Discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield in the NYT

21 Apr


The more he must defend his research, the more important he seems to consider it — so important that powerful forces have conspired and aligned against him. He said he believes that “they” — public-health officials, pharmaceutical companies — pay bloggers to plant vicious comments about him on the Web. “Because it’s always the same,” he says. “Discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield, discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield.” He also “wouldn’t be surprised” if public-health officials were inflating the number of measles mortalities…


25 Responses to “Discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield in the NYT”

  1. Sniffer April 21, 2011 at 22:03 #

    Dear All

    How true ,Dr Wakefield has been wrongly convicted .Pharma companies have achieved zilch.

    Wouldn`t you agree its time to revisit the whole episode again.



  2. Autism and Oughtisms April 21, 2011 at 22:10 #

    lol, you gave that the respect his comment deserved 🙂

  3. Liz Ditz April 21, 2011 at 22:23 #

    I’ve read through the comments


    And why is the Times continuing to give this charlatan any ink? His medical license has been lifted, his “study” has been shown to be fraudulent, he had major conflicts of interest. Don’t give him any more coverage. Just don’t. Not here, not in the Magazine.

    “Why some still won’t accept that Andrew Wakefield is wrong” . . . because mainstream press like the Times keeps reporting on him and his ilk. Just stop. Please. All press is good press.

    Far more comments of the ilk above than autism-as-vaccine-injury. It’s a start.

  4. Sullivan April 21, 2011 at 23:19 #

    Now I know why my big Pharma Shill(TM) checks never came: I’m not using the code phrase! If I go back and edit my posts to change “Mr Wakefield” to “Discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield”, will I get big paychecks?

    Mr. Wakefield finds interesting ways to claim a conspiracy without using the term. He’s rather creative with language.

  5. brian April 21, 2011 at 23:55 #

    This item from today’s Washington Post is also related to Wakefield:


  6. Sniffer April 22, 2011 at 00:03 #

    Dear Brian

    For sure ,as connected to as he is to Thorsen


  7. Chris April 22, 2011 at 00:36 #


    Wouldn`t you agree its time to revisit the whole episode again.

    No. So what two studies replicated Wakefield’s now retracted Lancet study? Remember it has to be on at least a dozen children, and be independent (author list should not include Wakefield, Krigsman and any of his other colleague from Thoughtful House like Dr. Lenny Gonzalez).

  8. Sniffer April 22, 2011 at 11:06 #

    Dear Chris ,

    Where was Dr Wakefields studies diproven aprt from in the Sunday Glaxo Times .



  9. livsparents April 22, 2011 at 14:07 #

    My fave quote from the article is this one:

    “To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one,” says J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a group that disputes vaccine safety. “He’s a symbol of how all of us feel.”

    If he is the religious, social and moral core of the community, the community is destined to move to housing in Jonestown before the end of the decade…

    Isn’t it time for first rate journalism to stop giving airtime to 3rd rate pseudo researchers as representative of anything more than fringe, passe and trivial ideas in autism research?

  10. Julian Frost April 23, 2011 at 10:15 #


    Where was Dr Wakefields studies diproven aprt from in the Sunday Glaxo Times .

    By other researchers, none of whom have independently replicated Wakefield’s findings. Oh, and please look up the rules of spelling and punctuation.

  11. Nightstorm April 24, 2011 at 00:06 #

    “To our community, Andrew Wakefield is Nelson Mandela and Jesus Christ rolled up into one,” says J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a group that disputes vaccine safety. “He’s a symbol of how all of us feel.”

    Oh man now I want to sing “Personal Jesus” by Depeche Mode

  12. Brian Morgan April 24, 2011 at 00:23 #

    Sniffer’s typing is so exceptionally anarchic I don’t think it is genuine. I stand to be corrected of course. I suspect it is deliberate.

    The phrase “Sunday Glaxo Times” isn’t widely used. Sniffer may have read it here:


    “The false “discredited research” claims were first made in The Sunday Glaxo Times in London. The result of The Sunday Times “journalism” (republished wrongfully around the world ever since) has been that hundreds of thousands of children suffering from these medical conditions are being denied the medical help they desperately need.”

  13. Chris April 24, 2011 at 03:27 #


    Where was Dr Wakefields studies diproven aprt from in the Sunday Glaxo Times .

    With these here. Take note of the one by Mady Hornig.

    Now answer my question.

  14. Chris April 24, 2011 at 04:42 #

    Sniffer, you may also wish to look at:
    MMR – Never Mind the Facts, dated December 11th, 2003
    Immune to the Facts dated 27 May 2003.

    If you look closer, you will notice that both are before February 2004.

    Another question: Look on page 30 of this report. Explain to me how vaccines are supposed to be a big money maker for pharmaceutical companies. Now look at the next four pages, is there a vaccine listed?

  15. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. April 24, 2011 at 23:20 #

    NS: “Oh man now I want to sing “Personal Jesus” by Depeche Mode”

    I don’t.

    I just want to vomit.

  16. Sniffer April 25, 2011 at 09:16 #

    Thank you for your links much appreciated they make banner waving claims no doubt .When I further investigate the links I note multiple ties to Pharma companies, government bodies etc.

    Without seeming unappreciative could you be so kind to supply links without the fore mentioned ties.

    Yours Sincerely


  17. Chris April 25, 2011 at 15:22 #

    Please be specific which ones have “pharma ties.” Quote the part of each paper which reveals the pharma ties. Because that is often spurious (see http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/03/dr-bob-sears-alternate-reality-or.html ).

    Refusing to accept anything with “government bodies” ties is moving the goalposts. If you were consistent with this criteria you would reject Wakefield’s study in the now retracted Lancet paper because it was funded by the UK government by way of the legal aid, and the NHS.

    If you are picky on all funding, then explain who you want to pay for the studies. Be specific. Until then, I will just take you moving the goalposts as an admission you cannot answer my question. Now please refrain from commenting until you can add to the discussion.

    • Sullivan April 25, 2011 at 19:24 #

      I guess I should have been more specific in the above post. Instead of saying “there is no stem cell therapy for autism at present”, I should have said, “there is no stem cell therapy–except for incredibly irresponsible, poorly thought out, experiments being carried out without any proof of efficacy”.

      I guess we will hear that it is safe, there being only one death so far? I haven’t heard the explanation (and there must be one) why that is a anomaly, and that stem cell therapy is actually completely safe. Safe enough that clinical trials aren’t needed before the use of stem cells as promoted now.

      An excellent discussion of stem cell therapy and autism can be found here, on the Photon in the Darkness blog.

  18. Chris April 25, 2011 at 15:30 #

    I would also ask you to please explain what funding were received in 2003 by Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Goldacre that you find objectionable, please provide the appropriate documentation to support your claims.

  19. Brian Morgan April 25, 2011 at 15:59 #

    This conflict of interest (CoI) business over research into and reporting of alleged links between hypothesised vaccine damage and autism is hugely distracting of course. But as it is of such significance and linked in my opinion to ad hominen and even homophobic attacks (though not all commentators are so offensive) I think every contributor who raises CoI should declare all their own interests – that includes sniffer. I’m a freelance photo-journalist and investigative reporter, my past publication record is pretty open domain. I have worked as a freelance for Times Educational Supplement and for Times Higher Education, when they were part of the Murdoch empire. I never met him. I was once sent to cover a pharmaceutical presentation in Vienna. The commissioners refused to publish what I wrote. I wouldn’t change what I wrote.

  20. Sniffer April 25, 2011 at 16:35 #

    Dear Chris and Brian,

    As previously stated in the Thorsen CDC robbery, it does not matter who has a name on the paper it is the government bodies who hold up highly improbable science as fact and then endorse vaccines and drugs to treat based on the science.

    Just to clarify the situation an article below I had input with..

    Insanity Inc: How the CDC Disclaims Itself from Itself



    Imagine that you are sitting at a restaurant counter and a waitress has brought you the menu. Below the various offerings you see the following disclaimer:

    Sam’s Café makes no express or implied promises or warrantees that any of the information contained in this menu is accurate; and will not vouch for any meal delivered. If you suffer stomach cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, or hallucinations, seek medical treatment immediately. Sam’s Café assumes no responsibility if you become sick or die from the meals or drinks delivered.

    Although we’d think twice before ordering, people who seek reliable information about diseases and treatments from federal and state agencies generally believe what’s on the menu even when they receive similar disclaimers.

    Yours Sincerely


  21. Chris April 25, 2011 at 19:10 #

    Well, at least you admit you don’t accept Wakefield’s findings anymore. Not because he committed fraud, but because his funding came from the UK government. Good to know.

    • Sullivan April 25, 2011 at 19:39 #

      people seem to think that a conflict of interest is some sort of trump card. Anyone with a COI is immediately to be ignored (unless, of course, it is someone like Andrew Wakefield…)

      Take Mr. Wakefield as an example. His conflicts of interest are a big deal–because he didn’t disclose them. He made a big press splash with his rather weak paper, but people weren’t able to say, “well, yeah, he thinks the MMR causes autism. But he also thinks he is going to make a lot of money off this work, and he is working to promote the idea for litigation”. We can’t rerun the events, but I doubt that the press and the public would have been as open to his interpretation had they known what was going on.

  22. Brian Morgan April 25, 2011 at 19:55 #

    Sniffer has still not declared his or her conflicts of interest, or denied having any.

    Though he/she places vaccination and autism on the same level as buying a meal in a restaurant.

    AoA is supported by a company selling stem cell therapy medical tourism out of Panama.

  23. Sniffer April 26, 2011 at 10:30 #

    Dear Brian,

    See Dedj, he is the closest to me.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: