Tag Archives: General Medical Council

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.

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.

Fake Medical Protection Society Won’t Say Vaccine Criticism is Free Speech

Dr. Robert Hendry, Medical Director of Medical Protection Society, BMJ Blogs

The UK’s Medical Protection Society sure does a hell of a job defending medical experts of vaccine injury. Just a few months ago, its medical director contributed a blog to the BMJ. That journal called the 1998 autism-vaccine paper fraudulent despite knowing that it isn’t.

But nothing says more about the Medical Protection Society than its decision to yank £500,000 from the lead author’s appeal. That is except for the following question Autism Investigated asked of MPS regarding the General Medical Council hearing.

Is this a legitimate judgement to make against doctors as GMC has made against Wakefield and Walker-Smith?

“b. 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”

RESPONSE:

Dear Mr Crosby

I have been forwarded copies of your emails of 30 June, 5 July and 6 July 2018.
I am afraid due to member confidentiality I am not able to respond to the questions you raise.
Yours sincerely
Dr R A Hendry
Medical Director

“Confidentiality” is no excuse to duck saying whether or not publishing alleged vaccine injuries amounts to misconduct. The Medical Protection Society might as well “protect” doctors from accusations of heresy. Its no different, after all.

British Medical Board Charged Doctors with Criticizing Toxic Vaccines

GMC charge against Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Prof. John Walker-Smith for what they published in the medical journal The Lancet

Thank goodness for the First Amendment. Unfortunately, no such freedom exists in the United Kingdom. The country’s national medical board has banned doctors from criticizing toxic vaccination. The above quoted finding against two doctors for doing just that says it all. Both doctors were ordered to be struck off.

The General Medical Council is funded by annual fees paid for by every doctor it registers. Therefore, every doctor in the UK pays for the statewide ban on criticizing vaccination. Meanwhile in the US, nearly every major medical group along with the NIH and CDC have endorsed the General Medical Council’s purge.

Fortunately, it’s still not so easy for state medical boards here to carry out what the General Medical Council did. The vaccine industry is working hard to change that, however.

Maryland’s state medical board was ordered to pay $2.5 million to autism-vaccine scientist Dr. Mark Geier after its Watergate-likened conspiracy against him. California stopped short of revoking Dr. Robert Sears’ license for saving a child from toxic vaccination, but is hellbent on keeping him on probation for his entire career. California’s actions were made possible by a state law revoking all vaccine exemptions from federally pushed vaccines.

National vaccine programs the world over take orders directly from vaccine developers: doctors of doom like MMR co-developer Stanley “Vaccine Soros” Plotkin. They also indoctrinate doctors in medical schools worldwide. Therefore, it is the vaccine industry forbidding criticism about its toxic vaccines. This authoritarian, child-poisoning industry must be put out of business.

How The UK’s Medical “Protection” Society Baited A Leading Autism-Vaccine Scientist into A Show Trial Attacking His Free Speech

Drs. Andrew and Carmel Wakefield outside UK’s General Medical Council the day of its “findings” against him, Zimbio

The UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) charged Dr. Andrew Wakefield with publishing critically on vaccination. So GMC needed to ensure he wouldn’t boycott its show trial for obviously attacking his free speech. That’s what the Medical “Protection” Society (MPS) was good for. The MPS is an organization that purports to defend doctors from malpractice allegations in Britain. MPS funded Dr. Wakefield’s “defense” against the General Medical Council, but it really wasn’t a “defense” at all.

His so-called defense should have never made him “defend” himself against the “crime” of publishing on the vaccine-autism link. Even worse, MPS even got him to falsely say he should have gotten ethical approval to take blood from his own children at his son’s birthday party. They subsequently enabled Dr. Wakefield to be punished for making a joke about it in America, never mind the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, inquiries to the lawyer MPS paid to “represent” Dr. Wakefield have gone unanswered.

After the GMC’s “findings” against him were made, MPS cut funding to his appeal in order to make them stick. Of course a major medical defense organization believes publishing critically about vaccination is wrong. After all, it has many other doctors to defend who poison children into autism with vaccinations everyday. So it had to “defend” Dr. Wakefield and then throw him under the bus to protect all of its Hippocratic Oath-violating “doctors.”

On a happier note, Autism Investigated will now share Dr. Wakefield’s hilarious birthday party blood joke for readers to laugh with. Thank you Dr. Wakefield for your humor and thank you YouTuber Anthony Cox for sharing!

(Contrary to BBC Fake News, no children fainted or threw up.)

LANCET: Anti-Semitism is Fine, Suing Vaccine Manufacturers is “Fatal”

Photo Credit: EAT Foundation

Read the editor’s rejected letter to the editor of The Lancet about the double-standard in his journal concerning vaccine injury and anti-Semitism:

Not even anti-Semitism is a fatal conflict of interest worthy of retraction, so why is vaccine injury litigation?

The Lancet keeps a published “An open letter for the people in Gaza” by Manduca et al. despite the undisclosed, anti-Semitic conflicts of interest of two coauthors. Yet The Lancet now keeps “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” by Wakefield et al. retracted solely because of a coauthor’s undisclosed involvement in vaccine injury litigation.

The stated reasons for the paper’s retraction are findings by the General Medical Council (GMC) that were overturned on appeal by the senior author. The Lancet’s ombudsman made clear in email that reasons not explicitly mentioned in the retraction statement are the reasons for the paper’s continued retraction. Wakefield’s undisclosed “interests” of litigation are those reasons.

Meanwhile, The Lancet keeps the Gaza letter published even after it was revealed that two of its coauthors circulated anti-Semitic conspiracy theories by a former Ku Klux Klansman. One of those coauthors is still registered with the GMC despite her non-disclosure to the editor of The Lancet. That is because a “conflict of interest” as defined in GMC’s guidance for doctors is left to the subjective decision of the doctor.

The editor of The Lancet – being registered with a license to practice – would know that. Yet he is perfectly happy to be cited in the GMC’s discredited decision against Wakefield et al. as the person whom Wakefield was obligated to disclose his litigation involvement to. The editor even assisted the GMC in its pursuit of Wakefield after accusing him of a “fatal conflict of interest.”

Per GMC’s guidance, Wakefield was under no obligation of disclosure. The GMC decisions cited in The Lancet retraction explicitly held him to a different standard because of what he published.

Neither the GMC nor the editor took any such exception with the anti-Semitism of Gaza letter coauthors. The editor called it “irrelevant,” saying “I have no plans to retract the letter, and I would not retract the letter even if it was found to be substantiated.”

Since anti-Semitism is not even worthy of retraction or disciplinary erasure, vaccine injury litigation should not be either. If the editor of The Lancet agreed, he would have restored Wakefield et al. with a statement urging the GMC to restore Andrew Wakefield’s registration. The editor refused.

Holtzbrink Systematically Retracts Science Critical of Vaccines

The Nazi-built Holtzbrinck Publishing Group systematically scrubs any paper that casts vaccines in a negative light. Look at the case of a 2016 animal study of HPV vaccine from Japan.

Like many animal studies in medicine, the purpose is to learn more about a disease in humans by replicating its symptoms in animals. That is what scientists sought to do in this study published in Scientific Reports:

In the case of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, an unexpectedly novel disease entity, HPV vaccination associated neuro-immunopathetic syndrome (HANS), has been reported and remains to be carefully verified. To elucidate the mechanism of HANS, we applied a strategy similar to the active experimental autoimmune encephalitis (EAE) model – one of the most popular animal models used to induce maximum immunological change in the central nervous system.

Then suddenly in 2018, the Publisher retracted the paper by totally lying about the study’s purpose:

The Publisher is retracting this Article because the experimental approach does not support the objectives of the study. The study was designed to elucidate the maximum implication of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine (Gardasil) in the central nervous system. However, the co-administration of pertussis toxin with high-levels of HPV vaccine is not an appropriate approach to determine neurological damage from HPV vaccine alone. The Authors do not agree with the retraction.

The study never said its objective was to “determine neurological damage from HPV vaccine alone,” but to “elucidate the mechanism of HANS [novel disease entity, HPV vaccination associated neuro-immunopathetic syndrome].” This retraction totally lied about the study’s objectives; no wonder the authors don’t agree with it!

The publisher, not the journal, retracted the post. The publisher of Scientific Reports is Nature Publishing Group, which also retracted this 2000 paper on developmentally impaired children. It did so simply because it included children in the 1998 vaccine-autism paper retracted by The Lancet. The retractions cited a medical circus hearing that punished the lead author of both papers for the following:

 b. 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

Nature Publishing Group is owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which also owns BioMedCentral. That publisher retracted a 2014 study for linking measles-mumps-rubella vaccination to autism and for the author’s opinion being that vaccination causes autism:

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

Holtzbrinck also owns Frontiers. When the first vaccinated versus unvaccinated study of autism was accepted for publication by Frontiers in Public Health, the vaccine troll army responded. Frontiers took down the study abstract and cancelled publication explicitly in response to vaccine crybabies on the internet.

The study was since published elsewhere, but there is an ongoing theme. Whether it’s the HPV vaccine, the MMR vaccine, or vaccinations in general, Holtzbrinck censors vaccine risk papers. Avoid publishing in its journals like the plague.

Autism Investigated Plugged By The Independent in Trump Articles

President Donald Trump and longtime vaccine-autism scientist Dr. Andrew Wakefield, The Independent

In not one, but two articles in The Independent(UK) about President Donald Trump, is the following tweet by the editor to the editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal.

Chelsea Clinton read at least one of the articles that included the editor’s tweet.

And what was the decision that justified stripping Dr. Wakefield’s license and retracting his early paper based on? Why, the simple fact that he published critically on vaccines.

b. 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

Attacking Jews won’t get you retracted by The Lancet nor struck-off the medical register, but reporting vaccine injury will.

Autism Speaks Promotes Darkness for Vaccination-Autism Science

The official position of the world’s biggest money-grubbing autism charity Autism Speaks is that vaccines provide “no increased risk” for autism. What they really support is overt censorship of autism-vaccine science.

The end of Autism Speaks’ position statement provides the first clue.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has compiled a comprehensive list of this research. You can view and download the list here.

What does the academy include in this list of “research?”

British journalist Brian Deer investigates Dr. Andrew Wakefield (the man who initially claimed a link between autism and the MMR vaccine), his practices during the study that was published on this alleged connection, and uncovers truths that lead to the revocation of Dr. Wakefield’s medical license and to the retraction of the article he published on the subject.​

At the center of the “practices” were his so-called conflicts of interest. The UK General Medical Council that took his license stated:

Having regard to its findings at paragraph 31.c., the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in failing to disclose your involvement in the MMR litigation, your receipt of funding for part of Project 172-96 from the Legal Aid Board and your involvement in the Patent, constituted disclosable interests. Your failure to disclose these to the Editor of The Lancet was contrary to your duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper.

He was “contrary” to his “duties,” you say? Sounds harsh. Let’s see how that’s defined in “paragraph 31.c.”

iii. had a duty to disclose to the Editor of the Lancet any disclosable interest including matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception that you had a conflict of interest; Found proved

Let that sink in, Dr. Wakefield had a duty to disclose:

any disclosable interest including matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception that you had a conflict of interest

Is abiding by that duty even possible? Not even the General Medical Council thinks so. That’s why they tell doctors in their own guidance to “use your professional judgement to identify when conflicts of interest arise.” They clearly held Dr. Wakefield to a different standard, as Autism Investigated already reported. But why?

c. In the circumstances set out at paragraph 31.b. above, 

What are those “circumstances?” Why, the fact that he published on children being poisoned into autism by vaccination.

b. 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

BINGO! They took away his license and retracted his paper because of what he published. They make no secret of it.

In the United Kingdom, you can attack Jews and still keep your medical license. Don’t even think about criticizing a vaccine though.

It is totally shameful the American Academy of Pediatrics would openly celebrate such overt censorship while poisoning more children. It is also shameful that Autism Speaks does the same while asking for money to “shine a light on autism.” They don’t want to shine a light on anything.

Autism Speaks wants to keep the causation of autism in the dark. President Trump should dump Autism Speaks.

BBC Host’s Anti-Vax/Anti-Semite Comparison Backfires Spectacularly

Adam Rutherford, Age of Autism

Mainstream news about autism is totally fake. Last year, BBC said wearing a medieval helmet is an “ASSET” in the workplace.

Now look what anti-vaxxers are compared to!

It didn’t end well for Rutherford, however.

(The editor was promptly blocked by Rutherford.)

While The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s early vaccine-autism paper, the journal keeps published An open letter for the people in Gaza. Dr. Ang also remains registered with a license to practice by the UK’s General Medical Council. She was never even charged with having an undisclosed conflict of interest, unlike Dr. Wakefield.

The Lancet and the UK government both clearly take exception with vaccine injury litigation. They do not take any such exception with anti-Semitism.

Adam Rutherford doesn’t either.