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.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

51 Thoughts on “Dr. Wakefield Says All Findings Against Him Are Overturned

  1. Rebecca Fisher on August 9, 2016 at 2:48 pm said:

    Wakefield is lying again. He has not, in any way, been exonerated, or found innocent. Which part of Joel Harrison’s in-depth discussion do you take issue with? Even if you discount any evidence provided by Brian Deer or Dorit Reiss (neither of whom you will accept as trustworthy or credible, despite the evidence to the contrary), his discussion of the actual text of the Walker-Smith decision makes it perfectly clear that Wakefield was not exonerated, his findings were not validated and his paper should not be restored.

    Or, to put it another way, which (non-Deer or Reiss referring) parts of his discussion do you find to be inaccurate?

    • Simply saying Wakefield’s “intention” was to do research does not prove he conducted unethical research, the basis for which was the claim that his research project and the Lancet paper were somehow one in the same. As Justice Mitting ruled, they were not.

      • Rebecca Fisher on August 10, 2016 at 7:18 am said:

        No, no he doesn’t say that. And that’s irrelevant in any case. The case was about Walker-Smith, not Wakefield. Throughout the judgement, Mitting makes clear the many differences between Wakefield’s position and that of Walker-Smith. You have to be a very special kind of deluded to think that the W-S verdict in any way exonerates Wakefield. Rather, it does the opposite – it shows how Walker-Smith was deceived by Wakefield.

        I, for one, can’t wait for Wakefield to try and exonerate himself, and get his license to practice back. There will be popcorn a-plenty if he ever does. (He won’t, of course, because he knows precisely what would happen. He needs to pretend that he could (but won’t for some spurious reason – not being able to afford it (hah!) or somesuch) in order to keep the dollars flowing in from the faithful.)

        • “it shows how Walker-Smith was deceived by Wakefield.” – Complete nonsense.

          “I, for one, can’t wait for Wakefield to try and exonerate himself” – No, you don’t. Clearly, ECBT doesn’t either.

        • Wendy Stephen on August 10, 2016 at 5:04 pm said:

          It wasn’t just Mitting who stressed the differences between Professor Walker Smith’s position and that of Andrew Wakefield. On 18th February 2012, at the time of his appeal, Professor Walker Smith himself put this message up on the facebook page set up by Cryshame.

          “I hope my supporters understand that charges related to MMR did not feature in my case. My case was related to entirely different issues to those that concerned Dr Wakefield but obviously very similar indeed to the issues faced by Professor Murch. They focused fundamentally concerning whether I was investigating the children for clinical need ie. to find out what was wrong with them or for pure research to investigate Wakefield’s hypothesis. Every investigative procedure I ordered was to find out what was wrong with the children. The judge clearly understands the issue I just hope that he will come to a decision that lets right be done. Best wishes John”

          • While true that Wakefield had separate counts of dishonesty ruled against him, those hinged on the findings against Walker-Smith being true; they weren’t.

            • Wendy Stephen on August 10, 2016 at 8:40 pm said:

              Please explain how proven counts of dishonesty against Wakefield such as that listed at item 4 of the Findings of Fact (copied below) for example, “hinged on the findings against Walker -Smith being true”

              4b Your conduct as set out a paragraph 4a.i. was (i) Dishonest
              Found Proved

              The panel is satisfied that this action was dishonest judged by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. It is further satisfied that you knew that some or most of the funds would not be used for the reasons you had stated because you had agreed a process with Mr Barr by which children would be selected for the study from those who had already been investigated at the Royal Free Hospital and who would therefore been funded by the NHS.

              • The legal aid funds were not used for the investigations in the Lancet paper because the judge overturned the findings that it was part of the litigation-funded project.

                • Rebecca Fisher on August 11, 2016 at 7:33 am said:

                  No he didn’t.

                  And even if he did, do you think that makes it OK?

                • Wendy Stephen on August 11, 2016 at 9:25 am said:

                  Your response doesn’t start to address my question. You previously asserted that the validity of “separate” charges of dishonesty found against Wakefield hinged on the findings against Walker Smith being true (which you said weren’t true).
                  I asked you to please explain in respect of one example of Wakefield having a charge of dishonesty proven against him from the Findings of Fact, how that particular outcome was dependent on the findings against Walker Smith being true. In short, how would any aspect of Professor Walkers Smith’s case alter the finding against Wakefield, which was that he knew that some or most of the funds would be used for purposes other than what he had stated, having entered into a “process” with the litigation lawyer, Richard Barr whereby children would be selected for a study from those who had previously been investigated at the RFH under NHS funding.

                  • I answered your question, and I won’t allow you to hijack this thread as a forum for you to repeat yourself. So before you take the time to write another comment here, think about whether it would contribute anything new to the discussion. Because yours does not.

                    • Rebecca Fisher on August 11, 2016 at 3:36 pm said:

                      Jake, Below is just a small snippet of the original judgement. None of this relates in any way to Walker-Smith. Anything that exonerated Walker-Smith has nothing to do with any of this. And as you know, there’s lots, lots more.


                      The money provided by the Legal Aid Board was not needed forthe items listed at paragraphs 3.d.i. and ii. above, which were fundedby the NHS;
                      Admitted and found proved

                      ‘4. a. You,i. failed to cause the Legal Aid Board to be informed thatinvestigations represented by the clinicians as being clinicallyindicated would be covered by NHS funding,
                      Found proved
                      The Panel is satisfied that you had a duty to disclose to theLAB, via Mr Barr, that clinically indicated investigationswould be funded by the NHS, and that, despite havingopportunities to do so, you failed in that duty.
                      ii. caused or permitted the money supplied by the Legal AidBoard to be used for purposes other than those for which yousaid it was needed and for which it had been granted,
                      Found proved in relation to the second instalment of£25,000.The Panel is content that the first instalment of £25,000 was used for the purposes for which it was granted.The Panel is convinced by documentary, and your own evidence, that you used the second instalment for, amongst other things, research staff wages, not the items listed in3.d.i and 3.d.ii.

                      b. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 4.a.i. was,

                      7 i. dishonest,
                      Found proved
                      The Panel is satisfied that this action, was dishonest,judged by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. It is further satisfied that you knew that some or most of the funds would not be used for the reasons you had stated, because you had agreed a process with Mr Barrby which children would be selected for the study from those who had already been investigated at the Royal Free Hospital and who would have therefore been funded by the NHS.
                      ii. misleading,
                      Found proved
                      c. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 4.a.ii. was a misuse of public funds and was,i. dishonest,
                      Found not proved
                      The Panel is satisfied that the funds claimed were used in the furtherance of the research and not for your personal gain. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel is not satisfied so that it is sure that both limbs of the test for dishonesty have been made out.
                      ii. in breach of your duty when managing finances, to ensure that the funds are used for the purpose for which the ywere intended,
                      Found proved
                      The Panel is satisfied that you had a duty to, but did not,use the funds for the purposes previously stated.
                      iii. in breach of your duty to account for funds you did not need to the donor of those funds;
                      Found proved
                      The Panel is satisfied that you had a duty to account accurately to the LAB for the funds provided, but even in your “interim report to the Legal Aid Board” of January 1999 you did not explain how the investigations on the children had been funded.

                    • “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.”

                      -The GMC findings you cite were based on the lie that 172-96 applied to the Lancet paper – it didn’t.

                    • Rebecca Fisher on August 11, 2016 at 4:13 pm said:

                      The text I’ve quoted has to do with misuse of, and dishonest acquisition of funds. Nothing to do with the children.

                    • So who would the doctors perform those investigations on? Themselves?

                    • Rebecca Fisher on August 12, 2016 at 7:11 am said:

                      Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. The specific allegations i listed above were to do with Wakefield’s (not Walker-Smith’s) financial misdeeds. They were not about anyone’s misdeeds in the actual treatment of children. There are plenty examples of that, obviously, but the allegations I posted were specifically Wakefield, had nothing to do with Walker-Smith (who didn’t deal with the money side), and hence cannot possibly have been overturned in anyone’s mind after the Walker-Smith verdict.

                    • I know what you’re trying to claim, and you’re wrong. For the umpteenth time: The findings that Wakefield was dishonest to LAB about funds and misused them – as with the allegations about the conduct towards the children – hinged on the bogus claim of conflating the paper with the LAB-funded project.

    • Kathy Palmer on August 10, 2016 at 12:00 am said:

      Rebecca, You did not listen to this interview or watch VAXXED the movie. You need to be educated on the truth. You are probably a pharma shill.

    • WOW! you sound desperate!

    • Melinda Hollis on August 12, 2016 at 7:38 pm said:

      And this is because you have scientific evidence that it shouldn’t be reinstated? Because you yourself are a medical professional, a scientist who can debunk his study?

    • What a bunch of nonsense you are spewing.

      Vaccine makers lied about Wakefield, and used their vast resources to prop up the lie. Now their story is coming apart. Their lies about the MMR vaccine have piled up, too! We have a straight out confession of that from one of the CDC’s top officials.

      Its as simple as that. Your rants can’t save you anymore. Get over it.

  2. Eddie Unwind on August 10, 2016 at 2:29 am said:

    It seems that Joel Harrison chose Resentful Idiots as the place to espouse his views. RI got what it deserved there – Joel’s entries are invariably of almost essay- length. Yet they can’t get rid of him because of his stance and ‘credentials’.

    Wakefield states it plainly that he would not choose to vaccinate if he had a child nowadays – I admire his being straightforward about it. The interviewer was quick to cast him as antivaccine on that one, but it’s become a tiresome tactic. Given the fact of relative non-liability – not to mention that, owing to the current unease regarding vaccine safety, the vaccine industry will do anything to avoid appearing as though it’s taking a backward step, such as recalling a vaccine – Wakefield’s caution is completely understandable. I am the same – very skeptical and cautious about the current vaccine schedule.

  3. Ronald Gibson on August 10, 2016 at 7:50 am said:

    For those interested in reading the GMC charge sheet against Wakefield, and the Walker-Smith Court decision, here are the links so that you may make up your own mind as I believe it is time we stop buying into the opinion of others before reading the facts, or letting others do the thinking for us: http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2010/01/day28/GMC_Charge_sheet.pdf, and http://www.eastwoodslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Walker-Smith.pdf

  4. Does this mean that Brian Deer will have to return his Award he received for his lies ? I am sure he deserves the award as being Asshole of the Year and should be allowed to keep that Certificate.

  5. Rebecca Fisher on August 10, 2016 at 3:23 pm said:

    Nothing to do with Wakefield’s striking off or the retraction of his paper has been overturned. This is why he is still struck off, and the paper stays retracted. He won’t apply for his license back, because he knows he hasn’t a cat in hell’s chance of getting it back. Neither, I imagine, would he want it; being supported by the anti-vax community seems to pay rather better.

    • He remains struck off because he is still in the early stages of getting his license back, and his paper remains retracted to protect the editor’s job. The ombudsman couldn’t even give a clear reason why the paper remains retracted.

      “He won’t apply for his license back” – You wish.

      • Rebecca Fisher on August 10, 2016 at 4:11 pm said:

        Let’s have a bet, shall we Jake? Ten US dollars – to the charity of your or my choice – says he won’t formally apply for his license back by the end of 2017.

        Will you put your money where your mouth is?

          • Rebecca Fisher on August 11, 2016 at 7:28 am said:

            OK. I’ll give you until 2018. Or do you not have the courage of your convictions?

            Wakefield will never apply for his license back, because he (and you) know he’d never get it. (Or if he applied, he’d abandon the process halfway through for some imaginary reason, then play the martyr and conspiracy cards.)

        • Hans Litten on August 11, 2016 at 3:54 pm said:

          You think you will be employed in this arena until 2017 – 2018 ?
          (paid Pharma Harma opposition & apologist for Hg-enocide)
          Very optimistic on your part I’d say , given the appalling job you do .

          • Funny………..where to next after a career terrorising innocent people on the internet……….

            I haven’t been here in many months and ole Rebecca is chiming away …..Yawn:)

      • Important to note (and research for yourself) that Walker -Smith spent over a half a million on legal fees fighting the fraudulent claims against him. Most people don’t have that sort of money. Wakefield did not.

  6. It might be helpful to read what Dr. Wakefield has said about this issue of Legal Aid Board funding: “Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. A LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This latter study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent.”

    • It’s disappointing. I like Robert De Niro and respect him a lot – not just for his vaccine comments, but in general as well. He’s very talented.

      Hollywood seems to be pretty unanimous in its support of Crooked Hillary, and De Niro’s no exception.

  7. Pingback: Nico LaHood, Ditch The Dems and Board The Trump Train! - Autism Investigated

  8. Pingback: The Lancet Acknowledges Dr. Andrew Wakefield Is Cleared

  9. Dennis Picknett on January 15, 2017 at 3:45 pm said:

    Whatever the details of the GMC ruling the following is plain to see:
    1. Andrew Wakefield is a genuine compassionate person concerned about Autism and it’s causes. He’s not faking that.
    2.The findings of the retracted paper are not in question: Yes, there are unique bowel dysfuction associated with Autism and MMR is causally implicated (Dr William Thompson of the CDC admits to this and many children have been compensated for Neuro-developmental damage).
    3. The only outright fraud came from the easily disproven allegations and twisted cherry picking of Brian Deer.
    4.There is a very real epidemic of Autism and no worthwhile studies to disprove an association with vaccines (the existing studies trumpeted as ‘disproof’ are either fraudulent or incapable of detecting the quite small signal from the link).
    5. The climate of career-fear over being ‘Wakefielded’ stops proper objective research into the vaccine/autism association.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation