Richard Demirjian Throws Autism Research To The Wolves

Richard Demirjian supported Dr. Andrew Wakefield and early vaccine research concerning autism, only to throw Wakefield to the wolves. Demirjian has no issue with the lie that The Lancet paper said his son’s autistic symptoms began one week after the vaccine. Demirjian did this to call Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the paper a fraud, and it was used by the British Medical Journal to call the vaccine-autism link a fraud. But what does the paper itself say? Look below:

“Viral pneumonia” – that’s all it says. Does that sound like autism to you? So he’s a liar and a first class dirt-bag.

Call (don’t get personal): 949 718 0180

Write (don’t get personal): vahedemirjian@cox.net

Here is where they live: 11 Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA

And get this? The Demirjians are actually funding research at University of California-Irvine through an unrestricted grant! Please write and call the researcher taking their blood money, Dr. Sudhir Gupta.

Does Dr. Gupta want the tainted Demirjian name on his research papers? How would Dr. Gupta feel if he were suddenly accused of fraud for his research interests and Richard Demirjian stabbed him in the back like Dr. Andrew Wakefield? After all, Dr. Gupta is an immunology researcher who lists “autism” as one of his interests. Does he really think the vaccine people are not going to target him too? They are after anybody who argues autism is autoimmune in nature.

Here is Dr. Gupta’s email: sgupta@uci.edu

He has two phone numbers too.

Phone: 714-456-7720

Write and call Dr. Gupta’s colleague too, Dr. Sastry Gollapudi.
Tel: 949-824-5818; Fax: 949-824-4362; E-mail: svgollap@uci.edu
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

18 Thoughts on “Richard Demirjian Throws Autism Research To The Wolves

  1. Chris Preston on November 21, 2017 at 8:11 am said:

    This is a little piece of advice. You really should stop harassing this family.

    Cyberstalking is a criminal offence in California and elsewhere in the US.

  2. “Demirjian has no issue with the lie that The Lancet paper said his son’s autistic symptoms began one week after the vaccine. ”

    Where in the Lancet paper did Wakefield indicate what the “first behavioural sign” of “regressive developmental disorder” was for in Child 11? Why do you believe that it was not associated with the indicated respiratory infection that followed MMR?

    Wakefield wrote, “In eight children, the onset of behavioural problems had been linked, either by the parents or by the child’s physician, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination.” If it’s a “lie” that Child 11’s “first behavioural sign” of regressive developmental disorder did not occur within one week of vaccination, could you please explain how Wakefield calculated that “In these eight children the average interval from exposure to first behavioural symptoms was 6·3 days (range 1–14)?”

    • It doesn’t say that. The paper only described the first behavioral sign associated with vaccination, but not necessarily a symptom of autism. I do believe that the infection is associated with the autism that followed, as does Demirjian apparently, but that’s not the same as conflating the two as Demirjian alleges the paper did.

  3. “The paper only described the first behavioral sign associated with vaccination, but not necessarily a symptom of autism.”

    That doesn’t make any sense either on plain reading of the paper or interpreting it in context.

    Understandably, since Wakefield was paid by attorneys who planned to sue MMR manufacturers, the point of his effort was to associate the administration of MMR with the onset of “behavioural symptoms” of “regressive developmental disorder” with MMR. Wakefield wrote, “Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children.” This cannot mean that the “behavioural symptoms” were that the kid got cranky because the shot caused minor pain—it quite clearly refers to the “first behavioural signs” of “regressive developmental disorder.”

    • “since Wakefield was paid by attorneys who planned to sue MMR manufacturers, the point of his effort…”

      The point of the paper was to summarize the children’s clinical histories and diagnoses, not to find any new associations that could be used as evidence in a lawsuit. But if you read the paper with that sort of biased thinking, then sure you could come away with the misinformed opinion that the paper only referred to autistic symptoms as Demirjian did.

      • “The point of the paper was to summarize the children’s clinical histories and diagnoses,”

        Ah, that’s the problem, then.

        Any competent graduate student in a biomedical discipline should be able to understand the thrust of Wakefield’s paper–especially if he or she understood that Wakefield had been paid several times his yearly salary as a researcher by trial lawyers who intended to sue MMR manufacturers.

  4. Wendy Stephen on November 26, 2017 at 6:09 pm said:

    Jake, the list of experts who acted on behalf of us litigant parents in the MMR litigation and the amount of money they received from the legal aid awarded to our class action, was released under the FOIA many years back.

    That list included payment of £439, 553 to Dr Andrew Wakefield, £58,527 to Dr Anthony (histopathology), £23,151 to Professor John Walker-Smith (gastroenterologist) and £10, 272 to Dr Harvey (neurologist) making a grand total of £531.503.

    Unless I am mistaken, all of these experts contracted and handsomely paid to present a case on behalf of the families in the MMR litigation to establish causation between the measles virus in the MR and MMR vaccines and ASD/IBD, were co authors of the Lancet paper.

    It goes without saying that we litigant families went home with nothing.

    • Those do not represent the final sums awarded to each researcher. Only Wakefield was an expert, and the money he was paid was substantially less than the figure you gave. Try finding a more honest source than Brian Deer’s website, and stop blaming unfairness to vaccine victims on Wakefield. Also – you are not the parent of a child who developed autism after vaccination, you are the parent of a child who went partially deaf after Urabe-strain MMR vaccination.

  5. Wendy Stephen on November 26, 2017 at 9:07 pm said:

    Jake, whether you like it or not, Drs Anthony and Harvey along with Professor John Walker-Smith were all engaged as experts to represent the claimants in the MMR litigation. I was a litigant in the MMR litigation between 1999 and 2007 and can tell you that is correct. The information is readily accessible via a FOIA response issued by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) who authorised the payment of Legal Aid in the MMR litigation. The source of the information is therefore the LSC and has nothing to do with any website.

    Also, the payments are quoted as “experts fees and expenses as allowed on assessment by the court” which means that they have been scrutinised by a Costs Judge and authorised. Therefore, these are the final sums awarded to each expert.

    Finally, it is clear that despite your willingness to comment on aspects of the UK MMR litigation you are very ill informed. As you have stated, I am not the parent of a child who developed autism after vaccination but a parent of a child who developed deafness in one ear after the MMR. When referring to the litigation, it is an irrelevancy since all claims irrespective of condition (and there were 13 conditions) had to be brought in the one Class Action in line with the legislation governing the running of the case. To be clear, it didn’t matter what the injury was in each respective child, everyone was party to the MMR Litigation with the same experts, legal team, funding source, defendants, costs and Case Management Conferences. It follows that when the Legal Aid was withdrawn for the ASD/IBD claimants every single other litigant child, irrespective of the condition complained of, also lost their legal aid and their claim with it, because that is the way a group action works.

  6. Wendy Stephen on November 27, 2017 at 11:28 am said:

    Jake, what I said was not wrong. You need to understand that the UK litigation was a large class action. In the early days it was decided that only claims seeking to establish causation between measles virus in the MR and MMR vaccine and ASD/IBD would progress, placing all the other children (referred to as the “other conditions” ) in abeyance. When our QC’s stated that as things stood, they could not provide an argument to support the ASD and IBD claims the Legal Services Commission (now the Legal Aid Agency) withdrew funding for each and every one of the children, even those who did not have claims in respect of ASD and IBD. This happened in September 2003 and I can absolutely assure you that it included every single litigant. My own daughter, who as you quite rightly state, is deaf in one ear, lost her legal aid on that date too, along with the autistic children.

    That is how it works in a UK class action.

    Parents whose children did not have ASD or IBD but who were litigants and had been in abeyance for years challenged the withdrawal of Legal Aid for their children on the grounds that they had been in abeyance for years and had never even had their claims looked at.

    Eventually, we (that’s the “other conditions”) were awarded limited Legal Aid (nowhere near the £26m spent on the ASD/IBD part) and the claims continued up until 2007 when funding was removed again on the application of a Cost Benefit Analysis (the costs to bring the claims far exceeded the total amount of damages which could be expected for the group) and funding was again withdrawn on that basis. That was the end of the litigation.

    Again, this is a feature of a class action.

    A lot of people down through the years have mistakenly viewed the UK MMR litigation as a class action in respect of autism and bowel conditions when the law supported a class action to be brought in respect of all conditions alleged to have happened following administration of MR and MMR vaccines.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation