Lancet Keeps Wakefield et al. Retracted in Contempt of Court

Monotone legal concept

By Jake Crosby

Findings of the UK General Medical Council against the Wakefield et al. paper were overturned by the High Court, yet the Lancet still keeps that paper retracted - citing those overturned findings. Previous attempts have been made to persuade Lancet editor Richard Horton and the previous Lancet ombudsman Charles Warlow to restore “Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular-Hyperplasia, Non-specific Colitis and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children” by Wakefield et al. Horton flatly refused, while Warlow denied having any responsibility for reconsidering the status of the paper.

Then in March, the Lancet hired Wisia Wedzicha – a new ombudsman to take Warlow’s place. In April, I contacted her asking that she repeal the retraction and restore Wakefield et al. Below is my email correspondence with her. Interestingly, she did acknowledge having responsibility for reconsidering the status of the paper, despite keeping it retracted for no given reason. She also  made it clear that she did not want to hear about this matter again.

 

—–Original Message—–
From: Jake Crosby
To: ombudsman
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 5:58 pm
Subject: Wakefield et al. Should Still Be Restored

Dear Prof. Wedzicha,

I am an epidemiologist and public health student who also edits an autism news website, autisminvestigated.com. A paper remains retracted by your medical journal on the basis of findings since overturned by a High Court Ruling. It is long past due that that paper, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” by Wakefield et al. be fully restored to the published record.

A 2010 judgment by the General Medical Council was the basis for the Lancet’s retraction, signed by “The Editors of The Lancet,” who gave the following reasons for pulling the paper:

“In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false.”

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

But following the successful appeal of the paper’s senior clinical investigator – John Walker-Smith – the GMC findings that served as the basis for Lancet’s retraction have since been overturned.

With regard to the GMC’s false claims that the patients in the paper were not “consecutively referred”:

“157. …Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the [GMC] panel. The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology.”

Similarly, the GMC’s rulings that the children in the Lancet paper were subjects of a research project that did not gain ethical approval also proved unfounded:

“158. …The [GMC] panel’s finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.”

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

The judge found only one misleading statement in the paper, but it was not because investigations undertaken were unethical experiments described as gaining ethical approval in the paper according to the now-overturned findings on which the paper’s retraction was based. On the contrary, it was because investigations in the paper were described as being ethically approved when most were clinically indicated and required no such approval, although a few investigations were ethically approved. This may require an erratum, but it does not justify keeping the paper fully retracted.

When these points were made to Richard Horton in 2012, he dismissively replied, “We have no plans to change our decision about this paper.”

After I took this matter up with your predecessor Charles Warlow, I was promised a response from him by executive editor Richard Turner: “Prof Warlow will be in touch with you in due course.”

Although I never received any reply from Prof. Warlow, he apparently replied to at least one other reader who raised the same concerns that I did. Warlow dismissively replied:

“In fact this is an editorial decision which as Ombudsman is not my business; I have to deal with complaints about process, delays, rudeness and such like.”

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/andrew-wakefields-lancet-paper-lancet-ombudsman-there-is-a-scientific-argument-which-is-continuing-and-has-yet-to-be-sorted-out-to-everyones-satisfaction/

In fact, among the categories listed under “What our ombudsman can investigate” is “challenges to the publishing ethics of the journal.”

http://www.thelancet.com/ombudsman

This is very much an issue of publishing ethics since it concerns a paper staying fully retracted from the published record based on legal findings since-overturned by a High Court decision. Interestingly, your predecessor did not include “publishing ethics” in the categories he said he could investigate in his reply to that other reader. I think a case could be made for editorial dishonesty given that the retraction was signed by “The Editors of The Lancet” and given that Richard Horton insisted on keeping the paper retracted in spite of being informed of how the paper remained retracted on the basis of overturned charges. I also believe he is very conflicted in making such a decision since he himself testified against the paper’s lead author at the GMC Hearing that led to the paper’s retraction. This matter deserves fair and independent consideration.

I hope you will investigate accordingly, and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH

—–Original Message—–
From: Wedzicha, Jadwiga A
To: ‘Jake Crosby’
Sent: Fri, May 2, 2014 6:07 am
Subject: Ombudsman

Dear Dr Crosby,

Thank you very much for your inquiry. I know the case in question well and I do not believe that there are sufficient new grounds to overturn the paper’s retraction from the Lancet.

I regret to inform you that I can see no reason for an investigation.

Sincerely,

Wisia Wedzicha
Lancet Ombudsman
Professor of Respiratory Medicine
Airways Disease Section
National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London,
Emmanuel Kaye Building,
Manresa Road,
London SW3 6LR
44 (0) 207 594 7947

From: Jake Crosby
Sent: 05 May 2014 10:27
To: Wedzicha, Jadwiga A
Subject: Re: Ombudsman

Dear Dr. Wedzicha,

Thank you for your reply and also for your acknowledgement of the ombudsman’s responsibility for overturning retractions.

I must say I am very puzzled as to how there are not sufficient grounds to overturn this retraction when the GMC findings it was based on have been overturned by the High Court. As you can see from the quotes in my previous email, the ruling judge explicitly stated in his findings that the GMC was wrong to deny that the patients described in the paper were consecutively referred. He also struck down the GMC’s findings that the investigations described in the paper required ethical approvals that were not obtained, which the Lancet also cites as its basis for keeping the paper retracted. So how can this retraction stand without remaining in contempt of the High Court?

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH (I do not have a doctorate.)

—–Original Message—–
From: Wedzicha, Jadwiga A
To: ‘Jake Crosby’
Sent: Wed, May 7, 2014 4:18 am
Subject: RE: Ombudsman

Dear Mr Crosby

Thank you for your email.
The comment I made about not overturning the retraction still stands and there is no case to change this position.

I now consider this matter closed.

Best wishes

Wisia Wedzicha
Lancet Ombudsman

Wisia Wedzicha
Professor of Respiratory Medicine
Airways Disease Section
National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London,
Emmanuel Kaye Building,
Manresa Road,
London SW3 6LR
44 (0) 207 594 7947

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a Bachelor of Arts in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy and a 2013 graduate of The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services with a Master of Public Health in Epidemiology. He currently attends the University of Texas School of Public Health where he is studying for a Ph.D. in Epidemiology.

 

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

67 Thoughts on “Lancet Keeps Wakefield et al. Retracted in Contempt of Court

  1. Lujene Clark on May 11, 2014 at 11:13 pm said:

    The decision will never be overturned because the retraction was never about the science. It was about money, profit, cronyism and protecting careers. Clearly, children, science and ethics never played any part in their decision…or their witch hunt.

    • The Lancet is clearly waffling, though. First Horton stands by the retraction, then his ombudsman denies responsibility in reconsidering the decision, and then his successor assumes responsibility but reverts to Horton’s position. I wouldn’t be too cynical.

      • Thank you for the well defined case history you present. It’s crystal clear, and more than compelling. It’s not a matter of cynicism, however, to view a letter writing campaign as futile in this case, but of acceptance of reality. Clearly more fundamental than money, profit, cronyism and job security are control, and power, exercised by those involved in the vaccine paradigm who’ve no need for further riches, have no fear of losing their jobs, yet continue to propel and expand a paradigm they are well aware is degrading the health of nations.

  2. Carolyn Gammicchia on May 12, 2014 at 4:02 am said:

    Jake,

    Thank you for continuing to educate others on this matter and the obvious bias that exists against Wakefield. It’s a shame that many hang their hats on the Lancet retraction and the Lancet knows this. Their deliberate indifference will ultimately be a reflection of their integrity. Unfortunately in the interim many still are suffering from vaccine injury and are not obtaining access to appropriate medical care to treat those injuries.

    • The utterly false GMC findings were precipitated by Horton’s betrayal and lies about Dr. Wakefield to the media in 2004 after GSK became Horton’s boss and those same sham findings live on in the Lancet’s legally contemptuous retraction two years after they were overturned. To any of the Lancet’s prospective contributors: publish at your own risk.

  3. Dear Jake,

    I do think that this was an excellent line of enquiry and certainly deserved a more intelligent, explanatory and honest reply. However, as I’m sure that you know, the Wakefield case and the GMC trial is riddled with dishonestly and as someone else has said is nothing to do with intelligent discussion or investigation but is solely about money, power and public health propaganda. I hope that you continue to alight on such interesting arguments, the very weight of them will ultimately isolate those who have acted with criminal intent.

  4. Angus Files on May 12, 2014 at 8:58 am said:

    Thanks Jake.You would think the Lancet could be held for libel or defamations is it did not at the very least issue an apology admitting it was wrong .Surely a court action against the Lancet would bring this to the fore…if we could find an honest court ..wont hold my breath.

  5. Danchi on May 12, 2014 at 11:23 am said:

    If the paper is available why can’t it just be released into the public domain? The Lancet is never going to do it just like the CDC will never say mercury can cause Autism. Put a caveat on the paper and say because of pharmaceutical conflict of interest the only way to serve the greater good and best interest of children is to post the paper outside of traditional protocols. Or, start a email, twitter and facebook (if Lancet has one) campaign and flood Ms. Wisia Wedzicha office with request to release the paper. If nothing else it will draw attention to the situation and let those who are confused about the Wakefield situation know what is really happening. Doctors are never going to look at it even if it is released by the Lancet because they are in fear of the CDC & pharmaceutical industry so the people who will take notice are those who have been lied t for over a decade. At least the public, not the media will finally get the right information about what really happened to Dr. Wakefield. Just a thought.

    • Danchi, I totally agree with you. There have been past letter-writing campaigns to the editor as well as the previous ombudsman to get the paper restored, but just because the Lancet won’t do so doesn’t mean we should walk away. They should be put under more pressure, not less.

  6. Josh mazer on May 12, 2014 at 12:25 pm said:

    Excellent! Thank you Jake for this.

  7. White Rose on May 12, 2014 at 2:03 pm said:

    To Lujene Clark : Never say never .

    All I hear from activist Parents is negativity . The opposition is too big and too powerful .
    Wah Wah Wah , grow up you babies .
    Their dirty desperate tactics demonstrate quite clearly how worried they are about us .
    David killed Goliath with that slingshot , and just as David got lucky , so will we .

    Keep firing the slingshots . One of them will hit home one of these days (& it will be just like the Berlin Wall) .

    I spoke to the health correspondent of heavyweight UK newspaper recently , and the man was clearly absolutely and totally clueless . So the people who write to counter us are just stooges (nothing more .)

  8. Pingback: Lancet Refuses to Reinstate 1998 Royal Free Paper Despite Its Reasons Being Overturned in Court | ________________Child Health Safety_________________

  9. Bayareamom on May 12, 2014 at 8:31 pm said:

    …”All I hear from activist Parents is negativity . The opposition is too big and too powerful .
    Wah Wah Wah , grow up you babies …”

    With all due respect, White Rose:

    NO ONE is a baby, here, and no one is crying; Stop with the disrespect, please. IF you feel you’re an adult (and not a baby), then quit the name calling, quit bitching about Mark Blaxil, The Canary Party, Ginger Taylor, etc. If ya’ll cannot get along or at the minimum, learn to work alongside one another in spite of your differences, then this issue is never going to go away. Your divisiveness is your HUGEST enemy.

    You’re never going to get action by solely using social media. BOOTS ON THE GROUND is what this movement needs – big numbers, matters.

    ALL I’ve seen in my years in this movement is anger and frustration, but not enough movement and action. If I were in this movement for the first time, I’d say screw whatever anyone feels about Generation Rescue, Mark Blaxil, Autism One, The Canary Party, Tim Bolen, the Health Freedom movement, etc.

    I would actively pursue a global, unified movement, find a venue for much needed funding and GET GOING. Quit griping on various blogs and websites; while that’s a good way to vent and let off some much needed steam, it’s not going to make this issue go away.

    I am doing my part in the way that I can, at this time, but unfortunately, that means pulling away from this movement due to other more pressing priorities. But for God’s sake…QUIT throwing barbs at one another, stabbing others in the back (speaking of acting like babies), and JUST. GET. GOING.

  10. Barry on May 12, 2014 at 9:52 pm said:

    Dear Mr Crosby

    Thank you for your email.
    The comment I made about not overturning the retraction still stands and there is no case to change this position.

    I now consider this matter closed.

    Best wishes

    Wisia Wedzicha
    Lancet Ombudsman

    ******************

    Not frickin’ likely.

    It may take a while, but this matter is anything but closed.

    The longer people like you stonewall, the madder parents are becoming. And as sure as the sun is going rise tomorrow… you guys are going down!!!

  11. Andrea on May 13, 2014 at 12:06 pm said:

    Thanks Jake for this information. I have seen our county board of health medical director on Tv bashing Wakefield all the time and would love to share your findings with him. Not, that I think he will change his tune, but at least I will know he knows the truth as to where things really stand with Wakfield and his work.

  12. White Rose (banned from AoA) on May 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm said:

    All our focus is tending to centre on the Mark Blaxill issue (a latter day Benedict Arnold) .
    But he is very unlikely to be the only one . I trust nothing now (least of all vaccines) .

    • I’m not sure how apt a comparison that is – Benedict Arnold was on the American side of the Revolutionary War before his betrayal and defection. I’m not sure Mark Blaxill was ever genuinely on the side that he claims to be on.

  13. White Rose (banned from AoA) on May 13, 2014 at 4:23 pm said:

    ” BOOTS ON THE GROUND is what this movement needs – big numbers, matters. ”

    Agreeing here with BAYareaMom .

    The anti-GM , Monsanto protests are the templates we should be following .

  14. Argus Filch on May 13, 2014 at 8:06 pm said:

    Jake, can you explain how The Lancet is in contempt of court, as you claim in the headline?

    This judge’s ruling only overturned the GMC panel’s decision about John Walker-Smith. The Lancet was not a party in the proceedings, nor was the content of the retracted article considered as part of the evidence.

    Can you point to the exact wording in the ruling that you claim The Lancet is defying?

    • I point to the exact wording in my first email to the current ombudsman.

      • Argus Filch on May 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm said:

        Oh – I see the problem. You are under the impression that the GMC action against Dr. Walker-Smith and the court case that overturned it were about the Lancet paper, not Walker-Smith’s professional conduct.
        The Lancet is no doubt looking at the following set of facts:
        1. Ten of the twelve authors of the original article have formally withdrawn their names from it.
        2. The GMC’s findings against Andrew Wakefield have never been appealed or overturned and he was the lead author.
        3. Since the GMC hearings, additional information has emerged that strongly supports that data published in the article was fabricated.

        So you can see why The Lancet is not considering changing their stance regarding the retraction.

        • None of the coauthors have withdrawn their names from the paper. Andrew Wakefield not appealing does not change the fact that the findings on which the Lancet’s retraction was based were overturned on appeal by senior author John Walker-Smith.

          The “additional information” you cite has nothing to do with the retraction and was not even strong enough to merit further investigation:
          http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6220

          I don’t need you to answer for the Lancet as to why it is keeping the paper retracted. The Lancet’s only cited basis for keeping Wakefield et al. retracted is the overturned GMC findings cited in the paper’s retraction.

          • Larry on May 14, 2014 at 9:47 pm said:

            @Jake – Angus is correct, the appeal was strictly regarding Walker-Smith’s professional conduct & part of his success was throwing Andrew Wakefield under the bus (citing the fact that WS had no idea that he was participating in a research study & instead was “treating” the children).

            Walker-Smith’s successful action does nothing to validate the Lancet Paper – so there is no reason whatsoever to revisit the retraction. Wishing it so won’t make it so.

            • That’s false; the judge said the Lancet paper was not a research study as the GMC ruled.

              • Larry on May 14, 2014 at 11:04 pm said:

                Then the judge would have said as much – but this was strictly about Walker-Smith’s role…again, he threw Wakefield under the bus to save his own skin…did you even bother to read the transcript?

                • The judge did: “158. …The [GMC] panel’s finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.”

                  Did you even bother to read his ruling? Or this post for that matter?

          • Argus Filch on May 15, 2014 at 6:10 pm said:

            Yes – I may have mischaracterized the action of the ten co-authors. Would it be more accurate to say that they issued a statement retracting the interpretation of the results contained in the published article?

            The Lancet, Volume 363, Issue 9411, Page 750, 6 March 2004
            doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15715-2

            Just curious about something else, Jake. How do you feel about undisclosed conflicts of interest regarding an author of a scientific article?

            • You did; it would, but that still wouldn’t be accurate. Only a possibility raised in the interpretation was “retracted.”

              I think they should be disclosed.

              • Argus Filch on May 15, 2014 at 9:18 pm said:

                So then before this paper even could be republished, it would have to be appended with information about the several hundred thousand that Wakefield was paid by the legal fund that was registering patients for a lawsuit against MMR.
                And what about the ten co-authors? Wouldn’t they have to agree to either a change in the interpretation section or to having their names removed from the paper before republishing?

                Do you think these things could happen?

                • No, all of those issues are wholly separate from the Lancet’s retraction.

                  • Argus Filch on May 16, 2014 at 12:40 am said:

                    Since you claim every valid reason that this paper will never be reinstated is irrelevant, it is obvious that this campaign you have undertaken is just for show.

                    Have fun tilting at windmills.

                    • Those reasons aren’t valid because those were not the Lancet editor’s reasons for the paper’s retraction, but have fun pretending you can speak for him.

                • Toni Reid on June 19, 2014 at 4:19 am said:

                  Several hundred thousand dollars???? Wakefield was given a Legal Aid Board grant of $55,000 for a separate viral detection study. Completed in 1999, it discloses the source of funding. The legal aid board money was in a trust account until September 1997 – the children involved in the case series paper had their investigations completed in February 1997. None of the children involved were litigants at the time when they were examined at the Royal Free Hospital. This is all BS you have been fed by the media and by those who wish to protect the vaccine program. Apparently making sure vaccines are given to prevent disease in children is more important than discovering if vaccines are causing disease in children. Btw thanks Jake for keeping us all up to date.

                  • Sure Toni, thanks for your comment – very well said. I think Argus was referring to the fees Dr. Wakefield was directly paid as an expert witness. What Argus conveniently leaves out is that this money was given over the course of nearly a decade and was a normal rate for expert witnesses. Interesting how Dr. Wakefield’s critics always leave out these key details when discussing this, while expressing no interest in what pharma’s “experts” were being paid during this same time period.

                    • Argus Filch on June 24, 2014 at 6:43 pm said:

                      So Jake, please clarify what you are saying. Wakefield received over 435,000 British Pounds (equal to at least $700,000) from the legal fund. Are you saying that amount of money is not material enough to represent a COI?
                      Or is your statement that it was the “normal rate” for expert witnesses (I don’t know if it was or wasn’t, so let’s just say that it was) meant to say it doesn’t represent a COI?
                      Or is it that because it was paid out over a number of years it doesn’t represent a COI?
                      Or maybe you mean that because others, possibly on the opposite side of the issue were also paid, that things cancel out.
                      Please explain what you consider to be the parameters for cash payments that would represent a conflict of interest.

                    • Argus, you completely misunderstand. All I’m saying is that Dr. Wakefield’s earnings as an expert witness for parents of injured children is often misconstrued by people who do not demonstrate nearly the same level of interest in what the pharmaceutical companies were paying their experts.

  15. White Rose (banned from AoA) on May 14, 2014 at 11:54 am said:

    Argus

    The Walker Smith ruling was a great victory for our side .
    One of many that I am expecting .
    Get used to losing .

  16. Argus Filch on May 14, 2014 at 8:24 pm said:

    White Rose:
    “victory” “our side” “losing”?

    What on earth are you talking about?

  17. White Rose (banned from AoA) on May 15, 2014 at 7:49 am said:

    The Hannah Polling case saying her vaccines caused her Autism was our victory .
    (Gerbering can mitochondrial mis-function herself into oblivion as far as I’m concerned) .

    The disclosure that the Vaccine injury court has paid out 500+ times that vaccines do cause autism injury is our victory . (why tie those payments to confidentiality agreements ?)

    The Italian court ruling that the MMR caused autism was our victory .

    Japan rejecting the Gardasil vaccine was our victory

    The whistleblower Lewis coming out and saying there was nothing wrong with Wakefields paper was our victory .

    Thoresen running off with $2m of the CDC’s funds and thus invalidating all his fraudulent work was our victory (why can the amazing FBI \ interpol still not find him I wonder ?)

    The Maurice Hilleman recording where he describes vaccines as bargain basement medical technology was our victory (neverming all the other allegations , wow)

    Gardasil whistle blower Diane Harper and the Dr Dalbergue was our victory (no where to hide on that one ?)

    Bernadine Healey (RIP), the first woman head of the NIH , who said the case on vaccines\autism was very much still open is our victory

    SimpsonWood was our victory (every one of those attendees should be prosecuted)

    The internet is our victory (which is why steps are being taken to try and censor it and counter us on it)

    I can go on and on – & I will .

  18. Letthembegot on May 16, 2014 at 6:34 am said:

    Thanks for the reminder list WR and yes you are quite right that is the tip of the iceberg.
    If we weren’t continually questioning and unraveling the deceit we would still be in the dark.
    Progress has been made but we have not yet reached critical mass, I am hoping we will.

    I totally understand what on earth you are talking about.

  19. White Rose (banned from AoA) on May 16, 2014 at 10:52 am said:

    The government of the Republic of Chile making all mercury containing vaccines illegal is our victory (despite the fact that Pharma is now lobbying very hard to get this overturned no doubt – bribing all in sundry undoubtedly)

    The committment to discontinue all mercury malgams by 2020 is our victory (I bet they reverse this decision after coming under WHO pressure)

    The GSK bribery debacle in China showing how Pharma Harma conducts its business (Crookfeller style) is our victory

    I can do this all day . And who says we are getting nowhere . We are winning people ! And they know it .

  20. Bayareamom on May 17, 2014 at 12:32 am said:

    To be clear, WINNING – to me – means the statistics in documented autism cases and injuries from vaccines goes DOWN – for whatever the reason. This MUST happen, or there’s no winning…

    Winning means the right to CHOOSE (via TRUE informed consent) the right to determine if one wants to use vaccination for their overall healthcare; winning means pediatricians all around the globe are well versed in the microbiology behind vaccines, i.e., they understand what vaccines do to the immune system on a cellular level and therefore, are well versed in the TRUE risks versus benefits behind vaccination; winning would mean FAR FEWER deaths (if any) and injuries due to vaccination; winning would mean NO RESTRICTIONS implemented regarding ANY of the exemptions currently on board in all our states; winning would mean NO restrictions on unvaccinated children re: attendance in schools; winning would mean NO mandatory flu vaccinations (or any other vaccination) for employment.

    You get the picture. What I DO see are more and more restrictions put into the process within which to use our philosophical exemptions; I am still witnessing the very daunting rise of autism numbers; I’m still hearing the anguished voices of Moms/parents whose daughters are suffering unspeakable injuries due to the Gardasil vaccine.

    Perhaps we are on the CUSP of winning, but overall, I’d say there’s still a long, long way to go before we can declare a win for the side of truth.

  21. Bayareamom on May 17, 2014 at 12:41 am said:

    I’m not well versed re: what is happening in the UK regarding the use of vaccine exemptions, i.e., whether restrictions as to the use of exemptions are becoming more stringent. Over HERE in the United States, if one wants to see the Big Pharma boys at work, take a gander at the National Vaccine Information Center’s website and have a look.

    There are MANY bills in place at this time to further restrict our fundamental right to the use of our philosophical exemptions. What is becoming even more alarming is that some state legislatures now want to overturn our MEDICAL exemptions and make those so severely restrictive that it may render it impossible to the the use of that type exemption.

    Some state legislatures are now going after teachers and insisting they, too, receive any number of vaccines, or they risk losing their job status. I can remember a conversation I once had with an individual whose efforts in related vaccine safety issues has been prominent; she stated to me around three summers ago that, after having attended a conference, she witnessed many big pharma lobbyists literally scaring state legislative representatives into the false belief that vaccines were so vital to our overall health that if they didn’t soon find ways to promote heavy mandates with the use of vaccines, dire consequences would follow.

    Thus followed discussions as to the possibility of having to one day in the future take a vaccine (or several) in order to renew one’s driver’s license, or to secure a job, etc., so forth.

