Report linking autism to vaccines is retracted by medical journal

reply to post by Maxmars

May I inquire, has there ever been such a retraction and purging from the medical community on any widely propagated and accepted medical report in the past?

The thalidomide scandal in the '70s perhaps? I'm sure there have been others.

Can we expect throngs of physicians to scour the 'facts' delivered by the medical society for other such cases; or is it only the vaccine link that merits such scrutiny?

At the very least, I expect that we will see Lancet change its anonymous peer review system to an open peer review system as other journals have done. There may be other controversial reports that could stand a closer look into their backgrounds. But I doubt that there is a problem with 99% of the work.

Most people operate with integrity, which makes it more difficult to find those who don't. This is, of course, what the fraudsters count on.

Who from the Lancet made this monumental discovery of hoaxterism and fraud? From whence did the "new" information come,

Not from the Lancet, from Brian Deer who reported in the London "Sunday Times". See The Lancet Scandal

and why did it take twelve years to figure it out.

It didn't really. Much of the medical community has been saying that Wakefield was wrong all along. They couldn't find any evidence to back him up, and maintained that stance all along.

However the fraud perpetrated by Wakefield played into the fears of every parent everywhere. And he had a law firm paying him to keep the story going as long as possible in order to maximize the compensation claims they were pursuing.

Brian Deer gets the credit for keeping the investigation going and discovering Wakefield was being paid by the law firm to invent and maintain the fraud, had invented his data wholus-bolus, falsifying the medical records of the 12 children that made up his woefully inadequate study size, and had patented a standalone measles vaccine that was pointless unless the MMR was discredited.

When Deer fronted Lancet with his findings (supposedly in a 5 hour meeting that did not amuse the Lancet editorial staff), Lancet asked Wakefield about it and of course Wakefield denied the allegations. That was the extent of Lancet's investigation and they published a note that they had confirmed the paper and stood by it.

Now the a disciplinary panel of the UK General Medical Council (GMC) has substantiated all these claims and found Wakefield to be "dishonest", "unethical", "irresponsible" and "callous".

I find myself wondering if this isn't precisely the kind of revisionism that historians warn us about?

You know, I am not arguing that the link was real or not. Only that the circumstances and execution of the "debunking" to be less than persuasive and irregular to the point of alarm.

I can't begin to understand what you are talking about here.

A dangerous fraud, perpetrated by a egotistical quack chasing money and a law firm chasing compensation claims, that played on the darkest fears of parents and exposed a generation of children to very serious illness, has been exposed and you are cynical about what exactly? The timing or the method? What is your problem?

Yes, it is tragic that it wasn't exposed earlier, before the inoculation rate in England had dropped below the 'herd immunity level', before measles, which had been virtually eliminated in England made a comeback and claimed at least two victims directly attributable to the fraud. And it is a shame that reputable medical journals aren't more careful.

But it has been exposed now. How can you justify trying to make a conspiracy out of exposing a conspiracy?

reply to post by paxnatus

You are definitely misinformed with your above quote. Here is an excerpt from a case won.

Without commenting on any particular case, you should also be aware of this:

(source)

ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than £400,000 by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine was unsafe.

The payments, unearthed by The Sunday Times, were part of £3.4m distributed from the legal aid fund to doctors and scientists who had been recruited to support a now failed lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.

Critics this weekend voiced amazement at the sums, which they said created a clear conflict of interest and were the “financial engine” behind a worldwide alarm over the triple measles, mumps and rubella shot.

Lancet is a tool.
By retracting this study - they finally unquestionably proved it.

It seems that elites want full compliance from us...
question vaccines - get ridiculed.
question government - get compared to Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by eventHorizon
Lancet is a tool.
By retracting this study - they finally unquestionably proved it.

It seems that elites want full compliance from us...
question vaccines - get ridiculed.
question government - get compared to Al Qaeda.

I tend to agree with you some what.

My grandson is getting his shots - - but we are demanding single dose - - and waited until he was 2.

reply to post by eventHorizon


Regardless of the credibilty of his report.. they publically bullied him over several years so they can never say he retracted it without pressure or coersion.