How The UK’s Medical “Protection” Society Baited A Leading Autism-Vaccine Scientist into A Show Trial Attacking His Free Speech

Drs. Andrew and Carmel Wakefield outside UK’s General Medical Council the day of its “findings” against him, Zimbio

The UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) charged Dr. Andrew Wakefield with publishing critically on vaccination. So GMC needed to ensure he wouldn’t boycott its show trial for obviously attacking his free speech. That’s what the Medical “Protection” Society (MPS) was good for. The MPS is an organization that purports to defend doctors from malpractice allegations in Britain. MPS funded Dr. Wakefield’s “defense” against the General Medical Council, but it really wasn’t a “defense” at all.

His so-called defense should have never made him “defend” himself against the “crime” of publishing on the vaccine-autism link. Even worse, MPS even got him to falsely say he should have gotten ethical approval to take blood from his own children at his son’s birthday party. They subsequently enabled Dr. Wakefield to be punished for making a joke about it in America, never mind the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, inquiries to the lawyer MPS paid to “represent” Dr. Wakefield have gone unanswered.

After the GMC’s “findings” against him were made, MPS cut funding to his appeal in order to make them stick. Of course a major medical defense organization believes publishing critically about vaccination is wrong. After all, it has many other doctors to defend who poison children into autism with vaccinations everyday. So it had to “defend” Dr. Wakefield and then throw him under the bus to protect all of its Hippocratic Oath-violating “doctors.”

On a happier note, Autism Investigated will now share Dr. Wakefield’s hilarious birthday party blood joke for readers to laugh with. Thank you Dr. Wakefield for your humor and thank you YouTuber Anthony Cox for sharing!

(Contrary to BBC Fake News, no children fainted or threw up.)

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

17 Thoughts on “How The UK’s Medical “Protection” Society Baited A Leading Autism-Vaccine Scientist into A Show Trial Attacking His Free Speech

  1. J Harrison on July 20, 2018 at 12:51 am said:

    I realize that you won’t post this; but at the birthday party Wakefield drew blood from other children, not his own. If they were only his children, then there would not have been a problem; but Wakefield was hired in a research slot, drew blood for a research purpose. You really are an IDIOT!

    • How could I not post another Harrison rant? They’re always so amusing.

      He actually did take blood from his own children. One of them even talks about it in “The Pathological Optimist.” GMC drew no ethical distinction between Wakefield’s own children and the other children there and basically played child protective services.

      “IDIOT” is a high compliment coming from you!

      • J Harrison on July 20, 2018 at 1:25 pm said:

        IDIOT, sure he took blood from his own children; but you ignore that HE ALSO TOOK BLOOD FROM THE OTHER KIDS AT THE PARTY. Wakefield was a licensed medical doctor. That license includes laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations only allow taking blood for treatment purposes, not for research without authorization. And the only medical purpose for taking blood outside of a medical office would be an emergency or home doctor visit for a patient. His position at the Royal Free was as a researcher. I would bet that had it been Paul Offit who took blood at a birthday party you would be screaming for his losing his medical license.

        And you continue to ignore that Wakefield’s 1998 article was a case series to look at the relationship between regressive autism and gastrointestinal problems, not to look at the “cause” of the two AND that he recruited many of the participants, who were involved in a lawsuit, so asking what they thought was the cause was to ask for an answer he already knew, definitely dishonest.

        And publishing in a medical journal is NOT free speech. It is based on honest methodology and credible research. Whether you agree with the retraction or not, it is NOT about free speech. Otherwise, anyone whoever submits a manuscript to a medical journal that is turned down could take them to court over free speech. Free speech in the US is a Constitutional right to criticize government, not require privately owned journals, magazines, or whatever to publish what one rights and I’m sure similar laws apply in the UK.

        You just keep trying to justify what can’t be justified. How dishonest can one get? Yep, idiot is the highest level I can honestly give you.

        • I was referring to the General Medical Council – a government agency – charging him with publishing critically on vaccination. No state medical board in the US could constitutionally do what the GMC did.

          I link to the NHS guidelines directly, and nowhere does it apply to what Wakefield did at his son’s birthday party. If Paul Offit did that, I honestly wouldn’t care. He fakes his credentials and openly advocates for covering up vaccine injuries. What he does to his own children is his business.

  2. J Harrison on July 20, 2018 at 6:59 pm said:

    Paul Offit faked his credentials? Really, he doesn’t have an MD? He isn’t Board Certified? He isn’t a Full Professor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia? He doesn’t have approaching 100 peer-reviewed journal articles? He has NEVER been the recipient of research grants? One oversight on his being Chief of Pediatrics on his website, which he was at one time; but forgot to remove and ALL HIS CREDENTIALS ARE FRAUDULENT? Yikes! You are NUTS!

    And you write: “What he does to his own children is his business.” And I agreed, if Wakefield had ONLY taken blood from his own children it would NOT have been a problem, a breach of medical ethics. You either don’t understand what I write in English or you continue with your dishonest replies.

    And NO, Offit has not “openly advocates for covering up vaccine injuries.” If you mean MMR-Autism, he is not covering up; but basing his position on over a dozen studies conduced in different countries by different researchers on different populations. However, his website at CHOP’s clearly discusses adverse events associated with vaccines. Your entire world centers on your beliefs regarding ASD, so if someone disagrees then they are covering up ALL vaccine injuries. That is just plan ILLOGICAL AND DISHONEST.

    When I studies psychology almost 50 years ago we learned that people who pick one detail and blow it up to the major and only focus are showing clear signs of mental illness. I think you need to seek help.

    And the GMC didn’t charge him with publishing critically on vaccination; but on “fraud”, again, asking parents involved in a lawsuit what they thought the cause was as if it were just regular referrals to the Royal Free. You just continue to ignore this. And on the Birthday Party which a State medical board in the US could and would investigate. Also, Wakefield omitted in his article explaining he had received around $750,000 as a consultant on the law suit and had applied and received a grant that was based on his saying he would prove the MMR-ASD connection. The fact that the 1998 article did not use those funds is irrelevant as he failed to reveal his strong bias, conflict of interest. Have you ever heard the term? Do you understand what it means?

    • So you do know Paul Offit lies about being “Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases”, since you omitted that from your list.

      Page 43:

      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

      The UK didn’t want him showing that it knowingly poisons kids with its vaccinations. They didn’t just make up misconduct charges against him, they actually portrayed publishing critically on a vaccine as misconduct.

  3. J Harrison on July 20, 2018 at 11:32 pm said:

    I really have a difficult time believing you have a degree in anything. As I said, he was the Chief, put it on the CHOPS blog, and forgot to remove when his term was up. So what? That doesn’t translate to your claim that his credentials are fraudulent. Of course, in your mind leaving Chief on the website was intentional; but even if that were true, so what, his other credentials are impressive, especially given you have a lowly MPH, no publications, no grants, no public health or research position. And you refuse to even give the title of your MPH thesis and are no longer in the PhD program at UTSPH; yet have continued to list yourself as a PhD candidate after several posts on this blog. So, you are a LIAR. And one can read Offit’s research by simply searching PubMed; whereas, as opposed to many other universities, GWU doesn’t even have a copy of your MPH thesis in the library or list it on their website.

    You list one of the points brought up during the GMC investigation and you fail to admit that it was a valid point, given that he used a biased sample, recruited, as I keep saying, from those involved in a lawsuit. How blatant can one be? So, mentioning a link based on an INTENTIONAL biased sample, that is, with NO VALID scientific basis, certainly is one reason to sanction him. What is also interesting is that Wakefield later published an ABSTRACT based on interviews with other parents and only found that 25% gave the MMR as a possible cause of their child’s ASD. Bet you aren’t aware of it!

    And you claim “(Contrary to BBC Fake News, no children fainted or threw up.)”

    What do you base this on, Wakefield? Were you there? Do you have in your possession a video of the birthday party that independent experts have testified has not been photoshopped? Whatever Wakefield says, could be true; but could just as easily be self-serving. As far as I can tell, your entire being is based on Wakefield’s credibility. I believe that nothing could ever get you to change your mind. If you did, you would be destroyed.

    I have NEVER based anything on one or even a couple of people. My “rants” as you call my papers usually have 100 – 200 references and I probably read twice as many and then I send drafts for critique to up to a dozen people. And I carefully read what they write and often change things accordingly. Though I can’t be sure, obviously, I would bet that if you actually wrote an MPH thesis, that your reference list is shorter than most of my papers, perhaps, quite a bit shorter.

    By the way, I understand your family are super wealthy. They didn’t happen to donate money to GWU when you were there???

    • “leaving Chief on the website was intentional; but even if that were true, so what, his other credentials are impressive”

      Yeah, he’s just a liar. No big deal that you hold vaccine policymakers for all 300 million Americans to a completely different standard than you hold expert witnesses for vaccine-injured children…

      “You list one of the points brought up during the GMC investigation and you fail to admit that it was a valid point”

      So you now argue it’s “valid” to revoke a doctor’s license for publishing critically on a vaccine. Rather than deny a cover-up of vaccine injuries, you are justifying it. At least this is more honest.

  4. J Harrison on July 21, 2018 at 1:42 am said:

    No, I didn’t omit from my list “Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases” which he was for a dozen years until 2014, I just mistakenly wrote “Chief of Pediatrics” and his CV now lists the years he was Chief. Again, you want to automatically see it as something dishonest, not even consider that someone as busy as he is might not check every line on his long CV on a regular basis. Besides treating patients, supervising medical students, getting grants, writing articles, and books, he is on numerous committees and has a family including children. Of course, your CV is probably a half page, so easy to keep up-to-date, since you probably do little else than write for your own blog.

    And I checked about your claiming to be a PhD candidate. You mentioned it after several posts; but you did change it on the ABOUT page sometime after June 20th of last year. So, people who didn’t regularly check the ABOUT page and at some time read under a post that you were a PhD candidate wouldn’t know your status had changed; but, all the same, you did acknowledge the change.

    You blame the UT administration; but just like GWU they can’t comment, so it is just your word, which could be true; but as I said with Wakefield, just self-serving. I wouldn’t expect you to admit you were kicked out of the program, so, though I suspect such, I can’t state with any certainty. Not like you always making claims without any valid facts to back them up, just you world of fantasy. You could, of course, give them permission to release your records, level the playing field.

    Well, enough amusing diversion. I’m working on a series of four articles, first draft of article 1 should be ready to send to colleague for critique by end of next week.

    I don’t believe Wakefield will even be mentioned in any of them. Too bad as I’m sure you would, in a comment, ignore what I wrote and just reiterate your fantasy world.

    p.s. awhile back you wrote that Science-Based Medicine was kaput. I guess you were WRONG!

    • Hey Joel, go to Offit’s website right now and “Click to view Dr. Offit’s Resume” as he tells his site’s visitors to do. What does his resume say in the first sentence about himself?

      p.s. I said no such thing about Science-Based Medicine. I wish it were.

  5. J Harrison on July 21, 2018 at 2:34 pm said:

    Nope, I didn’t argue its “valid” to revoke a doctor[’s license for publishing critically on a vaccine.” I wrote that it was a valid point that his publication was fraudulent; but it was only one of the points that the GMC covered in its investigation. As usual, you take one point and ignore everything else. They didn’t revoke his license based only on his 1998 publication. And you’ve written previously that they just made up charge that he failed to reveal his conflict of interest. Conflict of Interest is part of all research ethics from the American Psychological Association, Physics, Chemistry, to American Medical Association and included in requirements by many medical journals. Even if a particular journal doesn’t spell it out, it is understood. What is the difference between Wakefield recruiting families from a law suit and asking them what they thought the cause of their child’s condition was or, as a consultant to the law suit, simply giving a press conference and claiming that the vaccine caused the kid’s condition. First, his study was supposedly to look at association between regressive condition and gastrointestinal disorders. Asking the parents what they thought was the cause was not what he claimed to be studying and asking parents from the lawsuit, which he already knew their answer, was fraudulent. You just refused to accept this.

    You write: “Hey Joel, go to Offit’s website right now and “Click to view Dr. Offit’s Resume” as he tells his site’s visitors to do. What does his resume say in the first sentence about himself?”

    I went to Paul Offit’s website at:
    http://paul-offit.com/about/

    First paragraph says:

    “director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”

    Then clicked on “Dr. Offit’s Abbreviated Resume
    at the top its gives his “Office Address: Division of Infectious Diseases

    Then on page 2 it gives:
    Hospital and Administrative Appointment:

    1992-2014 Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases
    The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

    I then went to the Website for the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
    Vaccine Education Center and found the following:

    Our Team Director
    Paul A. Offit, MD
    https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/our-team

    Perhaps, you don’t understand the difference between “Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases” and “DIrector of the Vaccine Education Center,” which he is ! ! !

    You wrote: “p.s. I said no such thing about Science-Based Medicine. I wish it were.”

    Correct, I should have checked. What you did write in an article entitled: “Science” Blogs About To Die After Giving Bloggers 2-Week Eviction Notice” at: https://www.autisminvestigated.com/scienceblogs-die-eviction-notice/

    “Yes, it’s happening! Blogs exposed as pretending to be about “science” in a Two-Part Series eight years ago

    AND in the series referred to at Age of Autism, you incude David Gorski’s blog “Respectful Insolence” and mention a sister blog, Science-Based Medicine, founded by Steven Novella.

    Part II Seed Media’s “Science”Blogs: A 180 Degree Shift in Reporting (2009 Sep 23).

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/part-ii-seed-medias-scienceblogs-a-180-degree-shift-in-reporting.html

    “Science”Blogger “Orac” said, “Personally, I’d be overjoyed if the Obama Transition Team hired Kristina to do a “National Autism Blog.”” “Orac,” also known as David Gorski,”

    “An interesting connection I found was the link between Adam Bly’s “Science”Blogs and another collection of blogs, “Science”BasedMedicine. Both blogs share some bloggers and views on the vaccine-autism controversy. Some bloggers who typically use pseudonyms on “Science”Blogs go by their real names on “Science”BasedMedicine, as if to give the impression that there are more bloggers posting with this position than there actually are. The person who founded “Science”BasedMedicine, Steven Novella, an assistant professor of neurology at Yale who specializes in injecting Botox, is also a Scientific Advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).”

    So, basically your joy at Science Blogs closing down is your contempt for free speech, that is, anything you disagree with and it included Respectful Insolence. In any case, as far as I can tell most, if not all, of the various groups posting on Science Blogs has found a new home and continue to post.

    Just one little point. Yes, Novella uses Botox; but what your pea brain doesn’t seem to know is that it is not for wrinkles; but for migraine headaches. Botox has been found to work in some cases. I guess you would deny migraine sufferers a treatment that benefits them. Novella is a neurologist, not a dermatologist or plastic surgeon, so that should have at least caused you to double check; but, heh, whatever fits into your preconceived warped ideology . . .

    And I loved your article listing perhaps upwards of a 100 organizations lying about vaccines. I actually read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion about the Jewish conspiracy to control the world. A hoax; but quite influential at the time. You would have us believe that a conspiracy to further the interests of the pharmaceutical industry to profit from selling vaccines actually is even more powerful. All these organizations lying, allowing according to you, children to be harmed, just to benefit one industry. And according to studies, the entire yearly sales of vaccines the world over is 2% of total pharmaceutical sales. Everyone is a liar or a fool except you and the chosen few. Delusions of Grandeur from someone with a lowly MPH, no publications, no documented research experience, etc. Wow!

    And, I repeat, you comment on only one or two points I make. If you actually read what you call my “rants” I try to write about each and every point raised by an antivaccinationist’s article, backing what I write with an extensive reference list. And I accept that I may be wrong on a point of two, though so far no one has found errors; but, as opposed to you, an argument based on numerous points is not refuted if one or two are eventually found in error.

    As I wrote in a previous comment, when studying psychology we learned that when someone takes one or two points and inflates them to much more importance, that is a clear sign of mental illness. Again, I suggest you seek help.

  6. Pingback: Fake Medical Protection Society Won't Say Vaccine Criticism is Free Speech - Autism Investigated

  7. Pingback: Fake Medical Protection Society Won’t Say Vaccine Criticism is Free Speech - NAMELY LIBERTY

  8. Pingback: Wakefield Turncoat Authors Committed The Research Fraud - Autism Investigated

  9. Pingback: Autism Parents: Do Not Honor Wakefield Turncoat Authors

  10. Pingback: Autism People: Do Not Honor The Andrew Wakefield Turncoat Doctors - NAMELY LIBERTY

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation