Wakefield made a similar comment to the BBC in 2004.

He welcomed the GMC investigation. “I not only welcome this, I insist on it,” he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3512195.stm

My long comment has a section that begins

But there is proof he lied. Here is just one route to the truth.
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dawbarns-news.htm
Under the heading Pilot Study

I left out the key detail. This was the Spring 1997 newsletter, according to Brian Deer of May 1997.

So Wakefield has reported to the lawyer that kids have been seen under the legal aid project by the spring of 1997 which means that Wakefield lied and that the Lancet paper is based on the legal aid documents and 172-96. That sinks the three conspirators.

What about Walker-Smith and Murch?——-
At one time, I thought it was a shame that they would be ‘erased from the register.’ Not any more. They knew what they were doing and lied about it.

Erased from Register—————-
The phrase ‘erased from register’ sounded like there might be a ceremony where some great book or computer print out is opened up and their names erased. I was hoping it might be televised. So I asked the GMC. Sadly, all they do is change a field on a database to the value for erased.

The person who posts here as Marsha is time4truthnow at Huffington-Post. She’s new over there and one of the most annoying as she flaps her gums about how those who disagree with her are all rotten nasty people. Hilariously, she complains about Huff-Po moderation. She and the other woo supporters get treated more favorably than I ever do. I’ve been forced to get my digs just by using the facts…it has been a learning experience.

Ultimately, her complaint is that I didn’t give a full measured response to all of her comment.

I wrote:

GMC LISTENED TO WAKEFIELD———————————————————————As to the parents, they believed vaccine damaged their child in 1996, why would you expect it to change in 2010.

They state: “investigations were carried out without distress to our children.” I’ve gone through every procedure except for the EEG and the lumbar puncture. Even allowing for some procedures being carried out under a general, it would be distressing to an adult, let alone an autistic child.

The accusations came from the scientific community that believed the results false in some way. But it was Brian Deer who made this insanity public. Once done, the GMC used its own authority to start the investigation.

Although it would be nice to think that Wakefield helped them make up their mind, that doesn’t seem to be true. But you couldn’t blame them

“It has been proposed that my role in this matter should bem investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome this, I insist on it and I will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the forthcoming week.”
Andrew Wakefield – February 2004————-end comment———

Hmmm…I’m grabbing the quote from Brian Deer’s work (start of his highlights paper) ...and he reads this blog.

If you had provided a link to a source at your site, I would have included a link. I remember being surprised that there wasn’t one. Maybe I can make up to it here.
—————-
Marsha has a hissy fit that I don’t respond more to her response to this comment.

I’m sorry that Marsha is upset with me for not giving her a complete answer to her satisfaction. In my defense, I don’t owe anyone a response, particularly a snivelling writer who attacks the motives of those she disagrees with (currently more than anyone else at Huffington-Post) and mostly parrots, poorly, the Wakefield line of the day.

But I have responded to this question on the same day, in a more polite request. Unfortunately, it never made it to Huff-Po. Here is a new version of it. Because it gives a flavor of the nuanced quality of my work.

If I were in the shoes of those parents who were clients/contacts of the lawyer Barr and I read a request for parents to contact Barr with details about bowel problems with kids and the kid had those problems then I’d write it up. And if resulted in an appointment with a renowned child gastro (Walker-Smith) I would follow it up.

And if Walker-Smith thinks that a nasty week of procedures is a good idea, I would go along. I would go along even if I figured out the procedures were not clinically indicated (which is very unlikely). After all, he was the expert, maybe he could find something useful. And as to it being research, why not do it, if it might somehow lead to money from a lawsuit.

Walker-Smith is an expert, he isn’t going to put my kid into danger.
As a parent, I’m not bound by the ethics of a doctor, I can take a wider view of my kid’s best interests.

As to continuing to believe, why not? I went along with it the past, why not continue to do it. And I’ll get all that support from the anti-vaccination groups.

And the message of the anti-vaccine groups is so wonderful for the parents…you are not to blame. It is something else, the external, the vaccines, not your fault, nothing to do with genetics, nothing to do with what you ate or drank when pregnant.

So snivelling Marsha, feel better now?

Yes, Marsha, it’s all coming out in the wash, but not the way you’d hope. If I google “Wakefield retraction”, I find under the heading “A Welcome Retraction”, 1064 articles.

Just above this is the AoA story, where Jim and Jenny go on about the 14 monkeys. There are apparently 23 stories relating to this, but well, not all of them are supportive of Wakers and the anti-vaxers. In fact, the first few are:

_

The Bicker With Wakefield: The Real Reasons Why “Lancet” Was Right to Retract Psychology Today (blog)
Lancet Disavowal of Autism Vaccine Connection May Lead to More Immunizations Voice of America
Parents urged to protect children with MMR jab Kent News

Here, on this blog, you may find some dedicated people willing to give you some time to refute your nonsense on this issue. But you are not going to find any support in the rest of the mainstream media. Despite Sheri’s exhortations to “keep up the good fight”, or what ever else she’s been feeding you people, you can’t keep up with the relentless tide of the truth that is finally being realized by the rest of the world. And it’s about time.

I see I’m supposed to be here. Sorry, didn’t realize that. Really like this blog, haven’t figured out RSS yet. Came here as a link from Huffington-Post where I hang out.

I see I’ve been attacked as a shill and worse. I understand why, because I tend to research before I write. When it was H1N1, I often brought new pieces of information together.

On Wakefield, much of it is using the documents Brian Deer put up on his website and bringing to an audience at Huffington-Post that doesn’t know about it. Rarely, I can add something to what Brian Deer has.

I think I’ve beat him to a small degree by writing more on 162-95 and in including excerpts from that funny complaint to the GMC by the we love Wakefield brigade.
http://vaccineswork.blogspot.c.....nking.html
http://vaccineswork.blogspot.c.....se-of.html

One point where I disagree with his highlights essay is his view that Wakefield just wanted to get into the guts of autistic children. I think that Wakefield wanted to get into the guts of children who didn’t have clinical indications for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Those kids would have a colonoscopy done on them in the normal course of events.

But Wakefield 12 in The Lancet and Krigsman and his 143 consecutive colonoscopies without mentioning Crohn’s are all about finding a new pathology that is linked/limited to ASD, this autistic enterocolitis.

The Documents———————Wakefield supporters refuse to do their due diligence by working through Brian Deer’s web site and reading the documents that the conspirators produced themselves. They are a wonderful example of confirmation bias and demonizing those who you disagree with.

This is funny, because they all think of themselves as parents and others who have done the research and made their decision against vaccines based on the research they’ve done. Except either they can’t understand Deer’s documents or they haven’t read them.

Ignore his prose and read the documents. One major problem with the web site is that I can’t find a single master list of all the documents on Wakefield (it may be there somewhere, but I cant’ find it). And it is just so easy to get lost.

Even with that criticism (and some broken links), if you read the GMC panel’s decision with the documents, it is clear that they were guilty of everything they were charged with and much more.

I believe you can decide that they were guilty as hell by just reading 3 documents and the GMC panel decision http://tinyurl.com/gmc-fact-finding .

First, read the two 172-96 documents http://briandeer.com/mmr/royal-free-11.htm and http://briandeer.com/wakefield/protocol-1996.htm . Very similar documents were passed to legal aid a month or two earlier. Brian, is that legal aid document on the website somewhere?

They tell you that there was a planned research project going on. The details are worth reading in detail.

All that remains is deciding if it was this research project that ended up in The Lancet. Wakefield’s defense is that the Legal Aid work and the research project had nothing to do with the Lancet paper and that they started work on 172-96 in the fall of 1997.

This was the key to their defense.

Speaking through Bill Long, Wakefield explains:—start excerpt——With this conflict resolved and the money having a home, the Legal Aid study, Study One,[172-96] could begin. It actually began in Oct. 1997 and concluded in 1999. But what is more revealing for our purposes is that the July 3, 1997 letter from Wakefield to the NHS Chief Executive mentions in passing that the study which would appear in the Lancet , which I have called Study Two, was already completed . Note the following sentence:

“Please find enclosed a copy of our first paper submitted to the Lancet concerning children under investigation. This has been an extremely successful study and has clearly demonstrated a new pathology in these children and put the Royal Free Hospital at the world leader in this field.”
http://www.drbilllong.com/Auti.....—end excerpt——
Wakefield makes the same claim himself

From Issue 33 2009 of the magazine The Autism File there is an article written by Wakefield Historical Perspective “That Paper.” It has been posted online.
http://www.rescuepost.com/file.....efield.pdf
Under a large headline Myths: The Lancet Paper is this:
did not have Ethics Committee (EC) approval
False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval, detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies, was covered by the necessary EC approval (footnote 13)
Footnote 13 on the last page
Ethical Practices Committee approval 162/95. Date of approval September 5, 1995. Carroll, M. to Walker-Smith, J.

So to determine most of the case, we have to decide whether what gets published in The Lancet is the Legal Aid (172-96) protocol.
There are lots of way this defense can be proven false. Here is one: If we have evidence that the legal aid study started before the fall of 1997, we know that Wakefield’s defense is false.

Hmmmm…where can we find a 3rd party who has no reason to lie and is getting information from Wakefield?

Read page 4 of the Spring 1997 newsletter.
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dawbarns-news.htm DAwbarns newsletter
and you find out that kids have been tested already, under the legal aid protocol which is 172-96.—-quote begins—-
Under the heading Pilot Study
The pilot study (being coordinated by Dr. Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hostpital ) has already started and a number of children has alreadystarted and a number of chiuldren have already been tested. Preliminary indications are that there is a strong link between the vaccine and inflammatory bowel disease.

We are now awaiting the results of a more detailed analysis. This included the use of a technique called polymerase chain reaction [PCR] which may give us some very significant information. The aim of the pilot study is to pave the way for a wider investigation of the problems associated with these vaccines.—-quote ends—
Of course, the paragraph about PCR is a lie coming from Wakefield. He had the results from Chadwick as the samples were tested. All of them were either false or found to be false positives.

Which means that The Lancet paper was a research project. Why is this so important? Because if it is a research project then Wakefield has to say so in his paper. This was a key charge where Wakefield was found dishonest at page 44 of http://tinyurl.com/gmc-fact-finding

You see, a peer reviewer would naturally want to compare the research protocol to what the paper has to say, especially for a controversial topic like this. And that would be the end of the paper as there are minor problems, like the kids don’t match those who are supposed to be in the paper, they’ve left out Nick Chadwick’s work, they’ve left out that the conspirators organized who was coming in for testing and even the order in which they came to the hospital. See http://briandeer.com/wakefield/thirty-children.htm

If The Lancet paper is 172-96 modified, most of what was left was matching what was done to each kid. Was it proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that procedures were carried out on autistic children that were not clinically indicated. That is giving the conspirators the very best possible chance of getting a not proven decision.

But they failed, because they put down on paper their diagnosis of the children, which didn’t need these procedures. And why they were doing it, for research on vaccines and autism.

One question I’d love an answer to is whether they thought they could avoid the Ethics Committee (because if they were to be believed they were only doing clinically indicated procedures and a few extra biopsies) and were forced to the Committee by concerns of the hospital as evidenced by the Sept 4 letter of the hospital boss telling Wakefield to get an approval document right quick. http://briandeer.com/wakefield/ros-sim.htm

A comment on Big Pharma and Wakefield—————It is hilarious reading that Wakefield was a rebel and that he was a courageous underdog. Baloney. Wakefield’s paper was trash. Despite public health concerns, Horton of The Lancet and Zuckerman, dean of the Medical School pushed an publicized Wakefield and his paper. It wasn’t a case of the establishment against Wakefield, it was a case of the establishment not caring so much and two members of it, abusing their positions for parochial benefits to their institutions.

I wonder if the GMC might have gone after Horton if the standard of proof had been reduced to a balance of probabilities at that time.

No one mentioned a ‘hurried manner’. You have come back a couple of times now, over an entire afternoon, to make long winding posts.

Odd that you have time to do that, but not time to even attempt to answer questions.

“I already told you I’ll answer any questions in my time. Not yours.”

Sorry, but that looks exactly like a cop-out. You made several assertions and when called to back them up, you failed to even try, instead you ran this diversion.

That is the behaviour of someone who is unlikely to have an answer even in thier ‘own time’.

“That are you are just too lazy to do proper research & ignore all people try to educate you in.”

You see, you fling derisive language about, yet complain when minimal standards are enforced.

“Are you kidding?

If Wakefield was guilty of what the witch hunters say, those parents would have realized they’d been duped & been all over him.”

Are YOU kidding? Not only do you have the story utterly wrong (Wakefield was supposed to have duped the Lancet, the readers of his 1998 paper, the Press and those that wrote into the Lancet – not just the parents), but if the parents had been duped, you’ve provided no mechanism by which they ‘would have’ cottoned on.

You’re trying to claim that untrained, unqualified, invested parents would 100% have realised. How? When?

Some of the proven charges have nothing to do with the parents, as you would know had you read the report.

“There’s a registered nurse there kicking their butts, including Deer’s but they have been deleting many of her informative posts.”

Aside from the issue of whether she is a registered nurse, she certainly has not been doing that, and has been asked to stay on topic and stay appropriate several times. She has failed to display minimum standards of behaviour and discussion throughout the thread. You only turn a blind eye to it because you engage in similar tactics yourself and you agree with her.

You have failed agian to even acknowledge the concerns regarding her behaviour. Do so in your next post.

By your own admission, you have revisited and posted on the thread several times, have came back several times to check things, and have spent time posting about this thread elsewhere, yet you cant even get around to answering even one question?

I definetly call bull shit on that one. Massive piles of it.

BTW, I have no power to delete posts. Everytime you respond to a point I made, but then accuse me of doing something someone else did (if they did it at all), the dimmer and less well balanced you look.

You can ‘do it in my own time’ if you want, but you have to accept that that just reads like a total cop out.

I posted the following at her blog as you can see;

Kim did well on CNN as you can see at the following link. The sad excuse for a doctor that followed her was as evil as they come because he’s a liar &he knows it. Why is it when people “lie” some get a half smirk that can’t be denied on their face? Bush used to have that look a lot, didn’t he?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/vid.....=allsearch

The doctor who followed Kim did look shifty &condescending to me & anyone who’s looked into this whole matter in depth with a fair share of common sense can see right through him.

He says it’s over & vaccinations are off the hook?

He and his cohorts wish.

Wakefield woke a lot of people up & those who know the truth, thank him for that. Now there’s a much better chance of getting on that road to recovery sooner thanks to Wakefield. No matter what anyone says about him, it changes nothing in the way of justice in this matter being the end result, sooner than later, thanks to Wakefield & the likes of Kim Stagliano.

End of my comment;

It will all be coming out in the wash very soon

You’ll get my opinion since that seems so important to you that will come with detailed facts, soon enough.

I wonder where Sheldon is? I was hoping he’d at least be here before the debate begins up. I haven’t had a chance to see if any of you may have joined in at the debates going on at HuffPo, yet, but I hope there are new commenters.

Doesn’t anybody new here have anything to say? I know Sheldon’s looking in or when he comes I’m sure he’ll be speaking up. It usually doen’t take him very long to jump on every opportunity that arises, he’s that good.

I’m sure he’ll be here. He’s one of the best who works to stifle truth & oppose those whose voices have been ignored in the past.

No more!

Is there anybody out there besides those already who have spoken out that have something to say?

I didn’t think there was a big audience here but certainly someone on either side of this matter has something to say.

Speak up for the children if you’re out there, either side, please. Our children are too important not to,
no matter which side you be on.

Oh, and when you do have a moment to do research… as you find out what happened to the incidence of measles in the USA between 1960 and 1970, could you also find the answer to this question:

The MMR vaccine that was introduced in the UK in 1992 was approved in the USA in 1971. Yes, you read that right: 39 years ago. Now if the MMR causes autism and intestinal issues, do you have the evidence to show that there were real increases of those conditions in the USA starting almost four decades ago?

I have been advised not to waste my time here & it’s probably pretty good advise.

But, I don’t always take the good advise I’m given. And who knows? My friend could be wrong.

I wanted to check back to see if my post was still there & to see if anyone like the bad guy I invited here had come.

Before I answer any of your, what I believe to be insincere questions, I have a serious one.

Why should I waste my time getting back to questions in a hurried manner, no matter how easy it may be, in your opinions, to just answer them, when they could be deleted as you have many other posts here?

Wouldn’t that be a waste of time? My time is valuable & I already told you I’ll answer any questions in my time. Not yours. It’s no cop out, not when you people don’t play by fair rules it’s not. It’s necessary & soon all will come out in the wash.

Answer them I will as I said in my time. Then maybe I’ll have your undivided attention by then & it won’t be so easy for you to do to me what you did to that nurse. I will answer every question for the sake of anyone genuine here when I decide to.

Don’t worry. I told you friends & foe will be invited. So far I only posted at one of the sites at Huffington Post, I planned to.

I planned to post at many differing articles at that best on line newspaper there is in cyberspace (Huffingtonpost.com) but I decided to stop there due to thinking maybe my friend might be right & you people here weren’t worth the effort. My friend did discourage me in my efforts here but we’ll do it with what audience we have instead of going for the great big one I invisioned.

This particular thread is off the website at HuffPo so no new readers will be looking in. You’ll probaly get more of your kind here due to their lurking & waiting to stifle truth & spread dis-information. It’s doubtful anyone but those bad boys will be looking in now because it’s their job.

See for yourself the converation I just had with a known shill, like some here who have to be in the pockets of special interests like big pHARMa, I’m pretty sure. That are you are just too lazy to do proper research & ignore all people try to educate you in.

Here’s the link to that, basically, closed thread;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....t_40114606

And here’s what I wrote to the shill in the invite;

Sheldon101 said:

“As to the parents, they believed vaccine damaged their child in 1996, why would you expect it to change in 2010.”

I said;

Are you kidding?

If Wakefield was guilty of what the witch hunters say, those parents would have realized they’d been duped & be all over him.

As for the coward Brian Deer, he’s at the following bogus blog still working to deceive:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co......l-veritas/

There’s a registered nurse there kicking their butts, including Deer’s but they have been deleting many of her informative posts.

I just posted there & if they haven’t gotten around to deleting it yet as they have been known to do, especially to that smart nurse, it will still be there.