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“I have withdrawn because the data was being justified in a way I couldn’t agree with.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As Andrew Wakefield made clear, Simon Murch could not have withdrawn for scientific reasons: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

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

7 Thoughts on “Mark Pepys Made Wakefield Coauthors Sabotage Vaccine Litigation

  1. Hans Litten on September 13, 2018 at 8:40 am said:

    Is there any chance this was recorded ?
    Is this a criminal action Stanley ?

    Stanley Plotkin was forced to admit that over his career he’d tested his vaccines on mentally retarded children, orphans, and babies born to female inmates. He was also cornered into confessing that he’d written a letter to the editor of “Ethics on Human Experimentation” endorsing his practices so that vaccine companies aren’t testing on “fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society.”

    It’s so much easier to sweep orphans and handicapped children under the rug when they’re injured by vaccines, isn’t it?

    Needless to say, the very next morning Dr. Stanley Plotkin withdrew from testifying as an expert witness on vaccines—he no longer felt confident to speak about the safety and necessity of the products that made him a millionaire.

  2. Hans Scholl on September 13, 2018 at 9:57 am said:

    No wonder Global Slow Kill (GSK) thinks Pepys is a superstar.

  3. Grace Green on September 13, 2018 at 7:40 pm said:

    As well as “fueling the fires of litigation” they were also adding fuel to the fire of the scientific case of measles virus in the gut being related to autism. This of course is how scientific research works, one step at a time. How could a medical researcher who was seeing these results, one after another, seek to protect the vaccine programme rather than the lives and health of children? A paediatrician! It’s beyond belief.
    Thank you for bringing this to the attention of your readers.

  4. Sophie Scholl on September 14, 2018 at 11:12 am said:

    The Ian Frazer effect ?

    We have fewer children, if we have them at all
    In the decade since the recession, American women had 4.8 million fewer babies than demographers were expecting.
    No, that isn’t a typo.

    “Every year when I look at the fertility data I expect the number of births to go up and it hasn’t,” says University of New Hampshire Professor Kenneth Johnson.

    Prof Johnson says part of the fertility decline is attributable to women in their early and late 20s having fewer children than expected – in other words, my classmates and those who came after us.
    And it’s not getting better. The gap is getting wider – which is why he brings up a historical parallel.

  5. Pingback: Non-Profit Co-Founder Ousted By Vaccination Ideology He Supported - Autism Investigated

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation