation involvement which was already known to its senior authors. Instead, they cited lead turncoat author’s prior defense of vaccines that began months in advance. That’s because the retraction was, as Wakefield predicted, planned months in advance.

Correction: This post previously said that the lie The Lancet didn’t know about Wakefield’s litigation ties would unravel in “the ensuing months.” It actually unraveled the week of the lie. The wording has been changed and the new words hyperlink to the British newspaper article, MMR scientist did not hide link with legal case, letter reveals.

READ Peter Harvey’s Defense of Wakefield Paper Against Simon Murch

Left: Coauthor Dr. Peter Harvey, Right: Turncoat Coauthor Simon Murch

I too write as a co-author of the Lancet paper of 1998 referred to by Simon Murch in his letter.1Statements in this letter cannot be allowed to pass without comment. There is a growing body of scientific evidence to show a relation between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, enterocolitis, ileocolonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, and autism.
The histologically unique condition ileocolonic lymphoid nodular hyper-plasia, which is not a normal variant,2,3 is associated with a diffuse entero-colitis. There are significant immunological and inflammatory abnormalities specific to this condition.4–12
There is evidence that affected children absorb undigested peptides with opioid properties,13and that the most powerful of these opioids are derived from casein and gluten. Exclusion of casein and gluten from the diet has proven beneficial effects on autistic children’s behaviour.14
Evidence of persistent measles virus infection in the gut has been identified.15,16 The virus identified in most of these children was shown to be consistent with the measles virus RNA from the MMR vaccine.17 These children also have measles virus RNA in the blood, which is also consistent with that of the MMR strain.16 Measles virus RNA has also been detected in the spinal fluid of 19 of 28 children with regressive autism and bowel disease and in one of 37 control samples (unpublished data).
Much is made of the epidemiological studies that have failed to show an association between MMR and autism. However, these studies are open to serious criticism.18,19
Murch was a co-author on 11 of the 17 peer-reviewed publications and presentations that I cite. These present a step-by-step cascade of evidence starting with the recognition of the clinical condition, followed by the pathology of the gut disease, the immunological and inflammatory abnormalities, the identification of measles RNA in the gut, blood, and cerebrospinal fluid, and subsequent identification of this RNA as being consistent with MMR virus.
I am an adult neurologist, not a paediatrician, not a gastroenterologist, and not an immunologist. Even so, taking a dispassionate and wide view of the published and unpublished information, I think there is increasingly compelling evidence for a causative link between the MMR vaccine, a unique gastrointestinal disease, and regressive autism.
I examined the original cohort of children, and they had no physical neurological abnormalities. I have recently seen one of them again. His behaviour is much worse, at times being uncontrollable. He has developed epilepsy and bilateral extensor plantar responses.
The problem now is to identify the numbers of children involved, and the susceptibility factors. In the meantime, consideration should be given to offering children single-injection measles vaccinations.
I am a trustee of the charity Visceral, which supports research into inflammatory bowel disease and autism

Originally published in The Lancet,
2004

Dr. Peter Harvey Was the Bravest Neurologist Who Ever Lived

Peter Harvey

Peter Harvey, Getty Images

Interviewer: “Professor, how serious is this condition?”

Dr. Harvey: “I’m a doctor, not a professor.”

Interviewer: “I beg your pardon.”

Dr. Harvey: “That’s alright. It’s called ‘less majesty.'”

Dr. Peter Harvey was one of just three coauthors of the 1998 autism-vaccine paper to stand by the possibility of a link. He passed away in France in 2012.

At the time of his passing, the editor remarked:

“We need more doctors and scientists like Dr. Peter Harvey. His passing is a huge loss to the autism community.”

The comment was beneath Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s obituary for Peter Harvey when he died in 2012:

“As a consultant neurologist at the Royal Free Hospital, London, Peter Harvey was one of thirteen authors on the 1998 Lancet paper that first drew attention to the link between autism and bowel disease. Not once in all the time that has passed and the trouble that has flowed did he waiver in his support for the parents of those children, the conviction that their story of regression following MMR vaccination is valid, and the findings reported in that paper. In a saga of calumny, cowardice, and capitulation, Peter was resolute unto his death. Peter died at his house in Valboulet – Valley of Balls – France, where his ashes are scattered. Never was a last resting place more aptly named.”

But nothing does more justice to the legacy of Dr. Harvey like Dr. Harvey himself. Watch this 2007 interview he did on blast injuries to soldiers.

The two senior non-professor authors stood by the entire paper and the two senior professor authors didn’t. What does that tell you about professors?

The Facebook page dedicated to turncoat Professor John Walker-Smith should be removed and replaced with a memorial to Dr. Harvey.

Autism People: Do Not Honor The Andrew Wakefield Turncoat Doctors

Professor John Walker-Smith receives flowers from one of the children he betrayed, Professor John Walker-Smith Facebook Page

John Walker-Smith is the most senior turncoat author of the 1998 landmark autism-vaccine paper to retract his name from the interpretation that vaccines may cause autism. Yet, there remains a Facebook page in his honor dedicated by parents of the vaccine-injured children he betrayed. It stands at 1,301 likes strong. It should fold immediately.

The page was set up to support John Walker-Smith against disciplinary findings against him and two coauthors. However, the entire event was a show trial that deliberately targeted the doctors for scrutinizing a vaccine. The whole hearing should have been boycotted by everyone, including by lead author Andrew Wakefield.

But people showed up to support not only Wakefield, but Walker-Smith and lead turncoat author Simon Murch too. Walker-Smith and Murch were greeted with flowers and hugs.

Why? Walker-Smith and Murch may have been caring doctors at one time, but all the good they did was undone by their interpretation “retraction.”

Why is Age of Autism’s John Stone friends with John Walker-Smith on Facebook? Why did Stone use his platform to hock both Walker-Smith’s and lead turncoat author Simon Murch’s books? He has not responded to Autism Investigated’s criticism, nor has the Walker-Smith Facebook group.

The Wakefield turncoat doctors deserve no accolades, only scorn.

Wakefield Turncoat Authors Committed The Research Fraud

Wakefield Turncoat Author Simon Murch, Photo from Twitter

“the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health…we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings” – 10 of the 13 coauthors of Andrew Wakefield’s paper.

Yes, you’ve read that correctly.

It is true that coauthors of the landmark 1998 vaccine-autism paper committed research fraud. They don’t include lead author Andrew Wakefield, however. They are the 10 coauthors who wrote the “retraction of an interpretation” led by Simon Murch.

The interpretation they “retracted” was of the possibility that vaccines cause autism. Their excuse? “Major implications for public health.”

That’s right, vaccines couldn’t possibly cause autism because people stopped vaccinating. That’s what they’re literally saying. It’s total nonsense unsupported by any “precedent” in academic publishing. Autism is a perfectly valid reason to stop vaccinating, anyway.

Their basis would then be used verbatim in disciplinary charges against two coauthors for publishing critically on vaccines. One of those coauthors also signed the “retraction.” Three coauthors in all were charged, including lead “retractor” Simon Murch. Yet people still showed up at the General Medical Council “fitness-to-practice” hearings to support two of the Wakefield turncoat authors.

The whole hearing should have been boycotted by anti-vaccinationists and vaccine skeptics including Wakefield himself. None of the Wakefield turncoat authors should have ever been defended after they signed their names to that statement.

Since when were a bunch of gastroenterologists, pathologists, a radiologist and a shrink an authority on what you can or cannot read? Since never, they signed their names at the coercion of the medical journal. They also didn’t want to lose their licenses, as two of them almost did and as Wakefield actually did.

None of that is a good excuse.

Over the years, Autism Investigated has written extensively about how the journal should restore the retracted 1998 paper. On reflection, it was a mistake since its restoration wouldn’t get rid of the other bogus “retraction” by the 10 coauthors themselves. So the paper is better left retracted anyway.

Now here is the shameful statement by Simon Murch and the other nine Wakefield turncoat authors in all its disgusting glory.

Lancet

PERVERT ALERT: CDC DIRECTOR FRIEDEN ARRESTED FOR SEX ASSAULT

Move over Ian Lipkin, Obama’s CDC director just topped you big time:

Tom Frieden, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and an ex-New York City Health Commissioner, has been arrested amid allegations he sexually harassed a woman in his Brooklyn apartment.

Police confirmed to Fox News that Frieden, 57, surrendered to the NYPD’s Special Victims Unit at the 77th precinct Friday and has been charged with forcible touching, sexual abuse and harassment.

The charges stem from allegations he groped a woman he knew last October at his home in Brooklyn Heights, ABC7 reported.

This is a married man with two children they’re talking about.

Just before the 2016 election, Frieden blocked a CDC employee from testifying about CDC’s cover-up of the vaccine-autism link.

Last year, Dr. Frieden tweeted a suggestion that autism-vaccine scientist Andrew Wakefield should be prosecuted criminally.

How perfect that Dr. Frieden is prosecuted criminally instead. We should show up at his trial to protest his degeneracy. This is not someone who should be let off lightly. He’s responsible for poisoning many children and his immorality shows through perfectly in this case.

H/t: JB Handley

Oppose Vaccination Entirely Since Proponents Call for Cover-up

iansvoice.org

Hear it from the very words of the vaccine people/medical establishment on what to do with evidence of their product’s assault on kids:

Lancet editor on not publishing vaccine injuries on pretense that they’re by expert witnesses in litigation, 2004:

“But had we known about the conflict of interest, with hindsight, we would have asked for this to be omitted.”

Complaint against Lancet authors to UK’s General Medical Council, demanding it single out the lead author for criticizing a vaccine:

I submit that on a matter as serious as the safety of a vaccine, touching on the health of millions of children, and affecting parental decisions of the utmost seriousness, Mr Wakefield was under an absolute duty to make the true position clear, with regard to both his involvement in the litigation and the litigant status of children upon whom he purported to derive findings.

General Medical Council’s 2010 “findings” against Lancet paper authors, based on 2005 charges:

You knew or ought to have known that your reporting in the Lancet paper of a temporal link between the syndrome you described and the MMR vaccination, Admitted and found proved i. had major public health implications, Admitted and found proved ii. would attract intense public and media interest, Admitted and found proved

Paul Offit in NY Times, 2018:

Dr. Offit says that researchers should handle findings differently when there’s a chance they might frighten the public. He thinks that small, inconclusive, worrying studies should not be published because they could do more harm than good.

That same article (boldface mine):

This is not to say that anyone is covering up major safety problems, by the way…

There’s no question that bad vaccine science does not deserve a forum — and much of the research cited by anti-vaccine activists is very bad indeed.

WHO adviser John Clements on thimerosal (Simpsonwood, 2000):

“perhaps this study should not have been done at all…the research results have to be handled”

David Gorski, a.k.a. “Orac” agreeing with Clements’ keeping results out of the hands of lawyers for vaccine injured children, 2005:

Dr. Clements was just expressing a quite reasonable fear that lawyers will use very preliminary and unconfirmed studies for their own ends, which is what they do indeed routinely do. Such a concern was not at all unreasonable and is still not unreasonable.

Forbes 2015 headline:

Anti-Vaccine Doctors Should Lose Their Licenses 

And just look at this internal pharma company memo from 1979:

After the reporting of the SID cases in Tennessee, we discussed the merits of limiting distribution of a large number of vials from a single lot to a single state, county or city health department and obtained agreement from the senior management staff to proceed with such a plan. 

What did they get in exchange for murdering infants? Total immunity from litigation!

Should we support any vaccines when their proponents continue to openly censor evidence that they assault and murder kids? Or should we oppose vaccination entirely?

Autism Investigated is going with the latter.

Paul Offit Denies Supporting Cover-up of Vaccine Risks, By Doing Just That

Left: Graph based on results of the study Offit claims showed no difference in autism among hundreds of thousands of Danish children who did or did not get the measles-mump-rubella vaccination. Right: Offit’s reaction to being corrected by the editor at NIH, culminating in the editor’s removal.

Vaccine developer Paul Offit responded to a recent New York Times piece by denying he advocated covering up vaccine risks, only to cover them up in his own piece. The doctor who lied until very recently that he was still “chief” of infectious diseases despite his hospital demotion four years ago consistently lied about three different vaccine side-effects: miscarriage, autism and narcolepsy.

On the CDC’s study showing flu vaccine causes spontaneous abortion, Offit lied:

the only way that the study authors could show a possible problem was to alter their original hypothesis and substratify their data—something that epidemiologists frown upon.

The study itself says:

“The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.6)”

The overall odds of receiving a flu vaccine while pregnant was twice as high among pregnant women who had spontaneous abortions. Offit repeated this same lie that there was no difference from his Daily Beast column. Autism Investigated demanded a retraction at the time, none was ever made.

On the link between vaccines and autism, Offit wrote:

Seventeen subsequent studies in seven countries on three different continents involving hundreds of thousands of children[9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25] who did or did not receive the MMR vaccine showed that it doesn’t cause autism.

The one study comparing autism in hundreds of thousands of MMR vaccinated and non-MMR vaccinated children revealed an association (top graph).

On the link between flu vaccination and narcolepsy, Offit lied yet again:

In 2015, a study in Science Translational Medicine[26] claimed that an adjuvanted influenza vaccine used in Europe had caused narcolepsy, a permanent disorder of wakefulness. Subsequent research showed that the adjuvanted vaccine didn’t cause narcolepsy. This was yet another study that had received widespread media attention but was wrong.

From none other than the CDC website:

This risk was initially found in Finland, and then some other European countries also detected an association. Most recently, scientists at the United Kingdom’s (UK) Health Protection Agency (HPA) have found evidence of an association between Pandemrix and narcolepsy in children in England. The findings are consistent with studies from Finland and other countries.

Offit proves he wants to cover up vaccine risks all the more by concluding about publishing them:

In the name of transparency, we do it all the time. And we do it at our peril.

What we really do at our peril is form federal committees that promote routine vaccination to the entire country and have liars like Offit sit on them.