    Winning? Are we there yet? I don’t think so, not quite yet. The ONLY reason this increased knowledge about vaccines and the harm they can cause to a wider audience, is because the injuries and deaths related to vaccination, is on the increase. Thank God for Katie Couric, Jenny McCarthy and other cause celebs who have taken the heat in so many ways to give rise to this issue, but we still have a very long way to go.

  22. Bayareamom on May 17, 2014 at 12:47 am said:

    Add this to the ‘winning’ selection of my upper comment:

    Winning in the United States would mean a state-wide PBE (philosophical belief exemption) so that ALL in this country have the right to CHOOSE whether or not they use vaccination as a measure of their healthcare needs.

    We still have two states that do not allow for either the religious or philosophical exemptions: West Virginia and Mississippi. That’s unconscionable; there are now bills I believe set in place for both states to try to get the philosophical exemption in both.

    Last, but not least, winning TO ME would be the end of the charade that allopathic medicine is a true measure of humanitarian medicine practiced in the populous, when nothing could be further from the truth. WINNING would be the end of propaganda attached to the so-called art form of allopathic medicine. Winning would mean that allopathic practitioners would be able to hold hospital privileges when working with their patients who find themselves in need of hospitalization; winning would mean that chiropractors will no longer have to beat the constant steady drumbeats in order to dispel the oft times false claims of malpractice leveled at them via their allopathic cohorts; winning would be the END of parents FALSELY ACCUSED OF CHILD ABUSE/BEATING, when if truth be told, their children (in many cases) suffered with vaccine related cause/death.

  23. Bayareamom on May 17, 2014 at 12:49 am said:

    …correction.

    Winning would mean that HOLISTIC practitioners would be able to hold hospital privileges when their patients become ill and are in hospital (not allopaths as I typed, above).

  24. Letthembegot on May 17, 2014 at 7:08 am said:

    To BAM – In the UK I can say that for now we still have the right to chose. If you dont want to vaccinate they will apply pressure but ultimately there is no obstacle for school attendance etc. I say for now because what happens in the US definitely has an impact on the way things will go here longer term.

    I had my third child in the US and refused all vaccines. 3 pediatricians visited me in the 24 hours after birth to insist I give Vitamin K. My refusal was based on Aluminum content and the odds of getting haemorrhagic disease. They, all three, swore blind it did not contain Al. I had to produce the vaccine insert to prove them wrong. After that day I have never sought advice from another doctor even in an extreme emergency (life threatening to another child) I still researched myself and made my decision about the course of action. I tell this story, because part of being able to refuse vaccines is to educate oneself and that means not seeing doctors as the experts any longer. It means researching good nutrition and natural remedies etc putting in a bit of effort. People come to me regularly for advice and accept my stance as ok. That was not the case in the US i am afraid. People were terrified of unvaccinated kids and so we left.

    You mention Gardasil which is being rolled out here as Cervarix although I think that may have been pulled and replaced with Gardasil. That is very worrying as it is given to young teenagers in school, they are not told which day they will get it so that they dont worry about it or try to miss school. I have met parents of teenagers who dont even know what the vaccine is for but they are getting it nonetheless. One of those parents works in the senior team at a state health facility !

    That right there is what we are up against- an under informed population who are happy to be led. A lot of people dont even want to know whats going on imho.

    • Barry on May 18, 2014 at 5:30 pm said:

      Letthembegot,

      In the interest of adding something positive:

      My son came home from school the other day, and told me about how the girls had been herded off for their vaccines.

      When he and his buddies were talking about it later, one them asked how vaccines worked. To which another of them replied ” You inject a little bit of the disease, to prevent getting it later on”. Apparently, after a brief period of silence, they unanimously concluded that this sounded like a big load of crap.

      Although we owe it to our children to right the horrible wrong, I have a funny feeling that the ones who avoided the most debilitating forms of autism, are going to fix it if we fail.

      • Letthembegot on May 19, 2014 at 9:55 pm said:

        I like that story Barry thank you, and I understand your point.
        I know my kids will be on message for sure too.

      • Larry on May 20, 2014 at 4:07 pm said:

        @Barry – I find that story to be a far better indication about the failure to teach proper Science and Rational thought to those children…..that’s basic biology that they don’t seem to understand.

  25. Hi Jake. Some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum Trolls are unhappy with your work.

    What we on CHS are hearing is “Wah, wah, wah, wah” and the sounds of toys being thrown out of the baby carriages. Here is an example:
    http://tinyurl.com/lxekcgf

    • Thanks CHS, they are in a very awkward position. Either they give the reasons cited by the Lancet but overturned by the High Court or they give reasons never given by the Lancet to retract the paper in the first place. No wonder we’re not getting any answers from the Lancet.

      • What Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls cannot seem to come to terms with is that with autism rates hitting officially rates the around the 1 in 60 mark in many parts of the world parents are asking questions and why is not because of a paper published 16 years ago in February 1998. Some of these are the same bullies and thugs who comment also on Dr David Gorski’s blog [apart from those like Lilady who are at it 24/7, like s/he(?) is paid fulltime].

        Parents don’t ask, will my child get autism from the MMR vaccine because of a 1998 Lancet paper. They ask “will my child get autism from the vaccines”. They don’t ask “will people think I am anti-vaccine” but “how can I protect my kid because I cannot trust information from crooked health officials and the drug industry”.

        And when it is pointed out that US government officials and agencies confirmed under pressure from the media in 2008 when the Hannah Poling story broke that vaccines cause autistic conditions the internet thugs and bullies have no answers.

        These people will never get it. They don’t get that it is about children. They don’t get it is about their own families and children. They don’t get that it is about their own economies. They don’t get that it is about their own country. They don’t get it is about corruption in healthcare and politics.

        They just don’t get it.

        As for Professor Chris Glycophospate Monsanto Preston, he seems a bit of a weed who gets off on bullying.

  26. You win by exercising your rights as Americans to fire Congress. http://hangcongress.blogspot.com/

  27. WhiteRose (banned from AoA) on May 18, 2014 at 8:47 pm said:

    I have a horticultural problem currently with Japanese knotweed ,
    And apparently the only solution to this prolific breeding plant is glyphosphate (Monsanto’s Roundup)

    So you spray it on , and nothing appears to happen for weeks & weeks & weeks .
    But then the leaves curl and go start to go brown and then the stem loses its strength and falls down .

    Just like all the poisons , its effects are slow working and not immediate . In fact it would be very easy to miss the obvious association if you were not in the position of power and full control .
    Themiserol ? And zyklonB was a pesticide I understand . Do you see what I’m saying ?

    So Mr Offit (Larry \ Argus Filth) my suggestion to you , is there any way you can include Glyphosphate into a vaccine and get away with it ? Because that would be surely be a winner in your eyes .

    As for tying vaccine acceptance to education . I’m afraid the situation looks so serious , That it has to be a home education . This is a scenario worthy of full civil disobedience when you are aware of the facts .
    When I was growing up THEY PUT MERCURY IN OUR MOUTHS . Thanks Mr Kissinger , Now they choose to do it intravenously and mix in aluminium and more besides (a veritable insidious cocktail) .

    Bay Area Mom – we are winning certain significant victories no doubt – but no-one EVER said this was going to be easy .This is the BIG one . The biggest one of all time . Dissemination of knowledge is the solution .

  28. WhiteRose (banned from AoA) on May 18, 2014 at 9:06 pm said:

    Sad to say but another back handed victory was the apparent freezer failure of the 100+ autism brain specimens at John Hopkins University – Come on ! what hope is there from the scientific community if they cannot even keep the freezers running ?

    And another back handed victory is the continuing arguments over Gulf War syndrome (aka vaccine damage) .

  29. Media Scholar on May 21, 2014 at 8:47 am said:

    Jake,

    People that lack vindication tend to be vindictive. That part should be no surprise. What you got here is a bunch of sore losers thumbing their noses at the high court that put them in their place.

    They never thought for an instant that anybody would dare to double-back on them.

    I would think the high court is very interested in knowing when somebody acts in defiance of their order.

    Why not simply forward the entire thing to the high court with a “WTF”?

    They can figure it out.

    Cheers

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation