Dr Andrew Wakefield Conspiracy to Defame Exposed.

It has been found that Doctor Andrew Wakefield did not falsify data as the same research had been done ALREADY 14 months by different researchers.The BMG who accused him has been asked to retract their accusations.

The mainstream media big pharma whores have failed to mention this.

read all about it and demand the BMG retract and apologize for their corporate agenda driven.

write to them.
phone them
email them.


spread this news around.

Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts.

www.naturalnews.com...

Just as we have to take the opposite of what the lying lame stream media has to say, we can add to that by saying whenever the corrupt fools accuse you of something, it is an admission of their own guilt through an attempted frameup of someone else.

Example: Wakefield was accused of an "elaborate fraud" "falsifying data" and "seeking monetary gain"

Oh really? Sort of like how the establishment is guilty of an elaborate fraud by joining together vaccine companies, government agencies, and mainstream news outlets, how they falsify data by ignoring facts that contradict their own views, and how they seek monetary gain by pushing vaccines onto the public?

So, British Medical Journal, BMJ, or just "BJ" for short, accuses wakefield of elaborate fraud, falsifying data, seeking monetary gain, when the BJ journal is guilty of these things, not wakefield.

If they accuse you of something you can bet they are the ones who are guilty, and they are seeking someone to frame up to relieve themselves of their own crimes.

Silly fools.

Alternative source? No offense, but naturalnews.com is very bias and thus a suspect source.

Originally posted by john_bmth
Alternative source? No offense, but naturalnews.com is very bias and thus a suspect source.

Who is unbiased?

The report exists that is all of the same experiments conducted 14 months earlier by different scientists.

Unbiased? Do you mean Fox News or Big Pharma are unbiased? George Bush? Obama?


ok?

I mean you need to have an unbiased source to source a report?

i mean if the same report is sourced by foxnews and then it is sourced by natural news means the text in the report changes magically?

reply to post by beckybecky


No, I mean 'not naturalnews.com' unbiased