Comment on: Wrong About Vaccine Safety: A Review of Andrew Wakefield’s “Callous Disregard”

23 Jan

Andrew Wakefield has been discussed here and elsewhere a great deal. Thankfully his presence in the autism communities seems to have retreated to a small core of supporters and the occasional parent convention where he can, yet again, defend himself. Yes, his supporters are vocal. And, yes, he continues to cause harm. But his heyday is long past.

Mr. Wakfield was stripped of his medical license after an extremely lengthy hearing. Mr. Wakefield chose to not present evidence at the hearing, chose not to appeal the decision and has, instead, offered up his defense in a book: “Callous Disregard”. Callous Disregard has been discussed online multiple times.

Mr. Wakefield and his supporters tend to make sciency appearing defenses of him. For example, there are claims that his work has multiple independent replications in various countries. If one checks the references used to make that claim, one finds the claim is, well, false. Citations in “Callous Disregard” often do not support the arguments Mr. Wakefield is making. But few people have the time to go through his prose, much less his references.

One gentleman has taken on that task. Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, has published a paper: Wrong About Vaccine Safety: A Review of Andrew Wakefield’s “Callous Disregard” in which he debunks the main claims in “Callous Disregard”. Here is the abstract:

Abstract: On February 28, 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield published an article in the Lancet on 12 children “with a history of pervasive developmental disorder and intestinal symptoms. Onset of behavioral symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children.” Though not claiming the MMR vaccine caused the symptoms, adding what parents thought certainly raised the possibility. Statements and articles by Wakefield suggested he believed such a link probable. Vaccination rates plummeted in the UK and outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases followed. Investigative journalist Brian Deer uncovered dishonest and unethical medical practices by Wakefield, resulting in Wakefield losing his medical license. Rather than appeal the decision, Wakefield wrote a book, “Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines – The Truth Behind a Tragedy,” wherein he claims loss of his license was a political attempt to silence his criticism of vaccine safety. This paper examines the validity of Wakefield’s claims. A careful review of publicly available information makes it clear that Wakefield’s claims regarding vaccine safety are wrong. It is hoped that this review will be used by doctors and public health personnel to encourage parents hesitating to have their children vaccinated to question anti-vaccination claims in general, given that many proponents often refer to Wakefield as an authority and display in their own writings and pronouncements similar erroneous claims.

The paper is 17 pages as published and includes 142 references. His conclusion is quite strong, and includes this paragraph:

I have shown that every major claim Wakefield makes in his book concerning vaccine safety is wrong. I have given accurate quotes from both Wakefield’s book and sources that contradict his claims, including those he misquotes. Based on the old adage, “trust but verify,” where possible I have given the URLs to many of the documents and articles referred to in this paper. My hope is that those who take the time to check will realize that Wakefield’s claims regarding vaccine safety are not only wrong but also harmful, and that once this is realized, people will read Deer’s articles [3] and the British Medical Council’s findings [1,2] with an open mind.

How does he back up such a strong conclusion? Consider this point he makes in his summary (which is discussed at length in the paper)

Wakefield claims that a leading Swedish vaccine researcher, Dr. Christenson, told him that vaccine safety studies had not been carried out in Sweden; yet, gives references to two Swedish papers that extensively report on vaccine safety studies in Sweden, one of them coauthored by Dr. Christenson.

Yes, once again, we see Mr. Wakefield claiming something which the very references he uses show the opposite.

Consider Mr. Wakefield’s stance on the Urabe-strain containing mumps vaccine (a component of the MMR used for some time in the UK). Mr. Wakefield ignored the Urabe vaccine during his time as an expert for the MMR litigation in the UK but has more recently taken the story up as some sort of defense of himself. If that sounds confusing, it really isn’t. Mr. Wakefield thinks we all will just forget that he pushed his own pet theory 15 years ago and just listen to the fearful message he gives now.

Dr. Harrison states:

“Wakefield claims that the Urabe mumps strain contained in the MMR vaccine used in the UK starting in 1988 had been approved after the Canadians withdrew it. Not True.”

Yes, the UK didn’t approve the Urabe Strain vaccine after Canada withdrew it.

Canada licensed Trivirix in May 1986 [57]. The starting date for the UK for MMR vaccinations was October 1, 1988 [58,59]. The license for Trivirix was withdrawn in Canada in May 1990 stating: “Recent laboratory findings from the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan have provided sound evidence. . . In addition, the report states: “The infection follows the course of benign aseptic meningitis” [60]. The UK withdrew the Urabe-containing vaccine on September 14, 1992 [61].

Dr. Harrison also goes to great length to discuss how Mr. Wakefield’s characterization of the Urabe strain vaccine is inaccurate–painting a story of a dangerous vaccine where the evidence does not support this argument.

So Wakefield carried out an incorrect statistical analysis, claimed the authors combined the data when they did not, and incorrectly gave a shorter follow-up time. All of these inaccuracies move evidence from showing safety to showing possible harm.

Dr. Harrison concludes the paper with:

The only conclusion that can be reached from this review is that the title of Wakefield’s book is incomplete. It should read: “Andrew Wakefield’s Callous Disregard for the Facts.”

A rather bold statement given Mr. Wakefield’s litigious nature, having brought suit against the BMJ and Brian Deer and threatening an autism charity with legal action.

Mr. Wakefield’s supporters will likely ignore this lengthy takedown. Mr. Wakefield is dishonest. He lies. And the sad thing is that people believe him.


By Matt Carey

note: minor edits were made after this article was published

92 Responses to “Comment on: Wrong About Vaccine Safety: A Review of Andrew Wakefield’s “Callous Disregard””

  1. lilady January 23, 2014 at 21:51 #

    Excellent analysis of Joel A. Harrison’s brilliant paper.

    I had the pleasure of reading Harrison’s paper earlier today and I am impressed with its meticulous detail and its citations.

    “Mr. Wakefield’s supporters will likely ignore this lengthy takedown. Mr. Wakefield is dishonest. He lies. And the sad thing is that people believe him.”

    That’s a major understatement, Matt. You could bet the farm that it will be ignored by Wakefield’s supporters, because…

    – Dr. Joel Harrison, who is a retired epidemiologist is a private citizen who received no funding from any government sources or any *ebil Big Pharma* sources.

    – None of their *journalists* and none of their hack quack doctors have the skill set to understand this scientific paper.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 23, 2014 at 23:53 #

      We are down to the hard core of his [Wakefield’s] support network.

      Those supporters of Mr. Wakefield who would look critically at his many transgressions are no longer supporters of Mr. Wakefield.

  2. AnObservingParty January 24, 2014 at 13:19 #

    I was finally able to get through the paper last night. First, a standing ovation to Dr. Harrison for having the fortitude to sit through that book, which in addition to being full of lies, is just terribly written. I’ve read Sherlock slash fiction written by a 17-year-old and posted on Tumblr with better structure.

    Dr. Harrison is the exact source the Cult of St. Andy has been clamouring for: independent. He doesn’t even work anymore. Now, what will the response be? I think, Lilady, it will be completely ignored, they will stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes, because they can’t point and shriek about how Dr. Harrison is nothing but a paid player in Big Pharma’s character assasination.

    Like so many other minions who saw it on RI, I want to spread this far and wide.

  3. Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH January 25, 2014 at 15:26 #

    Hi:

    Thanks for writing about my paper. I spent a lot of time and effort putting it together and hope that anyone who takes the time to carefully read it, including checking out the references, will have a hard time still believing anything Wakefield says. In addition, anyone among the anti-vaccine groups who support Wakefield and quote him should also lose their credibility. Just one small point, though retired, I worked hard to earn my degrees, PhD, MPH, and would appreciate it if you could change “Mr. Harrison” to “Dr. Harrison.” Maybe I’m being petty; but Wakefield supporters certainly don’t write “Mr. Wakefield.”

    Thanks

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 25, 2014 at 17:55 #

      First off–I greatly appreciate your efforts. That was a lot of work and, let’s face it, with Andrew Wakefield’s tactic of silencing criticism with threats of legal action, it took guts to publish that.

      I’ve changed the above. I hope I got all instances of “Mr.”

      I usually reserve “Dr.” for treating physicians. I chose this route after being fooled into thinking someone who had a “treatment” trust was a treating physician but was instead a Ph.D.. One exception I make is with someone who has had online discussions about the use of “Dr.” and how and why many people don’t use it in regard to her.

      As someone with more letters after my name than Mr. Wakefield was ever entitled to (he has since lost his society fellowships), I mean no disrespect by the honorific Mr.. I chose it for myself over Ph.D.. I do not ask you to do the same.

      However, if Mr. Wakefield were to make a similar request, I would not honor it. Having placed himself as a self-pronounced expert in the medical management of autism, I think it is important to note that he is not a treating physician.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 25, 2014 at 17:57 #

        To complete the thought: the above is almost certainly more information than you wanted. But the topic comes up occasionally as to why I use “Mr.” or “Ms.”. I took the opportunity to clarify.

      • Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH January 25, 2014 at 20:38 #

        Hi:

        Thanks for making the changes. While I have no respect for Wakefield, his MD is legitimate. He did earn it. The Dr. refers to his degree, not whether he is a clinician or “researcher.” I had several profs who went through medical school, never practiced medicine, and then got PhDs in biostatistics. They still were called Dr. and wrote “MD, PhD” after their names.

        One other reason I don’t like being called Mr. Harrison is that was what people called my later father and every time I hear or read it, I still miss him though he has been gone many years.

        Wakefield is a disgrace to the medical profession. Perhaps, someday, the history books will call him the Bernie Madoff of vaccine science.

        Feel free to ignore the above. I’m old and just being persnickety.

        A suggestion: if you don’t want to give Wakefield the Dr., rather than Mr. just use his name “Wakefield.” Just a suggestion, though I think it sounds better.

        Also, where you write: “checks the refefences used to make that.” Typo “refefences”. Old eyes still working?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 26, 2014 at 00:33 #

        I appreciate the input. I don’t have any problem with other people calling him “Dr.” I realize it gives people the impression that I am being petty. It would be easier to either drop using “Mr.” and “Dr.” (and as I’ve gotten more lazy I have been). But I’m getting old and I’m already persnickity😉

        From what I can see, the New York Times takes the same approach to the use of “Dr.” I’m certainly not comparing myself to the Times, but if they can take that approach, I’m good with it.

        Thanks for catching the typo. And, again, thanks for taking on this project.

  4. Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH January 26, 2014 at 21:32 #

    Hi:

    You are an expert on computers so maybe you can help. How do I get Yahoo and Google to include my paper in searches, e.g. words from title, author’s name, and the keywords. It would be nice if anyone who searches for e.g. Andrew Wakefield or Callous Disregard or vaccine safety would find my article? So far I can only find my paper if I type “Wrong About Vaccine Safety.” By the way, you have my e-mail. I really don’t think your blog is the best place to exchange questions, etc. not directly related to posted OpEd? ? ?

    • Chris January 26, 2014 at 23:16 #

      I think that Tim Farley had some ideas on his site:
      http://skeptools.com/

      Personally, I think a version of your article needs to be published on Science Based Medicine.

    • BA January 27, 2014 at 03:09 #

      Dr. Harrison,

      Finally got a chance to read the entire paper (and not just the abstract) and I must say you have done a very professional job of analyzing the assertions in Wakefield’s book. I will be using parts of this paper to refute anti-vaccine talking points in my interactions with parents. Appreciate the effort and thank you.

      BA

  5. CcOoBb January 28, 2014 at 16:39 #

    Can someone aware of the ins and outs of the Wakefield situation please have a look at this and advise me on it’s veracity:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88697136&postcount=442

    Sorry for pasting it in the wrong comments section earlier.

    Thanks for the help!

    • Chris January 28, 2014 at 17:08 #

      So you want us to believe a guy who just says stuff without any actual evidence? One who calls himself “Bounty Hunter Dad.” Why?

      Here is the basic answer: even if Wakefield was truly honest and did everything above board, he was wrong.

      It was a tiny study of a dozen kids. So the only response should have been: “Okay, that is interesting. But it does not mean much, gather more kids and do it again.” Which is exactly what happened, the Royal Free offered him the chance to expand the study, but he refused. That task was taken up by Dr. Brent Taylor, who found nothing like what Wakefield reported (go to PubMed and search for Taylor, Royal Free and autism).

      If it was supposed to be on the effect of “the” MMR vaccine, he would have mentioned which MMR vaccine. Between 1988 and 1992 the UK had three different MMR vaccines from three manufacturers. There are different vaccine strains from measles, mumps and rubella. The different mumps strains were known, but Wakefield never noted the different kinds of measles vaccine strains. That is just sloppy.

      It was also sloppy in that PCR results were contaminated, as per testimony during the Autism Omnibus hearing by Dr. Chadwick.

      So the best thing you can say about Wakefield is that he was incompetent. He was doing research on subjects way outside his training. He had no expertise in virology nor in autism. So he was just wrong.

      This is why attempts to independently replicate his study turned out negative:

      PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
      Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.

      BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
      Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.

      Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
      Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.

      (the last two are from Royal Free researcher Dr. Brent Taylor)

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 28, 2014 at 18:29 #

        Let’s see, the guy starts by dismissing anything negative about Andrew Wakefield because it all (in his assertion) derives from Brian Deer who (again in his assertion) has been caught lying multiple times. He does not provide substantive evidence that Brian Deer has lied but he ignores the fact that Andrew Wakefield has been caught on numerous lies.

        The GMC based their case on records from the Royal Free and the litigation.

        As I recall he went to one home of one of the Lancet 12 families. The home of the woman who was the driving force behind the litigation. Seems like a good idea to me. He’s investigating the story, what should he do, ignore them? He used the pseudonym Brian Lawrence (using his middle name and dropping his last). He did this after clearing it with his editor. This method was within the ethics rules for journalists. In fact, Dan Olmsted’s partner in journalism (pre Age of Autism) did the same thing on a series of stories and was lauded for the results.

        Wakefield was a doctor. A researcher. He was not allowed clinical responsibility for a patient. Not then, not now, not before the Lancet 12 children were seen by him. The first charge for which he was found guilty by the GMC was that of taking clinical actions with patients (disabled children) when his contract expressly forbade him from doing so. Given that by definition this means that Prof. Walker-Smith was not involved, Prof. Walker-Smith’s appeal would not exhonerate Mr. Wakefield.

        Mr. Wakefield did not declare his conflicts of interest to his colleagues. They were shocked when they found out the extent of his COI and this is a big reason why they retracted the interpretation of the Lancet paper.

        The fees from the litigation went directly to Andrew Wakefield. He has since claimed that he later donated the money to the Royal Free but there is no record of it actually happening

        When asked about his COI in a letter to the Lancet, he dodged the question through misleading language, making it seem like it was only after the paper that he started working as an expert. He did not disclose his multiple business interests until they were exposed by Mr. Deer.

        Wakefield made a lot of money. He was being paid by the legal aid fund (~$750k) and he was a business partner in the lab created to test his samples (Unigenetics, with Prof. O’Leary). He had a buisness prospective to get venture capital funding for lab tests, a vaccine and therapies.

        Of the 50k pounds given to Dr. Wakefield for his initial stages of research, 25k were not used and were not returned to the Legal Aid Fund. They were, instead, used for other projects. I.e. he syphoned money to another project.

        Wakefield’s paper did not explicitly state that MMR causes autism. He, however, has used his work to make that statement.

        Prof. Walker-Smith, through his attorney, made it clear that Mr. Wakefield’s hypothesis has been disproved.

        I can go on. The author claims that “the truth will come out” or something like that. The truth did come out. Wakefield was wrong. Wakefield lied.

      • Chris January 28, 2014 at 18:50 #

        Yeah, it was pretty well determined that Wakefield was just flat out wrong before 2004. Dr. Brent Taylor effectively did that by doing the studies that Wakefield refused to do. Plus there were studies in California, Finland, and elsewhere that showed no association between MMR and autism dated before 2004.

        What Brian Deer do is answer the question of why Wakefield was wrong: fraud.

        Dr. Harrison’s very thorough paper outlines the many many errors and cherry picked quotes in Wakefield’s book. It took me a while to read, not only for its length but because the pdf took so long to load. “Bounty Hunter Dad” and CcOoBb really need to read it carefully. Especially the bits of the research on the MMR vaccines done in the 1970s and 1980s.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 28, 2014 at 19:42 #

        I doubt they would take the time to really read the paper. Consider this statement by “Bounty Hunter Dad”

        “So, further research in this area would be most welcome now. Seems to be sadly lacking”

        People who have already cherry picked the data to present–ignoring, for example, the Hornig paper you cited above for example–are not going to be convinced by new results. Andrew Wakefield has lied on so many occasions, but his followers just won’t see it.

      • Chris January 28, 2014 at 21:34 #

        You may be right. Neither would bother to read the article. I just noticed “Bounty Hunter Dad” first posted the silly list that was addressed in the third paragraph of your blog article (with the link to the Just The Vax article going through each of the articles). He even cut and pasted the citing of an entire year of a journal.

      • Chris January 28, 2014 at 21:41 #

        As I go through the forum comments, I see why he wandered over here. This blog was referenced, and in one comment this particle article.

        I still wonder why CcOoBb decided to comment on this subject on the DSM-V article.

  6. Lawrence January 28, 2014 at 17:02 #

    I would link to the paper provided – it actually covers a number of issues cited, with all of the background evidence necessary.

  7. William Marchant February 23, 2014 at 12:17 #

    We have had our issue regarding vaccine damage examined and we have had legal funding restored by an LSCappointed Committee. It is easy to condemn Dr Wakefield having hidden the evidence which totally supports his findings. It is also strange that an unqualified moron is used to supply false evidence . One must assume that Brian Deer was the only choice available, The statistics of autism increaes match completely with the introduction of the MMR VACCINE. Strangely Deer actually told me that DOCTOR WAKEFIELD was correct but he was not the doctor and the timing was too early. He has also never admitted that I gave him a record of my daughter’s which totally backed the bowel problemsas described by Dr Wakefield. This diagnosis was made by Southampton General Hospital. W Marchant

    • Chris February 23, 2014 at 17:51 #

      Mr. Marchant: “The statistics of autism increaes match completely with the introduction of the MMR VACCINE.”

