Tag Archives: Gmc

Glaxo Cartoon Celebrates Theft of Vaccine-Injured Kids’ Medical Records

Below is a pro-vaccine cartoon with Autism Investigated commentary. (The all-capitalized letters are from the original cartoon.)

Backround:

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

Brian Deer Became Opposition Researcher for Glaxo to Avoid Litigation

Mark Pepys Made Medical School and Journal Lie Wakefield was Conflicted

British Medical Board Charged Doctors with Criticizing Toxic Vaccines

Brian Deer Became Opposition Researcher for Glaxo to Avoid Litigation

“THE ‘COMPLAINANT'” -Cartoon satirizing Brian Deer’s denials of pharmaceutical industry support outside the General Medical Council hearing where Drs. Andrew Wakefield and John Walker-Smith were found guilty of publishing on the vaccine-autism link and ordered to be struck off as a result of Deer’s complaint.  http://adversevaccinereaction.blogspot.com/

How do you go from writing articles critical of a crooked pharmaceutical company to being its biggest opposition researcher-for-hire? For Brian Deer, the answer was that it threatened to sue him.

He became a Glaxo opposition researcher to avoid a Glaxo lawsuit. The law firm that issued the threat was the same firm that defended the company against DTP vaccine injury cases and would defend it against MMR vaccine injury cases.

In 1994, Deer wrote articles for The Sunday Times critical of the safety of the antibiotic Septrin made by GlaxoSmithKline’s precursor Wellcome. That company’s lawyers responded with a legal threat in the form of a preservation letter:

We refer to our letter of 18th February when we informed you that we were acting for Wellcome Plc in the context of the article that you were then planning to publish about our clients.

Our clients were appalled at the nature and content of the two articles that appeared in your paper on 27th February, and are considering their legal position. We note than it is intended to publish a further article on 6th March, and as a matter of fairness, we would request that you provide our clients with details of what this article is to cover, so that the have an opportunity to comment and make you aware of any inaccuracies.

Further, we must ask you to preserve all materials that have been generated and used in compilation of the various articles as they may be required to be disclosed in the course of legal proceedings.

Yours faithfully,
DAVIES ARNOLD COOPER

Within weeks, Deer completely stopped his investigation of the company that would become GlaxoWellcome one year later and GlaxoSmithKline five years after that. He would never conduct another investigation into that company again. He would instead conduct many “investigations” into those injured by its vaccines.

His first victim was Margaret Best. She was the mother of a vaccine-injured man and was interviewed in the very last article from Deer’s 1994 Septrin investigation.

She had just won a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Wellcome and was quoted recommending Septrin victims seek specialist lawyers for possible litigation. Years later, Deer would publish an article claiming her son’s disability was not caused by vaccination.

In 2011, Autism Investigated’s editor showed he omitted any mention of her in the version of the Septrin article posted on his website. He chopped the two paragraphs of text in which she was quoted.

Deer would subsequently claim he just posted a shorter version published in one of the newspaper’s editions. Yet in his later article denying her son’s vaccine injury, he would lie that he had not spoken to her prior to his work for that piece.

Margaret Best was not the only person Deer turned on following his very short-lived Septrin investigation. He also turned on investigative journalist Martin Walker, an old ally from Deer’s earlier investigations of Wellcome’s AIDS drug AZT.

In 1993, Walker published the book Dirty Medicine that discussed Deer’s AZT investigations and the blowback he faced from pro-AZT activists. The book also mentioned Septrin’s defects and Margaret Best’s vaccine case, likely inspiring Deer to write about both.

Just after Wellcome’s legal threat against Brian Deer’s newspaper, he made an angry phone call to Martin Walker attacking him for his book’s criticism of Wellcome. Walker later wrote of the exchange in an epic open letter to Deer in 2008:

I knew that was the case the day that I picked up my phone to hear your angry voice berating me for having groundlessly criticised Wellcome in my book. This call came around the time you wrote your lengthy but anodyne feature in The Sunday Times on the Wellcome Foundation and it’s Trust. In your phone call, the first one I had from you since I worked with you on your chapter in Dirty Medicine, you accused me of writing terrible things about Wellcome, without giving them the right of reply. I recall you saying something like ‘you’re no better than the mafia, you just attack people without them being able to defend themselves’. I must admit that I was very confused and shocked by this call, but I did get the firm impression of someone trying to cover their past tracks, brushing the soft earth with a piece of driftwood.

So Brian Deer told Martin Walker, “you’re no better than the mafia, you just attack people without them being able to defend themselves.” Just before that, Wellcome’s lawyers told Deer’s newspaper in their legal threat, “we would request that you provide our clients with details of what this article is to cover, so that the have an opportunity to comment and make you aware of any inaccuracies.” Wellcome was speaking to Martin Walker through Brian Deer.

No wonder he cut any mention of Margaret Best in his final article of his Septrin exposé on his website. Had he left it in, it would point to the fact that he completely turned on her so Wellcome won’t sue him into bankruptcy.

Even that wasn’t enough for the company that is now GlaxoSmithKline. In 2004, Brian Deer would use stolen medical records from children that developed autism from MMR vaccination to begin his attacks on MMR-autism research. Deer obtained them from the GlaxoSmithKline-funded Head of Medicine Sir Mark Pepys at the hospital where those children were seen.

Deer’s attacks were prompted by the withdrawal of legal aid from families suing for MMR vaccine injury. At that time, GlaxoSmithKline was represented by lawyers from Davies Arnold Cooper. That was the same firm that threatened Deer’s newspaper all the way back in 1994.

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.

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.

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.

UK Gov’t Authority Fabricated “Duties” Against Early Vax-ASD Science

 

The UK government completely made up “duties” to disclose conflicts of interest to defame the lead author of early science linking vaccines to autism. It is perhaps the most clear-cut proof of the UK government’s conspiracy to cover up the vaccine autism link.

The vaccine people are quick to cite the UK General Medical Council (GMC’s) findings of “disclosable interests” against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Meanwhile, the vaccine people completely ignore the GMC’s own Financial and commercial arrangements and conflicts of interest guidance. The guide tells doctors to “use your professional judgement to identify when conflicts of interest arise.” By second-guessing Dr. Wakefield’s professional judgement to punish him, the GMC completely fabricated the “duties” it said he violated according to its existing rules.

Though GMC’s findings of unethical research and dishonesty were overturned on appeal, vaccine people still use the red herring that Dr. Wakefield was not the one who appealed. However, the “disclosable interests” findings were only against Dr. Wakefield and were not grounded in findings against any other researcher.

But as the GMC’s guidance on its own website shows, those findings were not based on any existing rule either. One need only compare the GMC “findings” and the GMC’s actual position on conflicts of interest to see that they are a hoax. Nobody and certainly no government should recognize any findings or verdicts by the GMC panel that ruled against Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

BMJ Deceived Lancet Parent Into Attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The British Medical Journal (BMJ)’s commissioned writer Brian Deer duped the father of the 11th child described in The Lancet paper into believing his son’s case was misrepresented. That father, Richard Demirjian, was led to believe the paper said his son’s autistic symptoms began weeks after vaccination when the report said no such thing. The Lancet paper was perfectly consistent with what Demirjian said happened to his son.

So Autism Investigated wrote BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee about how Deer misrepresented Demirjian’s son. Yes, it was that Dr. Godlee who Autism Investigated’s editor confronted back in 2011.

Despite past history, she replied cordially:

Thank you for your message. Might you or Richard Demirjian send a rapid response to the article on BMJ.com. We can then ask Brian Deer to respond. Best wishes. Fiona Godlee

But two months after Autism Investigated submitted a rapid response at her invitation, she coldly rejected it:

I have now had an opportunity to discuss this with our lawyer. We will not be publishing your rapid response. It is highly defamatory of Brian Deer and the allegations you raise have already been refuted in detail by Brian Deer on his website. Best wishes, Fiona Godlee

When asked for details, Godlee gave no reply.

In any case, read the below response and see for yourself if it defames Brian Deer. It doesn’t, but it shows Deer and the BMJ defamed Wakefield – in large part by deceiving parent Richard Demirjian.

Lancet father 11 hammers a nail into the coffin of Deer’s fallacious allegations

Brian Deer republished his Sunday Times accusations in the BMJ knowing that they were refuted in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 58-page press complaint against him and against the newspaper that ran the article two years prior.(1) Deer’s justification for doing so was the GMC’s ruling in favor of his earlier accusations of unethical research.(2) He has also misled a parent of one of The Lancet paper children (child 11) into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented the child’s case, but the wording in The Lancet paper itself confirms that the child’s case was not misrepresented.(3) The GMC’s findings have been overturned,(4) and a letter from the parent corroborates that The Lancet paper accurately represented his son’s condition.(5)

Two months after the article was published, Brian Deer received a letter from the parent of The Lancet child 11 that directly contradicts Deer’s account. Yet no correction has ever been made in the BMJ.

In the first article of Brian Deer’s MMR series for BMJ, Deer wrote of The Lancet Child 11:

But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.(6)

However, Deer’s claim that child 11 regressed before the vaccine was disputed by child 11’s father in the letter he wrote to Deer (that is currently posted on Deer’s website):

One of the incorrect statements in my son’s discharge report was that autistic symptoms were seen from 13-18 months, while the vaccination was at 15 months. This is clearly inaccurate as his symptoms began several months after the MMR, as reflected in my initial correspondence to the Royal Free requesting my son be included in the research study.(5)

In the private meeting between Deer and father 11 that was referenced in Deer’s article, Deer had apparently misled the father into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented his son’s case. In that same letter to Deer, father 11 echoed Deer’s false statement that The Lancet paper put child 11’s first autistic symptoms at one week after the vaccine when in fact, the paper makes clear that that was only when child 11’s first behavioral symptom (associated, as also described in Table 2, with recurrent “viral pneumonia”). The first symptom, that could have been any of a number of behaviors such as permanent or chronic change in sleep pattern, occurred after vaccination. The table father 11 referred to in The Lancet paper makes no mention of onset of first autistic symptoms.(3) Father 11 corroborates The Lancet paper and contradicts Deer’s BMJ article.

Despite Deer being told by father 11 directly that his son did not regress until after his vaccination, Deer made no effort to correct the misinformation in his BMJ article. On Deer’s personal website, he even continues to cast doubt on father 11’s account:

Which is true for child 11? Who can say, years later? The father says one thing, the medical records another. Nobody can time-travel back to the 1990s. And in lawsuits, it is the records that usually count. But, whichever version is right, Wakefield’s story was not. Neither can be reconciled with The Lancet.(7)

The fact is there is only one correct version: The Lancet paper account corroborated by father 11 twice, both in his correspondence with the hospital and with Deer. The incorrect version is the faulty discharge summary exploited by Deer to mislead. This is not the first time that evidence was submitted to BMJ that dismantles the article’s veracity post-publication.

When other evidence was previously brought to the journal in November 2011 that also supported The Lancet papers findings,(8)(9) Deer deflected by referring back to the GMC findings.(10) Though Deer cited them to add credibility to all his allegations, the findings themselves have been deemed unsustainable by an English High Court ruling.

In 2012, Justice Mitting overturned the GMC decision that The Lancet paper had misrepresented its patient population, was unethical and was part of a litigation-funded project.(4) By extension, the paper’s lead author Dr. Andrew Wakefield could not have been dishonest for not disclosing that the paper was funded by litigation or was part of that project when neither was the case.

In fact, the court decision refutes all the GMC findings that Dr. Wakefield broke any rule of professional conduct as laid out in GMC’s Good medical practice guidance.(11)(12)(13) Likewise, there is no existing justification for the paper’s retraction.(14) The Lancet knows this. When I confronted The Lancet ombudsman, Dr. Malcolm Molyneux, with the fact that the GMC findings that served as the basis for the retraction were killed, all he could say was:

In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.(15)

As the above statement reveals, the ombudsman is unable to state a single reason for the paper to remain retracted. Furthermore, there can be no “other elements on which the decision was based” since the retraction statement only cites the GMC findings – now overturned.(14)

Of Brian Deer’s many false claims, among the most egregious is his deceiving father 11 and misrepresenting child 11’s case.

1.     http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Complaint_to_UK_PCC1.pdf

2.     http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

3.     See Table 2: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

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

5.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted-child-11.pdf

6.     http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

7.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted.htm

8.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/09/re-how-case-against-mmr-vaccine-was-fixed

9.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/17/re-pathology-reports-solve-%E2%80%9Cnew-bowel-disease%E2%80%9D-riddle

10.   Deer dismissed slides from The Lancet paper co-author Dr. Andrew Anthony later supplied by Dr. David Lewis on the excuse that Dr. Wakefield could have tampered with them. The only supporting evidence Deer offered of tampering was the GMC’s ruling that Dr. Wakefield had been “dishonest” based on the disciplinary findings that were since overturned. http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-2.htm

11.    See 12a, which proves Dr. Wakefield was not professionally obligated to disclose his personal connection to litigation or his patent application to the editor of The Lancet. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/30191.asp

12.    See page 8, endnote 7, which refers to the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) rules for when Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval is necessary. (NRES link in endnote no longer works) http://www.gmc-uk.org/Good_practice_in_research_and_consent_to_research.pdf_58834843.pdf

13.    NRES rules prove Dr. Wakefield’s birthday party blood draws did not require REC approval because they were not done on patients, therefore falling outside GMC’s authority to make any judgement on the matter. http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2013/09/does-my-project-require-rec-review.pdf

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

15.    http://www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/