Tag Archives: Gmc

Brian Deer Rejects Film Offer, Gets Mad He’s Not in Film!

A critical film about Dr. Andrew Wakefield – the first scientist to raise a connection between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism – will soon be released. Yet the person mad about its release is his arch nemesis Brian Deer, who is credited with destroying Dr. Wakefield’s professional reputation. So angry was Deer that he even sent a letter and ultimatum to the documentary’s director.

The reason for Brian Deer’s anger? The documentary said he declined to be part of the film, when he did exactly that. When declining the offer, he even cited not being paid as his reason for doing so when he’s spent almost 15 years accusing Dr. Wakefield of being motivated by money.

The Facebook page of The Pathological Optimist provides details:

Miranda Bailey, the director of “The Pathological Optimist,” recently received a letter from journalist Brian Deer. For those who don’t know, Brian Deer was the journalist who originally investigated the paper published in the “The Lancet” written by Andrew Wakefield, and his colleagues. His reporting was instrumental to the UK General Medical Council’s investigation into Wakefield, which ultimately led to the loss of his medical license.

Read below as journalist Brian Deer “man-splains” to director Miranda Bailey how documentary filmmakers “should and should not behave.” He then goes on to accuse her of several fallacies before ultimately making demands and threats:

(From Deer’s letter): “If by midnight, Pacific, Tuesday, I have not received your assurance in these respects, or been offered by you a credible alternative plan to remedy the damage that your “documentary” inflicts on my reputation (presenting me, as you do, as too cowardly to defend my journalism), I will publish this letter to media, as well as to senior independent film makers, festival directors, and others who may be in a position to advise me. I give you four full days to decide and tell me what you are going to do.”

Brian Deer’s full letter is available to read using the link below along with Miranda Bailey’s response. We’re guessing that this is not the “apology” he was looking for.

Click here to read the full exchange between Miranda Bailey and Brian Deer. It’s comic gold.

Time for the folks behind The Pathological Optimist to reconsider who is pathological, and realize it’s not Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

FAKE NEWS: FOUR VACCINE LIES FROM SCIENCE MAGAZINE

facebook-share

Science Magazine is fake science news and lies routinely about vaccine safety like the rest of the damn mainstream media and major science journals. Here’s four examples from their dishonest post “Four vaccine myths and where they come from” by one of their hired liars Lindzi Wessel. Autism Investigated will not refute all the lies because there are too many, just the major ones below.

“False: Vaccinations can cause autism”

Citing further concerns about ethics and misrepresentation, The Lancet retracted the paper in 2010. Shortly after, the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council permanently pulled Wakefield’s medical license.

The truth is, all those findings against Wakefield and his paper were completely overturned in a court decision that said the GMC used “faulty reasoning” and came to “wrong conclusion”(s). Even The Lancet acknowledges this.

[Brian] Hooker reanalyzed the data in 2014 and claimed CDC had hidden evidence that the vaccine could increase autism risk in black boys. In fact, CDC noted in the paper that rates of vaccination in the oldest age group were slightly higher in kids with autism.

Wait, what about for black kids? The CDC didn’t cover up effects for race because they reported effects for age? That’s a logical conclusion to draw, according to Science Magazine?

“False: Mercury in vaccines acts as a neurotoxin”

Science Magazine completely dismisses Kennedy’s damning Deadly Immunity article of mercury in childhood vaccinations. The excuse was the ghostwritten retraction by the pedophile-defending Salon.com site. Science never went into the details of the retraction because it would show it to be worthless.

Science Magazine continued:

In 2001, well before Kennedy’s article or his related book, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines in the United States except multidose vials of flu vaccine.

What it left out was that in 2004 those flu vaccines were recommended for pregnant women in the first trimester of pregnancy, which has since been linked to autism. It then went on to characterize autism declining post-thimerosal removal in Denmark as a “misinterpretation of epidemiogical data.” Actually, it’s seen in a graph of epidemiological data:

“False: Mercury in vaccines acts as a neurotoxin”

Remarkably, this entire section didn’t focus on work of any other doctor or scientist. It was merely an attack on the physician-son team Dr. Mark and David Geier, taking as gospel smears from the Institute of Medicine and the Maryland Board of Physicians. The Institute of Medicine was revealed in Kennedy’s own article as coming to a foregone conclusion about thimerosal being safe, and being paid to do so. The Maryland Board of Physicians was successfully sued by the Geiers for intentionally violating their confidentiality. Dr. Geier has also responded to the allegations publicly.

Will Science condemn hormones and genital mutilation for “transgender” autists and acknowledge that there are only two genders? Doubtful.

“False: Spreading out vaccines can be safer for kids”

This section is entirely based on the talking points of millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit. He is not only conflicted, but is also an unhinged maniac who said children can safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once. There is no comparison between a vaccine which contains loads of toxic ingredients injected directly into the body and antigens blocked by the human body’s natural defenses.

There is no room for the benefit of the doubt with Lindzi Wessel and Science Magazine. They are simply lying, along with the rest of the mainstream fake news.

Please form that vaccine safety commission soon, President Trump. We need it now more than ever.

UPDATE: Autism Investigated Video!

Autism Investigated Announces 2016 Election Awards

Autism Investigated’s first presidential election was this year, so AI decided to have special awards dedicated to the biggest autism stories of the election cycle.

Scientist of the Election: Dr. Andrew Wakefield6a00d8357f3f2969e201b8d238373d970c

He may have been fighting the good fight for decades, but this year Dr. Andrew Wakefield met with our now-president-elect who stood up for vaccine-injured children in the GOP debate. Dr. Wakefield played a crucial role in informing people that Donald Trump was the only candidate who would tackle the autism epidemic:

For me, this is a one-issue election. That is the future of this country invested in its children, and if we have mandatory vaccination in this country, in this state as they have in California, then it’s all over. And we will achieve that objective by 2032 of 1 in 2 children with autism. There is one person – whatever else you may think about him – who has expressed the fact that he knows that vaccines cause autism, that vaccine damage is real, and this is an issue that will never in his mind lead to mandatory vaccination either statewide or stateswide. Now I had the privilege of meeting him the other day to discuss this precise issue, and he is on our side. Whatever else you may think, I want you to bear that in mind. I’m not going to tell you how to vote; you are free-thinking Americans. But I will say is that we will not get a second chance. Within two years, I would say, of Hillary Clinton getting in – if she gets in – there will be mandatory adult and child vaccination across the entire country.

Autism Investigated reminded readers of what Dr. Wakefield said every time it live-streamed the presidential debates.

Scoop of the Election: Dr. Wakefield completely exonerated.

Autism Investigated was the first to uncover evidence that put the final nail in the coffin of the UK General Medical Council’s findings against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. In the below video at AutismOne’s annual conference, he gives credit where credit is due and promised to give “very, very serious consideration” to pursuing the restoration of his medical license.

In a later interview on Canadian radio, he reiterated Autism Investigated’s reporting that all the findings against him were overturned four years ago and that had he been given the money to appeal, he would still have his license. When questioned by Autism Investigated about why he still didn’t have a medical license despite the overturned findings, the UK’s General Medical Council responded that it would consider “any further supporting evidence” Dr. Wakefield provides should he apply for re-licensure.

Quote of the Election: Donald Trump speaks out on vaccine-autism link.

hero_image_main_2

In the September GOP presidential debate, Trump made the following statement that would lead to Autism Investigated’s formal endorsement of his presidential campaign:

Autism has become an epidemic. Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.

I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Because you take a baby in — and I’ve seen it — and I’ve seen it, and I had my children taken care of over a long period of time, over a two or three year period of time.

Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump — I mean, it looks just like it’s meant for a horse, not for a child, and we’ve had so many instances, people that work for me.

Just the other day, two years old, two and a half years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.

I only say it’s not — I’m in favor of vaccines, do them over a longer period of time, same amount.

But just in — in little sections. I think — and I think you’re going to have — I think you’re going to see a big impact on autism. 

Irony of the Election: Barack Obama claims there aren’t reasons to avoid vaccination…except when there are.

nn_01sgu_obama_1309091

In response to NBC’s Today Show co-host Savannah Guthrie, Barack Obama gave the following stance on vaccination (italics mine):

“The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We’ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren’t reasons to not.”

But then in that same interview, Obama gave as a reason to vaccinate the protection of people who have reasons not to vaccinate (italics mine):

“…the folks who can’t get vaccinated – small infants for example or the people with certain, uh you know, vulnerabilities that, that can’t get vaccinated – they suddenly become much more vulnerable. They’re counting on us to create this protective fence because most people have been vaccinated.”

Good riddance to Obama’s failed presidency.

Dank Meme of the Election: THE DEPLORABLES

The meme was created in response to Hillary Clinton characterizing half of President-Elect Donald Trump’s supporters as a “Basket of Deplorables” and includes President-Elect Trump himself along with Vice President-Elect Mike Pence and some of their most loyal supporters.

trump-clinton-and-the-deplorable-picture-x750

It is also re-posted under Autism Investigated’s livestream of Donald Trump’s second presidential debate with Crooked Hillary.

Event of the Election: Donald Trump is elected president, and deplorables prevail.

If you haven’t yet watched his victory speech, watch it.

President-Elect Trump’s inauguration will be live-streamed at Autism Investigated.

Dr. Wakefield Says All Findings Against Him Are Overturned

newstalk-1010

In a July 29th interview with Toronto’s Newstalk 1010 radio, exonerated British doctor Andrew Wakefield stated that all the findings against him by the UK General Medical Council were overturned four years ago – a fact Autism Investigated has been reporting for months. He went further to say that if he was able to pay for his appeal, he would be entitled to practice medicine again in an interview that came out just months after he said he would give “very, very serious consideration” to having his license restored. Within days of the radio interview, panic ensued within the vaccine industry.

Writing for the website of the pharma-funded, vaccine-promoting Every Child By Two group, retired epidemiologist Joel Harrison authored a 17-page long rant entitled, “Andrew Wakefield Has Never Been ‘Exonerated’: Why Justice Mitting’s Decision in the Professor John Walker-Smith Case Does Not Apply to Wakefield,” that concluded, “Andrew Wakefield himself was not, and given the overwhelming evidence against him, NEVER WILL BE EXONERATED.” Harrison tried to support the allegation that Wakefield was conducting unethical research by quoting the judge’s decision out of context, even though that allegation rested on findings the judge had overturned in his own ruling.

Whatever Harrison and others might say, there are simply no official findings left to justify Wakefield’s de-licensure or subsequent retraction of any of his published papers. In a signed letter to Autism Investigated, the General Medical Council stated that it would consider Wakefield’s application for re-licensure and “any further supporting evidence” he provides. Harrison and co. are undoubtedly nervous that Wakefield could get his license back, and rightly so.

Addendum: The audio track has been removed. Autism Investigated has made inquiries to the radio station about its removal and will keep you informed of any updates.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield on Re-Licensure – “I will now give this very, very serious consideration”

Wakefield_VaxedTrailor-1024x576

At the annual AutismOne conference – 26.5 minutes into the below Twitter-linked video of a Q/A session on the documentary Vaxxed – director and much-maligned doctor Andrew Wakefield said he will give “very, very serious consideration” to getting his medical license restored. His comment was met with applause and cheers from the audience, who gave him a standing ovation.

Dr. Wakefield first expressed interest in having his license restored earlier this year, and Autism Investigated received a signed letter from the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) saying they would consider his application for restoration and “any further supporting evidence” he provides. He then drew criticism from Autism Investigated after saying in a text message that re-licensure still was not a priority for him.

But on the night of May 28th, Dr. Wakefield had a well-received change of tune that couldn’t have come a moment too soon. He was gracious for being reminded earlier that day that it was approval from an ethics committee of the National Health Service (NHS) that the GMC claimed he needed but lacked when he arranged for blood to be taken from children at his son’s birthday party. However, those rules did not apply to those children because they were not patients. So the birthday party allegations are totally nullified.

All the GMC findings that caused Dr. Wakefield’s medical license to be revoked and his papers retracted have really been overturned four years ago. Unfortunately, it is because his medical license remains revoked and his papers remain retracted that he continues to be dismissed. Winning back his medical license would take away those excuses to dismiss him once and for all.

When the audience was done clapping for Dr. Wakefield after he expressed his renewed interest in restoration, he concluded, “If I am vindicated it will give credence to the parents’ story”. Then someone from the audience rose up and said, “the world needs more doctors like you. You need your license back.”

Addendum: Embedded link replaced with embedded video footage of Q/A following Dr. Wakefield’s excellent documentary.

No Dr. Wakefield, Re-Licensure Should Be Your Priority

the-walking-dead-02

I will work on this when the time is right. Now my priority is the film. – Dr. Andrew Wakefield

He has become the zombie of the autism world, unwittingly eating alive any chance of federal child-poisoners facing justice. By promoting his new documentary film Vaxxed, Dr. Andrew Wakefield is single-handedly tarnishing credibility of Dr. William Thompson: the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whistleblower who said his colleagues threw results linking autism to vaccinations in the garbage. That Wakefield’s film never even addresses the allegations against him while tainting the whistleblower story with his name makes him all the more damaging.

His film could be the best thing that ever happened to the vaccine industry – have the whistleblower from the CDC getting systematically dismissed simply because of who is promoting his story. Wakefield may think he is making progress because he is riling up his support base but that is all he is doing. He is not changing many more minds, and that’s because of who he is and has been subsequently held up to be by the media thanks to the revocation of his medical license. The only way to fix that is to immediately do what he said he plans on doing – get it back.

It is really quite simple, especially since the findings that got his license revoked in the first place were overturned four years ago. Every single person who wants people from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicted for their lies about vaccines not causing autism as much as Republicans want Hillary indicted for her lies about her emails should run far away from Wakefield until he actually goes through with what he said he will eventually do.

The credibility of those who cite the persistent lying of the federal vaccine program should not hinge on what one British doctor decides to do and on when he decides to do it. This issue is far greater than any one person. Besides, he’s not even the first person to conclude that vaccines do cause autism; it was someone from the CDC, making it all the more inappropriate for Wakefield to take ownership of that issue.

Shame on Wakefield for shirking re-licensure to continue to damage the credibility of the CDC whistleblower. And shame on pathetic excuses for vaccine safety websites like ageofautism.com for continuing to encourage him. Every person who cares about this issue should pressure Wakefield into doing what needs to be done to clear his name, especially his donors.

Andrew Wakefield Fights to Win Back Medical License

With all the attacks against de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield by the scavengers of the media, one thing that gets lost is the fact that the findings on which the retraction of his paper and revocation of his medical license were based have been completely overturned. Wakefield is now looking to get his medical license back that the UK’s General Medical Council had taken from him over five years ago.

When faced with the fact that the findings used to justify the retraction were effectively disproved, the ombudsman of The Lancet – the journal that retracted Wakefield’s paper – Dr. Malcolm Molyneux admitted:

The retraction then mentions the enrolment [sic] procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.

The only accurate way to interpret Molyneux’s answer is that he tacitly acknowledges that the findings specifically mentioned to justify the paper’s retraction were overturned, but does not want to do anything about it or even revise the journal’s retraction statement. When pressed on what those “other elements” were that justified the paper’s retraction, Molyneux did not respond further.

Now that Andrew Wakefield is screening a film on the government’s cover-up of vaccines causing autism at the Tribeca Film Festival, I only wish he would include the unwarranted retraction of his paper in his Tribeca bio. I have been quite disappointed in Wakefield – from saying he insists on GMC’s witch trial against him and his colleagues to giving an interview with the pharma-conspiring New York Times, he has truly proven himself to be clueless about how to handle the scavengers’ attacks on him. Look at how pathetic his Tribeca film bio is:

Andrew Wakefield, MB.BS., is an academic gastroenterologist who practiced medicine at the Royal Free in the U.K. publishing over 140 scientific papers. In 1995, he was contacted by parents of autistic children with stomach issues; he learned that these conditions often occurred immediately following an MMR vaccine. In pursuit of this possible link, Dr. Wakefield led an initial study of twelve children with both stomach and developmental issues. The report, published in The Lancet, would catapult Wakefield into becoming one of the most controversial figures in the history of medicine. Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Controversy is his second film.

This is what it should really say:

Andrew Wakefield, MB.BS., is an academic gastroenterologist who practiced medicine at the Royal Free in the U.K. publishing over 140 scientific papers. In 1995, he was contacted by parents of autistic children with stomach issues; he learned that these conditions often occurred immediately following an MMR vaccine. His initial study of these children was retracted by The Lancet and his medical license was revoked because of disproved disciplinary findings that have now been completely overturned on appeal. Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Controversy is his second film.

Wakefield tells Autism Investigated that he is trying to get his medical license back, which is all the more appropriate now that the findings against him have been completely overturned by his colleague’s appeal. Yet he has never commented on whether he will even make a public statement about it. He most certainly should, especially now that his documentary on the CDC whistleblower story that he hijacked is being screened at Tribeca.

Update: Tribeca Film Festival pulled the documentary: “The Festival doesn’t seek to avoid or shy away from controversy. However, we have concerns with certain things in this film that we feel prevent us from presenting it in the Festival program. We have decided to remove it from our schedule.”

Footage from the film includes surreptitious recordings of Dr. William Thompson’s voice leaked by Wakefield as well as a silhouetted actor posing as Dr. Thompson.

Addendum: Last January, Autism Investigated sent the following question to the General Medical Council: “How do you justify keeping Dr. Andrew Wakefield de-licensed when all your findings against him have been overturned on appeal by his colleague, Prof. John Walker-Smith?”

The GMC replied with a signed letter that did not address the findings themselves, but did conclude: “a doctor can apply for restoration to the register in certain circumstances. We would then consider the doctor’s application, along with any further supporting evidence they provide, and determine whether to grant restoration to the register.”

More than five years has elapsed since Dr. Wakefield’s erasure, making him eligible to apply. Once he does, the GMC will have to consider his application along with “any further supporting evidence” he provides.

Lancet Keeps Wakefield et al. Retracted in Contempt of Court

Monotone legal concept

By Jake Crosby

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

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

 

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

Dear Prof. Wedzicha,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.thelancet.com/ombudsman

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

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

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH

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

Dear Dr Crosby,

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Dear Dr. Wedzicha,

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Dear Mr Crosby

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

I now consider this matter closed.

Best wishes

Wisia Wedzicha
Lancet Ombudsman

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

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