Tag Archives: General Medical Council

Holtzbrink Systematically Retracts Science Critical of Vaccines

The Nazi-built Holtzbrinck Publishing Group systematically scrubs any paper that casts vaccines in a negative light. Look at the case of a 2016 animal study of HPV vaccine from Japan.

Like many animal studies in medicine, the purpose is to learn more about a disease in humans by replicating its symptoms in animals. That is what scientists sought to do in this study published in Scientific Reports:

In the case of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, an unexpectedly novel disease entity, HPV vaccination associated neuro-immunopathetic syndrome (HANS), has been reported and remains to be carefully verified. To elucidate the mechanism of HANS, we applied a strategy similar to the active experimental autoimmune encephalitis (EAE) model – one of the most popular animal models used to induce maximum immunological change in the central nervous system.

Then suddenly in 2018, the Publisher retracted the paper by totally lying about the study’s purpose:

The Publisher is retracting this Article because the experimental approach does not support the objectives of the study. The study was designed to elucidate the maximum implication of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine (Gardasil) in the central nervous system. However, the co-administration of pertussis toxin with high-levels of HPV vaccine is not an appropriate approach to determine neurological damage from HPV vaccine alone. The Authors do not agree with the retraction.

The study never said its objective was to “determine neurological damage from HPV vaccine alone,” but to “elucidate the mechanism of HANS [novel disease entity, HPV vaccination associated neuro-immunopathetic syndrome].” This retraction totally lied about the study’s objectives; no wonder the authors don’t agree with it!

The publisher, not the journal, retracted the post. The publisher of Scientific Reports is Nature Publishing Group, which also retracted this 2000 paper on developmentally impaired children. It did so simply because it included children in the 1998 vaccine-autism paper retracted by The Lancet. The retractions cited a medical circus hearing that punished the lead author of both papers for the following:

 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

Nature Publishing Group is owned by Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which also owns BioMedCentral. That publisher retracted a 2014 study for linking measles-mumps-rubella vaccination to autism and for the author’s opinion being that vaccination causes autism:

A reader flagged that there were undeclared competing interests related to the article: the author, Dr Hooker, was on the Board of Directors for Focus Autism which supports the belief that MMR vaccine causes autism.  We were concerned enough about the allegations and the content to remove it from the public domain immediately because of the potential harm to public health

Holtzbrinck also owns Frontiers. When the first vaccinated versus unvaccinated study of autism was accepted for publication by Frontiers in Public Health, the vaccine troll army responded. Frontiers took down the study abstract and cancelled publication explicitly in response to vaccine crybabies on the internet.

The study was since published elsewhere, but there is an ongoing theme. Whether it’s the HPV vaccine, the MMR vaccine, or vaccinations in general, Holtzbrinck censors vaccine risk papers. Avoid publishing in its journals like the plague.

Autism Investigated Plugged By The Independent in Trump Articles

President Donald Trump and longtime vaccine-autism scientist Dr. Andrew Wakefield, The Independent

In not one, but two articles in The Independent(UK) about President Donald Trump, the following tweet by the editor to the editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal.

Chelsea Clinton read at least one of the articles that included the editor’s tweet.

And what was the decision that justified stripping Dr. Wakefield’s license and retracting his early paper based on? Why, the simple fact that he published critically on vaccines.

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

Attacking Jews won’t get you retracted by The Lancet nor struck-off the medical register, but reporting vaccine injury will.

Autism Speaks Promotes Darkness for Vaccination-Autism Science

The official position of the world’s biggest money-grubbing autism charity Autism Speaks is that vaccines provide “no increased risk” for autism. What they really support is overt censorship of autism-vaccine science.

The end of Autism Speaks’ position statement provides the first clue.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has compiled a comprehensive list of this research. You can view and download the list here.

What does the academy include in this list of “research?”

British journalist Brian Deer investigates Dr. Andrew Wakefield (the man who initially claimed a link between autism and the MMR vaccine), his practices during the study that was published on this alleged connection, and uncovers truths that lead to the revocation of Dr. Wakefield’s medical license and to the retraction of the article he published on the subject.​

At the center of the “practices” were his so-called conflicts of interest. The UK General Medical Council that took his license stated:

Having regard to its findings at paragraph 31.c., the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in failing to disclose your involvement in the MMR litigation, your receipt of funding for part of Project 172-96 from the Legal Aid Board and your involvement in the Patent, constituted disclosable interests. Your failure to disclose these to the Editor of The Lancet was contrary to your duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper.

He was “contrary” to his “duties,” you say? Sounds harsh. Let’s see how that’s defined in “paragraph 31.c.”

iii. had a duty to disclose to the Editor of the Lancet any disclosable interest including matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception that you had a conflict of interest; Found proved

Let that sink in, Dr. Wakefield had a duty to disclose:

any disclosable interest including matters which could legitimately give rise to a perception that you had a conflict of interest

Is abiding by that duty even possible? Not even the General Medical Council thinks so. That’s why they tell doctors in their own guidance to “use your professional judgement to identify when conflicts of interest arise.” They clearly held Dr. Wakefield to a different standard, as Autism Investigated already reported. But why?

c. In the circumstances set out at paragraph 31.b. above, 

What are those “circumstances?” Why, the fact that he published on children being poisoned into autism by vaccination.

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

BINGO! They took away his license and retracted his paper because of what he published. They make no secret of it.

In the United Kingdom, you can attack Jews and still keep your medical license. Don’t even think about criticizing a vaccine though.

It is totally shameful the American Academy of Pediatrics would openly celebrate such overt censorship while poisoning more children. It is also shameful that Autism Speaks does the same while asking for money to “shine a light on autism.” They don’t want to shine a light on anything.

Autism Speaks wants to keep the causation of autism in the dark. President Trump should dump Autism Speaks.

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.

UK Gov’t Authority Fabricated “Duties” Against Early Vax-ASD Science

 

The UK government completely made up “duties” to disclose conflicts of interest to defame the lead author of early science linking vaccines to autism. It is perhaps the most clear-cut proof of the UK government’s conspiracy to cover up the vaccine autism link.

The vaccine people are quick to cite the UK General Medical Council (GMC’s) findings of “disclosable interests” against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Meanwhile, the vaccine people completely ignore the GMC’s own Financial and commercial arrangements and conflicts of interest guidance. The guide tells doctors to “use your professional judgement to identify when conflicts of interest arise.” By second-guessing Dr. Wakefield’s professional judgement to punish him, the GMC completely fabricated the “duties” it said he violated according to its existing rules.

Though GMC’s findings of unethical research and dishonesty were overturned on appeal, vaccine people still use the red herring that Dr. Wakefield was not the one who appealed. However, the “disclosable interests” findings were only against Dr. Wakefield and were not grounded in findings against any other researcher.

But as the GMC’s guidance on its own website shows, those findings were not based on any existing rule either. One need only compare the GMC “findings” and the GMC’s actual position on conflicts of interest to see that they are a hoax. Nobody and certainly no government should recognize any findings or verdicts by the GMC panel that ruled against Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

BMJ Deceived Lancet Parent Into Attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The British Medical Journal (BMJ)’s commissioned writer Brian Deer duped the father of the 11th child described in The Lancet paper into believing his son’s case was misrepresented. That father, Richard Demirjian, was led to believe the paper said his son’s autistic symptoms began weeks after vaccination when the report said no such thing. The Lancet paper was perfectly consistent with what Demirjian said happened to his son.

So Autism Investigated wrote BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee about how Deer misrepresented Demirjian’s son. Yes, it was that Dr. Godlee who Autism Investigated’s editor confronted back in 2011.

Despite past history, she replied cordially:

Thank you for your message. Might you or Richard Demirjian send a rapid response to the article on BMJ.com. We can then ask Brian Deer to respond. Best wishes. Fiona Godlee

But two months after Autism Investigated submitted a rapid response at her invitation, she coldly rejected it:

I have now had an opportunity to discuss this with our lawyer. We will not be publishing your rapid response. It is highly defamatory of Brian Deer and the allegations you raise have already been refuted in detail by Brian Deer on his website. Best wishes, Fiona Godlee

When asked for details, Godlee gave no reply.

In any case, read the below response and see for yourself if it defames Brian Deer. It doesn’t, but it shows Deer and the BMJ defamed Wakefield – in large part by deceiving parent Richard Demirjian.

Lancet father 11 hammers a nail into the coffin of Deer’s fallacious allegations

Brian Deer republished his Sunday Times accusations in the BMJ knowing that they were refuted in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 58-page press complaint against him and against the newspaper that ran the article two years prior.(1) Deer’s justification for doing so was the GMC’s ruling in favor of his earlier accusations of unethical research.(2) He has also misled a parent of one of The Lancet paper children (child 11) into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented the child’s case, but the wording in The Lancet paper itself confirms that the child’s case was not misrepresented.(3) The GMC’s findings have been overturned,(4) and a letter from the parent corroborates that The Lancet paper accurately represented his son’s condition.(5)

Two months after the article was published, Brian Deer received a letter from the parent of The Lancet child 11 that directly contradicts Deer’s account. Yet no correction has ever been made in the BMJ.

In the first article of Brian Deer’s MMR series for BMJ, Deer wrote of The Lancet Child 11:

But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.(6)

However, Deer’s claim that child 11 regressed before the vaccine was disputed by child 11’s father in the letter he wrote to Deer (that is currently posted on Deer’s website):

One of the incorrect statements in my son’s discharge report was that autistic symptoms were seen from 13-18 months, while the vaccination was at 15 months. This is clearly inaccurate as his symptoms began several months after the MMR, as reflected in my initial correspondence to the Royal Free requesting my son be included in the research study.(5)

In the private meeting between Deer and father 11 that was referenced in Deer’s article, Deer had apparently misled the father into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented his son’s case. In that same letter to Deer, father 11 echoed Deer’s false statement that The Lancet paper put child 11’s first autistic symptoms at one week after the vaccine when in fact, the paper makes clear that that was only when child 11’s first behavioral symptom (associated, as also described in Table 2, with recurrent “viral pneumonia”). The first symptom, that could have been any of a number of behaviors such as permanent or chronic change in sleep pattern, occurred after vaccination. The table father 11 referred to in The Lancet paper makes no mention of onset of first autistic symptoms.(3) Father 11 corroborates The Lancet paper and contradicts Deer’s BMJ article.

Despite Deer being told by father 11 directly that his son did not regress until after his vaccination, Deer made no effort to correct the misinformation in his BMJ article. On Deer’s personal website, he even continues to cast doubt on father 11’s account:

Which is true for child 11? Who can say, years later? The father says one thing, the medical records another. Nobody can time-travel back to the 1990s. And in lawsuits, it is the records that usually count. But, whichever version is right, Wakefield’s story was not. Neither can be reconciled with The Lancet.(7)

The fact is there is only one correct version: The Lancet paper account corroborated by father 11 twice, both in his correspondence with the hospital and with Deer. The incorrect version is the faulty discharge summary exploited by Deer to mislead. This is not the first time that evidence was submitted to BMJ that dismantles the article’s veracity post-publication.

When other evidence was previously brought to the journal in November 2011 that also supported The Lancet papers findings,(8)(9) Deer deflected by referring back to the GMC findings.(10) Though Deer cited them to add credibility to all his allegations, the findings themselves have been deemed unsustainable by an English High Court ruling.

In 2012, Justice Mitting overturned the GMC decision that The Lancet paper had misrepresented its patient population, was unethical and was part of a litigation-funded project.(4) By extension, the paper’s lead author Dr. Andrew Wakefield could not have been dishonest for not disclosing that the paper was funded by litigation or was part of that project when neither was the case.

In fact, the court decision refutes all the GMC findings that Dr. Wakefield broke any rule of professional conduct as laid out in GMC’s Good medical practice guidance.(11)(12)(13) Likewise, there is no existing justification for the paper’s retraction.(14) The Lancet knows this. When I confronted The Lancet ombudsman, Dr. Malcolm Molyneux, with the fact that the GMC findings that served as the basis for the retraction were killed, all he could say was:

In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.(15)

As the above statement reveals, the ombudsman is unable to state a single reason for the paper to remain retracted. Furthermore, there can be no “other elements on which the decision was based” since the retraction statement only cites the GMC findings – now overturned.(14)

Of Brian Deer’s many false claims, among the most egregious is his deceiving father 11 and misrepresenting child 11’s case.

1.     http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Complaint_to_UK_PCC1.pdf

2.     http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

3.     See Table 2: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

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

5.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted-child-11.pdf

6.     http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

7.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted.htm

8.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/09/re-how-case-against-mmr-vaccine-was-fixed

9.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/17/re-pathology-reports-solve-%E2%80%9Cnew-bowel-disease%E2%80%9D-riddle

10.   Deer dismissed slides from The Lancet paper co-author Dr. Andrew Anthony later supplied by Dr. David Lewis on the excuse that Dr. Wakefield could have tampered with them. The only supporting evidence Deer offered of tampering was the GMC’s ruling that Dr. Wakefield had been “dishonest” based on the disciplinary findings that were since overturned. http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-2.htm

11.    See 12a, which proves Dr. Wakefield was not professionally obligated to disclose his personal connection to litigation or his patent application to the editor of The Lancet. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/30191.asp

12.    See page 8, endnote 7, which refers to the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) rules for when Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval is necessary. (NRES link in endnote no longer works) http://www.gmc-uk.org/Good_practice_in_research_and_consent_to_research.pdf_58834843.pdf

13.    NRES rules prove Dr. Wakefield’s birthday party blood draws did not require REC approval because they were not done on patients, therefore falling outside GMC’s authority to make any judgement on the matter. http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2013/09/does-my-project-require-rec-review.pdf

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

15.    http://www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/

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.