Tag Archives: Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Sir Mark Pepys Was Knighted with GlaxoSmithKline CEO in 2012

Sir Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline 2008-2017, The Irish Times

Glaxo-funded Mark Pepys was knighted with GlaxoSmithKline’s CEO in 2012. That was after Pepys forced autism-vaccine scientist Andrew Wakefield out of his job, forced his coauthors to retract and leaked vaccine-injured children’s medical records to an opposition researcher. Pepys was knighted for “services” to biomedicine. Witty was knighted for “services to the economy and to the UK pharma industry.”

GSK’s Andrew Witty knighted

Published on 03/01/12 at 11:31am

GlaxoSmithKline chief executive Andrew Witty and former ABPI director general Richard Barker were among the recipients in the 2012 New Year Honours List.

Witty was knighted for services to the economy and to the UK pharma industry, while Barker – who stepped down from his post in June – received an OBE for his work in the pharma sphere.

Elsewhere, there were knighthoods for John Buchanan, chairman of medical devices company Smith & Nephew, for services to industry.

In keeping with the government’s insistence that this year’s Honours were also about ‘local heroes’, there were gongs for people working in less high profile parts of the healthcare sector.

Christine Mills, founder of the cancer charity Hope for Tomorrow, whose fundraising efforts led to the UK’s first mobile chemotherapy unit, received an MBE – as did Terence Monaghan, who set up Stock Cares, a transport service that takes vulnerable residents in Essex to essential health appointments.

Six GPs also got awards, including OBEs for William Cunningham of Corbridge Health Centre in Northumberland and James Kingsland, president of the National Association of Primary Care.

Academics in health and medicine were well-represented in the list: Professor Stephen Bloom, head of diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College London was knighted for services to medical science.

And Professors John Sissons of the University of Cambridge and Mark Pepys of University College London Medical School received knighthoods for services to research and education in clinical medicine, and to biomedicine, respectively.

There was also an OBE for Gideon Ben-Tovim, chair of Liverpool NHS Primary Care Trust, for services to health.

Adam Hill

Originally published on Pharmafile

Congress Knew Andrew Zimmerman Opinion was Non-Starter in 2013

There is nothing in Dr. Andrew Zimmerman’s opinions on autism that could help unresolved vaccine injury cases. Congress knows that, which is why it cancelled a planned hearing into the so-called Zimmerman issue five years ago. Autism Investigated  broke that news.

Yet there is now a resurgent effort to get Congress, the Justice Department and as many Amazon customers as possible interested in this total non-story. The father of a vaccine-injured girl is even being compelled to testify about her medical history before Congress.

Never mind that her parents completely objected to the release of her medical records five years ago. There is no reason to believe they’d feel any differently. There is every reason to believe they would be even more opposed to her private medical history being cross-examined by politicians.

This is not the autism community’s strongest case. It is not even a case. It’s a total dead horse being beaten over and over again by armchair advocates. They’re making a pretty penny off it too.

Apparently, the only new information is that Andrew Zimmerman said his expert opinion against one vaccine injury case shouldn’t have been used against others. That’s it. Two federal attorneys tried to milk his testimony for all it was worth. Shocker.

Wait there’s more… He also acknowledged that vaccines could cause autism in rare cases, just not in any that his opinion was used against at the time he gave it!

Unbelievable what some people will fall for, especially in light of what they’ll ignore.

Just remember folks, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman is no Dr. Andrew Wakefield. And the Department of Justice lawyers Zimmerman is only now whining about are no Sir Medical-Record Leaksalot Dr. Mark Pepys. Let’s also not be like him and respect the confidentiality of disabled children.

Non-Profit Co-Founder Ousted By Vaccination Ideology He Supported

Cochrane Gøtzsche

Founder of non-profit Cochrane Collaboration Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, John McDougall YouTube

“We acknowledge the concerns that groups ideologically opposed to vaccination may exploit scientific uncertainties or propagate fraudulent research, e.g. Andrew Wakefield and co-workers’ unfounded claim that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause autism. However, this does not mean that we should not openly discuss and investigate possible harms of vaccines in a misguided attempt to protect their reputation.” – Gøtzsche et al. to the European Ombudsman, November 2, 2017

What Peter Gøtzsche claimed to denounce in the second sentence is exactly what happened to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and what has just happened to Gøtzsche himself. A co-founder of the non-profit Cochrane Collaboration and director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre has been evicted from the board of the organization he helped establish after publishing critically on the HPV vaccine. Sound familiar?

Wakefield’s GlaxoSmithKline-funded ex-boss Mark Pepys admitted, “We paid him to leave.” Then Pepys forced Wakefield’s coauthors into a retractionsabotaged vaccine injury litigation in the United Kingdom and leaked medical records to a freelance opposition researcher.

Yet the victim, according to Gøtzsche as recently as last May, is the opposition researcher who illegally obtained disabled children’s medical records (translated from Danish):

“He (Wakefield) is a fraud. And it is quite unreasonable that people are shooting at Brian Deer who revealed it. He has made a sober contribution, and BMJ’s chief editor also calls Wakefield’s study a fraud. It takes a lot for an editor-in-chief to say such things. I have nothing more to say.”

It takes a lot of Merck and Glaxo money to say such things. That’s the same editor who ironically cites Wakefield not joining his coauthors in the fraudulent, Pepys-forced retraction as evidence of fraud. But Gøtzsche probably thought he could insulate himself from attack by throwing Wakefield under the bus. Sorry doc, doesn’t work like that.

Either you can criticize any vaccination or none at all. Either all doctors are safe from pharmaceutical industry retaliation or none are. Obviously, no one is safe. Wakefield was the rule, not the exception. Criticizing vaccinations brings you into “disrepute” no matter who you are.

Too bad Peter Gøtzsche didn’t get the memo before he was ousted from his own non-profit organization. GlaxoSmithKline wants to profit off all its drugs and vaccines. The doctor is no economist. He’s also no crusader against the pharmaceutical industry, just an opportunistic hypocrite.

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.

Sir Mark Pepys – GlaxoSmithKline’s Medical Record-Leaking “Superstar”

“ARGUABLY THE FINEST PRIVATE COLLECTION OF CHILDRENS MEDICAL RECORDS..” -Cartoon satirizing a photo of freelance writer Brian Deer, http://adversevaccinereaction.blogspot.com/

“I know the names and family backgrounds of all 12 of the children enrolled in the study, including the child enrolled from the United States.” – Brian Deer on children seen at London’s Royal Free Hospital, BMJ, 2010

“Brian Deer has done an excellent job.” – Royal Free’s Head of Medicine Dr. Mark Pepys, BBC Radio, 2011

The GlaxoSmithKline puppet who bullied coauthors of the Wakefield autism-vaccine paper into signing a fraudulent retraction also leaked the medical records of children in that paper.

As you would expect from a doctor who cares nothing for patient safety, Dr. Mark Pepys does not care about patient confidentiality either. He has praised the freelance writer who obtained confidential medical information about patients seen at Pepys’ own hospital. Dr. Pepys even allowed that writer to quote him divulging information he had promised to keep secret.

The writer Pepys praised, Brian Deer, had no right to the names or family backgrounds of any of those children. That didn’t phase Mark Pepys who agreed to be interviewed by him.

Even worse, Pepys was the Head of Medicine at the Royal Free Hospital when Deer obtained confidential information on patients seen there. No investigation as to how that happened was ever launched. Instead, the Royal Free “investigated” doctors who saw the children including Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Mark Pepys is 100% responsible for all leaks of patient information to the media, given his position at Royal Free. In his interview with Brian Deer, Pepys revealed he had no respect for confidentiality by leaking conditions for the departure of Dr. Wakefield from the hospital staff:

“one of the conditions of him going away was that I wasn’t supposed to say anything critical of him to anybody, for ever after.”

That condition wasn’t kept by GlaxoSmithKline’s designated “superstar.”

Any patient who enrolls in Sir Mark Pepys’ GlaxoSmithKline trials should know that Sir Leaksalot will sell out both their safety and their privacy for commercial gain.

Pharma Puppet Who Ejected Wakefield Was Behind Murch Retraction


“I said I wouldn’t transfer my unit if he was there.” “We paid him to leave.” – Sir Mark Pepys on autism-vaccine scientist Dr. Andrew Wakefield

A doctor heavily backed by GlaxoSmithKline who took credit for Dr. Andrew Wakefield leaving the Royal Free Hospital made his coauthors fraudulently retract the interpretation in his paper. Seven of the 10 coauthors were working for Royal Free when they signed their names to the statement, including lead turncoat Simon Murch. Wakefield even predicted the Royal Free hierarchy would force Murch’s retraction months before.

Years after Pepys orchestrated the fraudulent retraction, he tried to orchestrate an “investigation” against Wakefield’s research. In response, Wakefield wrote a letter to University College London later published in his book Waging War on the Autistic Child that revealed a history of Pepys’ dishonesty and bribery (boldface mine):

I understand from his statements on BBC Radio 4, that Professor Mark Pepys is to conduct an investigation of my research while at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine. May I suggest that he is not a good choice for this task, for the following reasons:

1. He has a real conflict of interest-having initially declined his appointment at the Royal Free until I had been removed. The following are extracts from Professor Pepys’ attendance note with Kate Emmerson of Field Fisher Waterhouse, the GMC’s lawyers, on 12th April 2005. 

“He [Pepys] accepted the job on the condition that Wakefield was removed (this didn’t happen).”

“MP would have dismissed W but others at the Royal Free were unwilling to do so. MP was really the only person at the Free who was putting forward anti-W views.”

2. Having taken up this appointment, (his above condition having been rejected [Pepys’ bluff had been called]), in the company of the Dean and the School Secretary, he confirmed to me that, despite having strong negative opinions about my research, he had never actually read any of it.

3. A book is due to be published later this year covering Professor Pepys’ activities in relation to my work. It will allege, supported by documentary evidence, conspiracy to execute a bribe with a senior academic from another institution in order to destroy peer-reviewed grant-awarded research looking at vaccine safety. This book will unfortunately be a source of major embarrassment for UCL and The Royal Free. May I suggest you ask Professor Pepys to provide you with his email traffic from the relevant period October 1999 to 2002? This traffic has already been examined by third parties. 

4. Professor Pepys’ extreme bias against me has been evident throughout my dealings with him. He expressed this in public in his Harverian oration, as well as on the BBC.

5. He is deeply conflicted due to his relationship with vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline. He is totally unsuited to lead any investigation of my research.

Pepys is now leading GlaxoSmithKline vaccine trials. How could any patient possibly enroll in a vaccine trial led by this guy when he promotes covering up vaccine side-effects?

Any decent human being should demand that any drug trial led by Sir Mark Pepys be shut down.

Andrew Wakefield Predicted Ex-Employer Would Force Murch Retraction

The Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead and Highgate Express

“His laboratory is under threat. He has failed to gain due promotion. He has been strongly advised to withdraw from scientific publications that involve any mention of my name or association with MMR and bowel disease.” – Dr. Andrew Wakefield on Turncoat Simon Murch, The Guardian, November 1, 2003

10 coauthors fraudulently retracted the interpretation from the Wakefield autism-vaccine paper. Seven were still working for the hospital that fired him when they signed their names to the retraction. They include lead turncoat author Simon Murch, who used his hospital email address in the retraction. His retraction was predicted by lead author Andrew Wakefield in the above quote to a British newspaper four months prior. That was when Murch began campaigning for vaccines.

Who was pressuring Murch according to Wakefield? “the hierarchy of the Royal Free and the medical school,” which already fired Wakefield for his research two years prior. At the time, the medical school denied influencing Murch’s opinion on vaccines:

“The school believes that Dr Murch’s rejection of any association between MMR and autism is his considered professional judgement as a paediatrician and a researcher.”

Curiously, however, the school did not respond to the allegation that Murch was being pressured to withdraw his name from Wakefield papers. The medical school denied that it was withdrawing treatment from sick children instead:

“In addition, the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust completely refutes the suggestion that the trust is considering withdrawing treatment from children. The trust intends to continue to provide this important service and has no plans to reduce or withhold treatment from these children.”

That’s because its real plans were withdrawing its employees names from the interpretation of the landmark autism-vaccine paper. Four months later, that’s exactly what happened.

Turncoat Simon Murch Defended Vaccines Months Before “Retraction”

Turncoat Coauthor Simon Murch, ITN

Before the 10 coauthors’ retraction, the letter by Peter Harvey shared on Autism Investigated defended the Wakefield paper from earlier attacks from lead turncoat Simon Murch. Murch’s attacks were made in a series of letters to The Lancet, the first of which was published in November 2003.

His first letter was a response to a September letter by doctors unconnected to the Wakefield paper describing two children who developed measles encephalitis. Both had been vaccinated.

Among the garbage in Murch’s November letter was this:

many epidemiological studies have been undertaken, the results of which indicate no causal relation. No other vaccine has ever been studied in such depth, and the evidence for its overall safety is comprehensive.

They’re trash.

There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism—this statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis. By any rational standards of risk/benefit calculation, it is an illogical and potentially dangerous mistake for parents to be prepared to take their children in a car on the motorway or in an aeroplane on holiday, but not to protect them with the MMR vaccine. An unprotected child is not only at personal danger, but represents a potential hazard to others, including unborn children. Unless vaccine uptake improves rapidly, major measles epidemics are likely in the UK this winter.

It was that letter that Dr. Harvey would later respond to, as would autism parent David Thrower. Their responses would be published in the February 14th issue of The Lancet. That was the week before the journal’s editor stated that he wished he censored vaccination from the Wakefield paper and two weeks before the interpretation retraction. A follow-up letter by Murch responding to Thrower and Dr. Harvey was published in the same issue as their letters.

In Murch’s letter, he doubled down on his previous stupidity. His biggest problem with the government’s attack on autism research was not because of the threat to said research, but because of its bolstering the “anti-MMR [vaccine] lobby”:

That some regulatory authorities ridiculed all aspects of these studies is unfortunate because it has allowed confirmation of the intestinal lesion to be appropriated by the anti-MMR lobby.

Then in a truly Orwellian move, Murch compares criticizing the tobacco science of the vaccine industry to tobacco industry science!

Thrower’s suggested tactic, in which every study that shows an unwanted outcome is destruction-tested from a hostile viewpoint, is essentially that used for years by the tobacco industry.

Measles in the gut? No big deal!

If traces of measles virus indeed prove to be detectable in 90% of cases, it surely cannot be causal, since such numbers of children would show up on the crudest epidemiological assessment.

They have.

Finally, Murch justifies use of the MMR vaccine with no alternative:

I see families in my clinic almost every week who have given their children single measles vaccine. Those who have gone on to give rubella and mumps vaccines are in the minority, months and sometimes years later. That is the heart of the issue. Personal choice cannot extend to compromising the safety of other people’s children.

The day before Murch’s 2003 letter was published, he scooped his support of the MMR vaccine to a major UK television network.

Throughout this same period, Murch also claimed he had no financial interest. As you will all see, that wasn’t true either.