Tag Archives: Lancet

Mark Pepys Made Wakefield Coauthors Sabotage Vaccine Litigation


“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“I have withdrawn because the data was being justified in a way I couldn’t agree with.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As Andrew Wakefield made clear, Simon Murch could not have withdrawn for scientific reasons: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


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.

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.

READ Peter Harvey’s Defense of Wakefield Paper Against Simon Murch

Left: Coauthor Dr. Peter Harvey, Right: Turncoat Coauthor Simon Murch

I too write as a co-author of the Lancet paper of 1998 referred to by Simon Murch in his letter.1Statements in this letter cannot be allowed to pass without comment. There is a growing body of scientific evidence to show a relation between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, enterocolitis, ileocolonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, and autism.
The histologically unique condition ileocolonic lymphoid nodular hyper-plasia, which is not a normal variant,2,3 is associated with a diffuse entero-colitis. There are significant immunological and inflammatory abnormalities specific to this condition.4–12
There is evidence that affected children absorb undigested peptides with opioid properties,13and that the most powerful of these opioids are derived from casein and gluten. Exclusion of casein and gluten from the diet has proven beneficial effects on autistic children’s behaviour.14
Evidence of persistent measles virus infection in the gut has been identified.15,16 The virus identified in most of these children was shown to be consistent with the measles virus RNA from the MMR vaccine.17 These children also have measles virus RNA in the blood, which is also consistent with that of the MMR strain.16 Measles virus RNA has also been detected in the spinal fluid of 19 of 28 children with regressive autism and bowel disease and in one of 37 control samples (unpublished data).
Much is made of the epidemiological studies that have failed to show an association between MMR and autism. However, these studies are open to serious criticism.18,19
Murch was a co-author on 11 of the 17 peer-reviewed publications and presentations that I cite. These present a step-by-step cascade of evidence starting with the recognition of the clinical condition, followed by the pathology of the gut disease, the immunological and inflammatory abnormalities, the identification of measles RNA in the gut, blood, and cerebrospinal fluid, and subsequent identification of this RNA as being consistent with MMR virus.
I am an adult neurologist, not a paediatrician, not a gastroenterologist, and not an immunologist. Even so, taking a dispassionate and wide view of the published and unpublished information, I think there is increasingly compelling evidence for a causative link between the MMR vaccine, a unique gastrointestinal disease, and regressive autism.
I examined the original cohort of children, and they had no physical neurological abnormalities. I have recently seen one of them again. His behaviour is much worse, at times being uncontrollable. He has developed epilepsy and bilateral extensor plantar responses.
The problem now is to identify the numbers of children involved, and the susceptibility factors. In the meantime, consideration should be given to offering children single-injection measles vaccinations.
I am a trustee of the charity Visceral, which supports research into inflammatory bowel disease and autism

Originally published in The Lancet,

Wakefield Turncoat Authors Committed The Research Fraud

Wakefield Turncoat Author Simon Murch, Photo from Twitter

“the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health…we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings” – 10 of the 13 coauthors of Andrew Wakefield’s paper.

Yes, you’ve read that correctly.

It is true that coauthors of the landmark 1998 vaccine-autism paper committed research fraud. They don’t include lead author Andrew Wakefield, however. They are the 10 coauthors who wrote the “retraction of an interpretation” led by Simon Murch.

The interpretation they “retracted” was of the possibility that vaccines cause autism. Their excuse? “Major implications for public health.”

That’s right, vaccines couldn’t possibly cause autism because people stopped vaccinating. That’s what they’re literally saying. It’s total nonsense unsupported by any “precedent” in academic publishing. Autism is a perfectly valid reason to stop vaccinating, anyway.

Their basis would then be used verbatim in disciplinary charges against two coauthors for publishing critically on vaccines. One of those coauthors also signed the “retraction.” Three coauthors in all were charged, including lead “retractor” Simon Murch. Yet people still showed up at the General Medical Council “fitness-to-practice” hearings to support two of the Wakefield turncoat authors.

The whole hearing should have been boycotted by anti-vaccinationists and vaccine skeptics including Wakefield himself. None of the Wakefield turncoat authors should have ever been defended after they signed their names to that statement.

Since when were a bunch of gastroenterologists, pathologists, a radiologist and a shrink an authority on what you can or cannot read? Since never, they signed their names at the coercion of the medical journal. They also didn’t want to lose their licenses, as two of them almost did and as Wakefield actually did.

None of that is a good excuse.

Over the years, Autism Investigated has written extensively about how the journal should restore the retracted 1998 paper. On reflection, it was a mistake since its restoration wouldn’t get rid of the other bogus “retraction” by the 10 coauthors themselves. So the paper is better left retracted anyway.

Now here is the shameful statement by Simon Murch and the other nine Wakefield turncoat authors in all its disgusting glory.


Oppose Vaccination Entirely Since Proponents Call for Cover-up


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.

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.

Comment to Del Bigtree That He Out Lancet Liar Richard Demirjian and Son

Lancet Liar Richard Demirjian Libels Vaccine-Autism Science. Comment here, include contact info below.

My son’s autistic behaviors did NOT begin a week after administration of the vaccine, in fact they began several months afterwards with several medical complications occurring in between. The bottom line is that, if my son is indeed Patient 11, then the Lancet article made a false assertion set in immediately after MMR. -From letter by Richard Demirjian, Lancet Liar

That is who Del Bigtree is keeping anonymous. Demirjian is a fabricator. He knowingly lies that his son was misrepresented in an early vax-autism paper. Richard Demirjian does NOT deserve the title of Lancet Father. He is the Lancet Liar!

Here is what the paper really says about his son Vahe Demirjian.

Only “viral pneumonia” is mentioned, nothing about autism

Richard Demirjian knows what the paper says. Autism Investigated left messages. He blocked Autism Investigated from calling.

His son has blocked Autism Investigated on Facebook when shown the above table. Therefore, the Demirjians are evil people. They throw your kids to the fire.

Please comment underneath Del Bigtree’s new episode. Tell him to out Lancet Liar Richard Demirjian and his son. They don’t deserve to be hidden.

Share their contact information obtained by Autism Investigated everywhere you can so that other people can write the Demirjians. We need to tell them that the anti-vaccine movement will tell the world that they have no character. Therefore, they must retract their lies about vaccine-autism science and tell the BMJ to retract its attacks on the Lancet paper.

Vahe Demirjian’s online contact information:


Richard Demirjian’s phone number and address:

949 718 0180
11 Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA 92657

Tell Lancet Child 11 To Be a Real Scholar and Defend Lancet Paper

Vahe Demirjian

Child 11 in The Lancet‘s seminal autism-vaccine paper now has a profile on academia.edu. Despite playing scholar, he continues to allow his father Richard Demirjian to lie about him to tarnish that paper:

The bottom line is that, if my son is indeed Patient 11, then the Lancet article made a false assertion that his [autism] symptoms set in immediately after the MMR [measles-mumps-rubella vaccine]; in service of some attorneys’ efforts to prove “causation” that, unbenknownst to me, apparently drove this research…I am very thankful that the Lancet article has been withdrawn and the “research study” discredited.

But that paper was clearly not referring to Vahe Demirjian’s autism symptoms.

After reaching out to him, Demirjian blocked Autism Investigated.

FB: “You cannot reply to this conversation.”

He cannot deny he knows what evil his medical records are used for.

Here’s a link to his Academia.edu contact page: https://vahedemirjian.academia.edu/contact

Here’s his email, where Autism Investigated’s first inquiry went unanswered: vahedemirjian@cox.net

Here’s his Facebook, where Autism Investigated is now blocked: www.facebook.com/vahe.demirjian.1

Here’s his dad’s phone number, which also blocked Autism Investigated: 949 718 0180

Here is the Demirjian address: 11 Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA

Tell him that if he is a real scholar, he’ll denounce his father and stand up for the paper.

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.