      Yes, do provide that data. The MMR vaccine using the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain was introduced in the USA in 1971, and was the preferred vaccine for the 1978 Measles Elimination Program.

      Please provide verifiable documentation dated before 1990 that there was a steep increase in autism in the USA during the 1970s and 1980s.

      And who are you referring when you say “unqualified moron”? Would it also include Dr. Taylor who took over the research the Royal Free wanted Wakefield to do but he refused? Like:

      BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
      Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.

      Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
      Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.

      Notice how the dates are before 2004.

      Or do you mean Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH? I suggest you read his article, since it contains more earlier citations that Wakefield ignored.

      • W Marchant August 5, 2016 at 15:27 #

        It is strange but not only did the LSC return our Legal Aid but the NHS Litigation Authority are encouraging us to sue the Doctor responsible for my daughter’s illegal vaccine cocktail. Vaers 173-id-222 is my daughter and the Moron is Brian Deer who insulted my daughter but is too much of a coward to face me in public.I do not read liars articles as I am not aware the MMR WAS EVER RESEARCHED AS A TRIPLE MIXTURE. My daughter was given an 8-in-1 injection without our knowledge which makes her issues unique

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 6, 2016 at 17:40 #

        “I am not aware the MMR WAS EVER RESEARCHED AS A TRIPLE MIXTURE”

        Why shout out a statement of ignorance.

        Are you unaware of how to do a simple literature search? Or are you just listening to Andrew Wakefield and not even understanding his misinformation?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) February 23, 2014 at 21:50 #

      Perhaps I could ask you to step back a moment and consider the use of their pejorative “moron”. In general it’s not a good thing but consider that this is a disability focused site. When you use intellectual disability as an insult you reinforce the notion that individuals like my son are somehow less than those graced with average and above intelligence. That its OK to make fun of him. Maybe not to his face, but this is what you are doing.

      Think about it a bit.

  8. lilady February 27, 2014 at 21:38 #

    Apologies for linking to this crank website. I do so, because this website describes the supposed circumstances surrounding William Marchant’s child being injured by the MMR vaccine. I leave it up to to the reader to determine the veracity of the statements Mr. Marchant has posted here; “Silenced Witnesses Vol. 2: The Parents’ Story: The Denial of Vaccine Damage by Government, Corporations and the Media”

    http://www.naturalmedicine.net.nz/product-reviews/silenced-witnesses-vol-2-the-parents%E2%80%99-story-the-denial-of-vaccine-damage-by-government-corporations-and-the-media/

    • Chris February 28, 2014 at 00:12 #

      From that link: “Unknown to them at the time, Jodie had not only been injected with the MMR (with their written consent) but with two other vaccines – the DPT and polio vaccine, all drawn up into the one syringe.”

      Really?

      • lilady February 28, 2014 at 01:49 #

        That’s his story…and he’s sticking to it.

        He’s all over the internet on some other “choice” blogs.

      • W Marchant August 5, 2016 at 15:45 #

        We discovered an 8th vaccine, the Hibtiter was also used and our records have been examined and accepted by all concerned. We hold all the batch numbers of the vaccines used. We blame the action not the vaccine although the MMR 11 is recorded as being responsible for vaccine damage according to VAERS. Jodie’s story is being plugged in most cases without consulting us.

      • W Marchant August 13, 2016 at 14:56 #

        The Hibtiter was also involved and I am happy to provide the records to who disbelieves our account.

      • W Marchant August 19, 2016 at 19:07 #

        You missed Hibtiter in the recorded cocktail

  9. Nick March 29, 2016 at 00:56 #

    When the day comes that people such as John Deer or Dr Harrison are sitting across a table from Dr Wakefield in-front of a live audience on main stream media TV having a proper debate about vaccines is the day I will have any credibility for them. There is a reason why John Deer has disabled the comments section on every one of his YouTube videos, & that’s because he wont & can’t answer specific questions that would be put to him.
    I smell a big rat & until there is a proper debate for all to see I’ll take Dr Wakefiled’s side because he is showing that he has nothing to hide. Has John Deer been on Alex Jones’ show to defend himself?? No! but Dr Wakefield has been on Cooper Anderson’s show where Cooper tried so hard to discredit him without any facts but only John Deer’s words which he took for gospel.

    • Chris March 29, 2016 at 01:10 #

      You want Wakefield to debate a lawn mower?

      “I smell a big rat & until there is a proper debate for all to see I’ll take Dr Wakefiled’s side because he is showing that he has nothing to hide.”

      You mean the guy who re-edited secretly recorded phone calls:
      https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/03/22/andrew-wakefield-releases-the-trailer-for-his-william-thompson-video-slick-production-and-dishonesty/

      • Nick March 29, 2016 at 03:31 #

        WOW! “lawn mower”… really!!
        That’s something John Deer or a rep for big pharma would say.

      • Chris March 29, 2016 at 04:01 #

        Hint: the words that are underlined go to a URL link. Try it.

        It is actually what someone would say when you are so clueless you don’t know the name of the person who are discussing.

      • Nick March 29, 2016 at 04:45 #

        WOW! laugh all you like at my expense, I couldn’t remember his first name but you all knew who I was talking about. Anyway, just to please you, I’ll make a correction…

        “Look, all I’m saying is that when Brian Deer or anyone from pharma don’t want to face Dr Wakefield face to face on main stream TV then that makes them scared… WHY??”

        Chris, if Dr Wakefield isn’t worth Brian Deer’s time, then why does he find time to make YT clips about him?
        Chris are you one of big pharma’s lackeys or are you like most out there wearing the horse blinkers supplied to you by ur government??

        “A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed… when a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous & it’s speaker, a raving lunatic” (The “raving lunatic” being Dr Wakefield in this case).

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 29, 2016 at 23:07 #

        “Look, all I’m saying is that when Brian Deer or anyone from pharma don’t want to face Dr Wakefield face to face on main stream TV then that makes them scared… WHY??”

        Look, all I’m saying is that Wakefield could have debated this to his heart’s content with actual data and facts, but chose not to.

        Presented with the opportunity to have full support for–what was it, a year?–on the condition that he explore his claims about MMR, Wakefield declined. Instead he left his academic position (Royal Free Hospital) and claimed that he was wronged. As a researcher I find it difficult to equate a year of full support with being wronged.

        Wakefield landed a $270k/year position at a clinic he was asked to help found. Given a research staff. Funding. A steady stream of autistic children whose parents would agree to being a part of a study. How many papers did he produce exploring his ideas on MMR and vaccines? None. What did he do instead? Well he spent much of his last year there in the UK attending a hearing to see if he could keep his license to practice medicine–a license he even stated he no longer needed.

        Get that–his priorities were on the grand spectacle that was the GMC hearing, rather than (a) helping disabled children at his clinic and (b) doing research to prove his claims.

        So now you come here, someone who apparently hasn’t even communicated with the man, and throw down the gauntlet of a TV debate with Wakefield.

        It’s about on a parallel with me saying, “You are a coward. Why have you not debated Donald Trump on CBS?”

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 29, 2016 at 23:07 #

        “WOW! laugh all you like at my expense,”

        No one is laughing at your expense. People like you cause too much damage in this world to be funny.

        People are pointing out that you are ignorant of your own facts.

      • Chris March 29, 2016 at 04:04 #

        Ooops: “… the person you are discussing.”

      • Chris March 29, 2016 at 07:28 #

        “I couldn’t remember his first name but you all knew who I was talking about.”

        There is this cool website that you can use to check information, it is called “Google.” Whoa, who would have thunk!

        “Chris, if Dr Wakefield isn’t worth Brian Deer’s time, then why does he find time to make YT clips about him?”

        He has a youtube page that are so concerned by that you could not remember his name? Oh, is that the one where the most recent video was posted over a year ago?

        Here is an idea: because he is a journalist and he documents the inanity of one of his more prolific subjects?

        “Chris are you one of big pharma’s lackeys or are you like most out there wearing the horse blinkers supplied to you by ur government??”

        Because you can’t remember the name of the guy you hate? That is hilarious. By the way, where do you live that you have never heard of John Deere products? Seriously are you so out of touch with reality you have never heard a commercial for either their lawn mowers or tractors.

      • Nick March 29, 2016 at 07:54 #

        Chris, being hung up on my bad for placing “John” instead of “Brian” before his surname is having a huge effect on you, it’s becoming your obsession… honestly, you need to see someone about.
        It looks as though the one you worship (Brian Deer) has taught you well!

        Oh, & as you put it earlier, maybe debating with Dr Fitzgerald is not worth Dr Wakefield’s time!

        P.S. Be a sport, bring up “John Deer” one more time… please!

      • Chris March 29, 2016 at 08:11 #

        Oh, you poor child! You come to a two year old article and rant about a reporter whose first name that you totally forget — and are pissed because you are laughed at.

        That is hilarious.

        Here is an idea: the first MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1971, in 1978 a better rubella strain was substituted — it has not been changed since then. That is a full ten years before the three different MMR vaccine were introduced in the UK.

        If you want to blame any MMR vaccine version for an increase in autism you need to provide verifiable proof that an increase in autism was seen in the USA before 1990. In short the papers need to be dated before 1990.

        You may use PubMed or state school statistics, plus they need to be tied to one specific DSM version (your choice, again provide documentation).

      • Nick March 29, 2016 at 09:52 #

        Ohh please!!

      • Nick March 30, 2016 at 00:30 #

        @Sullivan…

        “No one is laughing at your expense. People like you cause too much damage in this world to be funny.”

        So people like me, who didn’t get a reporters first name correct cause too much trouble in this world!!
        The people that cause trouble in this world are actually the ones in powerful positions in this world (mainly the U.S.) & not me Sullivan.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 29, 2016 at 02:37 #

      Wakefield has nothing to hide?

      Why hasn’t he released the William Thompson documents he had in his possession?

      Couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that they show Wakefield’s story of fraud are false, could it?

      And yes I know what I am talking about. I read the documents and analyzed them. Moreover, I made them public. People can check on what I say. You can’t say the same thing about Wakefield.

      • Nick March 29, 2016 at 03:34 #

        Look, all I’m saying is that when John Deer or anyone from pharma don’t want to face Dr Wakefield face to face on main stream TV then that makes them scared… WHY??

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 29, 2016 at 23:11 #

        Look, all I’m saying is that when John Deer or anyone from pharma don’t want to face Dr Wakefield face to face on main stream TV then that makes them scared… WHY??

        You do realize that you have devolved into a gradeschool playground taunt? “You’re chicken”.

        Here’s the thing–Wakefield could have had much of this out by just suing Brian Deer in a venue where he actually had standing. Like the UK. Loosing in the UK would have meant paying a lot of money for Mr. Wakefield.

      • Chris March 29, 2016 at 04:06 #

        “WHY??”

        Because he is not worth a lawn mower’s or Brian Deer’s time. Face it, Wakefield has already had to pay Deer once:
        http://briandeer.com/wakefield/wakefield-cheque.htm

      • Chris March 30, 2016 at 04:27 #

        Matt: “Loosing in the UK would have meant paying a lot of money for Mr. Wakefield.”

        And Wakefield has had to pay for Deer’s court costs. See my comment about it. Plus Wakefield failed legally in Texas recently.

    • shay simmons March 29, 2016 at 03:59 #

      Nick — John Deer(e) makes lawnmowers. Brian Deer is a reporter.

      (facepalm).

      • Chris March 29, 2016 at 04:02 #

        Right now I am having a pretty good laugh at Nick’s expense.

    • Science Mom March 29, 2016 at 04:53 #

      Nick, the fact that you require a “debate” on the telly says a lot about your comprehension of scientific matters. They are not settled on a talk show. Furthermore, Brian Deer (not to be confused with the nifty yard and agricultural machines bearing a similar name) has risen to Wakefield’s occasions via frivolous lawsuits and Wakefield caved or in his most recent case, mounted a knowingly unwinnable suit against Deer, BMJ and Fiona Godlee. Go read the documents yourself and stop being so lazy that you need to see it on television to believe.

      • Nick March 29, 2016 at 05:51 #

        Science Mom, I do apologise for confusing you, were you not aware that I was referring to Brian Deer?? Shay Chris & Sullivan knew who I meant by “John Deer”
        Anyway, I never professed to know about scientific matters at all as I am not a scientist or a doctor or even a reporter for that matter. There are thousands of documents floating around the internet that could be considered fraudulent & with both sides calling each other a fraudster, who is the general public going to believe. Looks to me like you too are afraid of this debate ever taking place!

      • Chris March 29, 2016 at 07:35 #

        “Looks to me like you too are afraid of this debate ever taking place!”

        Two words, look them up (have you ever heard of “Google”): “Gish Gallop”

        Actually, the problem you will have is that Wakefield will not debate anyone because he knows he has nothing. Dr. Micheal Fitzgerald had said he would debate Wakefield and St. Andy bravely ran away:
        http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/18/andrew-wakefield-wants-a-live-public-televised-debate-oh-goody/

      • Science Mom March 29, 2016 at 13:23 #

        I was not confused Nick, just making a joke. If you don’t have the relevant experience to sort through the wheat from the chaff then how/why have you made up your mind? Matt has posted the Thompson document dump (the same that Wakefield has) online for people to read for themselves. Why do you need Wakefield’s spin on it? What part of scientific consensus is not resolved in television debates are you having difficulty with? Not to be confused with fear but rather a matter of experience and sensibility. In any event, so glad Brian Deer weighed in to remind us what a coward Wakefield actually is when he can’t control the venue and message.

    • Brian Deer March 29, 2016 at 09:57 #

      I’ve been interviewed by hundreds of people, including by Wakefield’s lawyers in a whole-day deposition. If they’d got anything on me from it, you can be pretty sure you would have heard about it. And I was deposed under oath. For six and a half hours.

      I’ve sought to interview Wakefield for more than a decade.

      The one time I found him, with a film crew, he ran away.

      He and I were both interviewed by Dateline. He refused to participate with me present.

      The Sunday Times required him to be interviewed. He refused unless I was not present.

      Alex Jones has never sought to talk to me. I did once volunteer to be interviewed by Gary Null, and I put it online afterwards.

      Nothing to hide? Nick, why don’t you write to Wakefield, and set up the encounter you want. Filmed by people who are not under his control.

      And you see what happens. That video would be screened by pretty much any media outlet you want to nominate.

      Which is why he wouldn’t do it.

      So, if your thinking is as you say it is, then you’ve every reason to think something else.

      So, email him, ask him, and let us know his response. We’ll be waiting here at LeftBrain RightBrain for news from you.

      • Brian Deer March 29, 2016 at 10:14 #

        And Nick says this, doesn’t he: “with both sides calling each other a fraudster, who is the general public going to believe?”

        Exactly Wakefield’s strategy. That’s what the Thompson stuff is all about. After Wakefield was exposed for very serious misconduct, including research fraud, he seeks to recover his base by splitting the difference and accusing others of the same thing. “Who is the general public going to believe?” That’s what he has always done with the whole vaccine issue.

        I’ll tell you who to believe. People who work to professional standards, for established organisations of repute, whose work is checked, edited, peer reviewed, and subjected to legal review before publication. Preferably published in a legal jurisdiction (such as the UK but not the United States) where they have strict liability for what is said, and can be exposed to ruinous costs and damages should they be caught lying.

        And preferably honoured by their peers with the country’s most prestigious relevant award.

        If you had any idea of what my journalism goes through before it’s published, you might struggle for a better critique. Had I lied about Wakefield I would have lost everything I own. He can lie as much as he likes and nobody can do anything about it, but turn their backs on him and condemn him as charlatan and predator.

        Read my statement in the last of four vexatious (that means frivolous, or brought for improper motive) lawsuits he has initiated against me (for what a judge called “public relations” reasons). If you think this document is just made up, you need spiritual help.

        http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-amended-declaration.pdf

      • Nick March 29, 2016 at 10:37 #

        Brian, firstly (before Chris gets upset) I must apologise for using “John” as ur first name in my earliest comments & secondly, I will take you up on your suggestion, I will try to set up an encounter with Dr Wakefield. Can you please forward me his email or at least where I could find it.

        I have only just come across the YT clip below called “Ignite the flame”…

        I’m sure you have seen it so could you please discredit it for me & what Dr Wakefield has to say as I would really like to know the truth if he is lying about anything in this video, but please, leave out the part where he mentions you as I know there is a mutual hate between the two of you, so please just focus on the rest for me & I’ll get onto him as soon as I get an email address. Regards, Nick.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 29, 2016 at 22:58 #

        “as I know there is a mutual hate between the two of you”

        Never seen hate from Deer. He’s taken Wakefield apart for his actions, but that’s what reporters do.

        Wakefield, yep, I’ve seen hatred from him. He was so filled with hate in his ConspiraSea cruise talk that he had the video taken down.

      • Chris March 29, 2016 at 16:55 #

        “Brian, firstly (before Chris gets upset) I must apologise for using “John” as ur first name in my earliest comments & secondly, I will take you up on your suggestion, I will try to set up an encounter with Dr Wakefield. Can you please forward me his email or at least where I could find it.”

        I just thought that glaring error was hilarious. It showed how well you researched the issues, and I could not resist that you mixed up Mr. Deer with the tractor/lawn mower company.

        Also, why would you want Brian Deer to forward Wakefield’s email address. Surely you can find that out on one of many of Wakefield’s “Send me money” webpages.

      • Nick March 30, 2016 at 00:19 #

        Thanx for the reply Brian but as I said earlier, I’m not interested in who hates who more or lawsuits. All I asked is if you would be kind enough to discredit the YT clip above & tell me which part is false. Since you (& a few of ur disciples) have come back with no claims of anything false in this clip but divert to something else instead, then I take it that Dr Wakefield is telling the truth.
        Tell me this Brian, along with Dr Wakefield, wasn’t professor Smith also exposed to be a fraud? was he not exonerated? if so, why was he exonerated??
        You expect me to trust a journalist (any journalist)!
        Tell me if this is true Brian, is Mr Murdoch’s son a board member of Glaxo/Smith/Clyne (the company who produced the MMR vaccine in question)?
        Look, if you can’t show me that Dr Wakefield is lying about anything in the previously mentioned YT video or the ones below, please don’t waste ur time directing me to lawsuits.

      • Chris March 30, 2016 at 01:14 #

        Nick: “All I asked is if you would be kind enough to discredit the YT clip above & tell me which part is false.”

        We are under no obligation to watch the video and write a review for you. Just like we are not doing your homework to get Wakefield’s easy to find contact information.

        If you wish to learn about how Wakefield is regarded on this site then, read the articles that have been written about him here over the last ten years or so.

      • Chris March 30, 2016 at 01:19 #

        “Tell me this Brian, along with Dr Wakefield, wasn’t professor Smith also exposed to be a fraud? was he not exonerated? if so, why was he exonerated??”

        Prof. Smith was sanctioned by the GMC, and then he threw Wakefield under the bus by saying that he was lied to —- and got off on a technicality. You know, the documents are available for you to read, so you do not have to rely on the dubious websites that you have been reading.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 30, 2016 at 16:22 #

        Prof Walker-Smith was also not accused of fraud

        Interesting point–fraud is mentioned rarely in the GMC hearings. Maybe only once. The one instance I found was Wakefield’s own attorney stating that a given charge amounts to an accusation of fraud.

        That charge was found proved.

        So, yeah, by Wakefield’s attorney’s definition, Wakefield committed fraud.

      • Nick March 30, 2016 at 06:54 #

        @Chris…

        “We are under no obligation to watch the video and write a review for you”

        LOL, wasn’t asking for a review Chris, just point out the lies… Hmm, “not obliged to watch”, is that because ur afraid of the truth or under direct orders from Brian not to watch any of them?? Yes! just like ur not obliged to send me certain links to articles & papers about Dr Wakefield but still do. Face it Chris, if there was anything false or had he lied about anything in any of these YT clips, you & the other disciples wud have been all over me like a rash. So, it’s not that ur not obliged to watch or “review” them, it’s that u can’t find anything false about them!!

        “so you do not have to rely on the dubious websites that you have been reading”

        By dubious, are you referring to this site “lbrb” (left Brian right Brian)

      • Nick March 30, 2016 at 10:02 #

        Hi Brian, I’m still waiting for a reply as to where Dr Wakefield is lying in the YT videos I put up previously, I actually thought you’d be straight onto it listing all the false claims.

        I’ve also come across these alleged facts too Brian, can you please tell me if they are true?…

        James Murdoch, the senior executive of News International which owns the Sunday times, was/still is ur employer & is he not a non-executive director on the board of Glaxo/Smith/Kline, a manufacturer of MMR vaccines??

        Oh, & BTW, I have just seen ur YT clip “Brian Deer’s 2004 film on Andrew Wakefield – full film” I must say, it’s quite a slick package!!

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 30, 2016 at 15:35 #

        Nick,

        You don’t answer direct questions nor acknowledge your mistakes.

        Your “I demand that a commenter on this site answer my demands or he must be Wong” stance has grown stale. Move on in topics or move on.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 30, 2016 at 15:55 #

        “Oh, & BTW, I have just seen ur YT clip “Brian Deer’s 2004 film on Andrew Wakefield – full film” I must say, it’s quite a slick package!!”

        You don’t even see the irony there, do you?

        You ask for Deer to debate Wakefield on TV. You did notice in that video how it was Wakefield who ran from that opportunity, didn’t you?

        Deer asked for interviews. Wakefield declined. Deer shows up with cameras in tow and Wakefield runs away.

        But you try to paint Deer as the one who won’t participate.

        By the way
        A) are you Wakefield’s Representative or in other ways able to set up a debate on his behalf?
        B) which TV station are you engaging for this event you plan?
        C) how much are you offering to pay Deer for his time and travel?

        Or

        D) are you just another internet blowhard who has fallen for Wakefield’s story?

      • W Marchant August 6, 2016 at 18:22 #

        My wife asked Deer if he had received the MMR and why he was still healthy. Deer admitted he had not received it and the question wasnot fair. I challenged him to a debate but he ran away as usual .

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 7, 2016 at 20:16 #

        Why is it that people who don’t have facts always want the theater of a debate?

        Answer: so they can pretend that they and their position is on an equal footing with the fact based position.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 30, 2016 at 07:27 #

      Let’s go back to this comment of yours, shall we?

      “Until there is a proper debate for all to see”

      That’s called the scientific literature. Wakefield lost. Hence the need for people like you to try to substitute theatrical TV appearances for actual discussion.

      Wakefield was wrong. MMR doesn’t increase autism risk. There’s no persistent measles virus infection in the intestines of autistic children. And, per a very recent article, GI disease in autistic children is the same as in others. I.e. no “autistic enterocolitis”

      • Nick March 30, 2016 at 08:37 #

        Umm, several courts have found that MMR was the cause of autism & parents of Autistic children have been compensated (I’m not lying, Google it) & go to the 32 minute mark in this clip below where 83 cases have been paid for to date…

        it’s self explanatory… or is it BS??

        Anyway, none of what you wrote up above tells me or shows me where Dr Wakefield has lied in any of the YT clips I mentioned unless off course by “theatrical TV” you mean “lies”!! Why are you so afraid to say that Dr Wakefield is lying in any of these videos?? I don’t get it.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 30, 2016 at 15:45 #

        It’s B.S.

        There is a search function on this site. Perhaps if you actually checked you could find your answers.

        But people who argue from YouTube links don’t actually do research or, frankly, understand the material they spam on internet discussions.

        Have you read the cases that make up the “study” that forms the basis for the claim that 83 cases of vaccine induced autism have been compensated?

        I have.

        Had you done soz rather than using YouTube as your research library, you would know that the paper is nonsense. You would know that, for examples the mention of autism in one case was a discussion of how the parents were stating that their child was *not* autistic. But that got counted as “court compensated vaccine induced autism”.

        Had you read the paper you would realize that the team involved did human studies research in the survey portion. Yet no ethical approval is mentioned. Had you been concerned about research ethics, you would have contacted the university involved and found that the researchers never even asked for research approval.

        So, you are relying on a YouTube video, which is based on a very flawed and unethically performed paper.

        But be belligerent here online as though you know what you are talking about and as though everyone else doesn’t know what they are talking about.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 30, 2016 at 16:19 #

        You can go to an article I wrote just last week about Wakefield’s trailer for his latest film. I point out how Wakefield reenacted a conversation that never happened. He also spliced two disparate statements into one. He took them out of context to make them say something they did not. He had his narrator claim that the statements were saying something opposite to what that person’s public statements say.

        But you are too lazy to even look. Just spamming this site with “you can’t show that he lies in his YouTube videos”. Which is basically a bunch of chaff to avoid answering the questions posed to you.

        I’ve seen ” you” dozens of times. The Wakefield supporter who can throw links around without actually showing any understanding of those links. Then claim everyone else hasn’t done their homework. When it’s all been discussed many times before.

        One of the pack. The herd.

    • W Marchant August 13, 2016 at 14:58 #

      Well said I totally agree with you.

  10. MI Dawn March 29, 2016 at 18:32 #

    Nick: I sincerely doubt that Brian Deer hates Wakefield. After all, hate is far too strong an emotion for someone like that. Have contempt for or dislike is more like it.

    And no. We will not do the work for you. You should be able to find Wakefield’s email address. It took me about 5 seconds of googling.

    And you should read the Thompson documents to see that there is NO fraud, along with reviewing the trailer that is shown and seeing how it is refuted *by Hooker’s OWN BOOK* for pete’s sake. If Wakefield can’t create a trailer with no lies in it, how could we trust a whole movie?

  11. Science Mom August 6, 2016 at 20:41 #

    My wife asked Deer if he had received the MMR and why he was still healthy.

    Of course he didn’t receive it, it wasn’t available then numpty.

    Deer admitted he had not received it and the question wasnot fair. I challenged him to a debate but he ran away as usual .

    Sad little anti-vaxxer and typical smear. Make up fictitious confrontation, claim victory, troll story to compensate for lack of ethics and intelligence.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 7, 2016 at 20:37 #

      Funny how they love their little “he ran away” stories.

      Wakefield was offered the chance to test if his theories were correct. Full support from the royal Free.

      He ran away.

      Wakefield had a chance to test of his theories were correct while running a clinic and research team called “thoughtful house”.

      He wasted five years, focused the last one on fighting to keep a medical license he didn’t need. Then ran away.

      He had the chance to defend himself at the gmc but instructed his attorney to not defend. And ran away.

      He had the chance to fund research to test his theories while running a charity called “the strategic autism initiative”. He used half the money for his own pay, accomplished nothing and ran away.

  12. Nick August 7, 2016 at 00:01 #

    BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH… Can someone please direct me to credibly researched scientific papers (not propaganda sites set up by big pharma) that clearly explain why mercury is a good thing & perfectly safe to inject into a young infant when we all know that a pregnant mum is advised against eating certain fish because of it’s mercury content!

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 7, 2016 at 20:21 #

      How isn’t that you consider yourself educated o. The subject and you can’t find the papers showing the safety of vaccines?

      And you build in a straw man argument into your comment.

      Put your fingers back in your ears and go “blah blah blah” some more

      • Nick August 7, 2016 at 22:42 #

        Call me a Dick but I never said I was educated on the subject (or educated at all for that matter) Sullivan, but I could be worse, I could be an educated one. So, how is it that you arrogantly consider yourself an expert on the subject yet find it so difficult to answer the easy questions?? I guess if there’s no credible answer, an insult will suffice!! If you don’t quite understand the question, read it again please Sullivan. Also, if Dr. Fitzgerald or Dr Harrison care to answer (or even science mom) it would be appreciated.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 8, 2016 at 07:59 #

        Your previous comment

        “Umm, several courts have found that MMR was the cause of autism…”

        You make assertions that suggest that either (a) you feel that you are educated on the subject or (B) you are ignorant and just repeating irresponsible misinformation.

        And now you have cleared up the question. You are in category B, as you clearly state you do not claim to be educated on the subject.

        All you are doing now is trolling. You are informed of one fact and you ignore it and claim no one is answering you. You get bored, go away for a while, and later come back and start the process over.

        I apologize for suggesting you consider yourself educated. Clearly a person whose only “source” so far is a YouTube video, one which you were too lazy to fact check yourself, is not educated on this subject.

        So, tell me nick, why should you be allowed to waste people’s time here anymore? And don’t go into the faux hurt Nick routine where you claim to be only asking questions and why oh why won’t anyone answer you.

        Mercury. Tested for safety in autism and multiple other conditions. But you’ve already front loader your question with a disclaimer that anything you consider to be performed by “pharma” is going to be tossed out. Besides the fact that that criterion is always used extremely broadly by the Nicks of the world (yes you are just the latest of many “Nicks” with this exact same, cookie cutter, approach), it shows that you are closed minded and reject studies before even reading them.

        So goodbye Nick.

    • Chris August 9, 2016 at 03:27 #

      Nick (again, le sigh): “Can someone please direct me to credibly researched scientific papers (not propaganda sites set up by big pharma) that clearly explain why mercury…”

      Why don’t you first tell us what mercury had to do with present American MMR vaccine.

      I have been traveling, so I searched for your name on this thread and noticed you were the guy who initially asked Wakefield to debate a John Deer lawnmower. Then I noticed you posted a Youtube video at least three times. That is seriously lame… both the name confusion and thinking spamming Wakefield videos on a two year old article would not be dismissed as totally lame.

      • Nick August 9, 2016 at 03:57 #

        Chris, playing dumb is actually lame & implying that mercury (thimerosal) was/is not part of the chemical cocktail of the MMR vaccine is even lamer!! Yes, I put those videos up but no one has come back in almost 6 months to discredit any part of them or point to one wrong statement or claim that Dr. Wakefield made in any of them because ur all too afraid to watch them, I think the term “we’re not obliged to watch them” was used. Oh, & bringing up “lawnmower” again is not lame, it’s quite pathetic actually.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 9, 2016 at 04:28 #

        Thimerosal is a preservative. That means it kills viruses and bacteria.

        The MMR vaccine is a live virus vaccine. That means the measles, mumps and rubella virus particles are attenuated but still live.

        Adding thimerosal to the MMR would kill the viruses and render the vaccine inert.

        I told you goodbye a few comments ago. That means you are gone. I made an exception in this case but will not even be reading (or able to read) your comments from here on out.

        Time for you to repeat the same useless ignorant nonsense and add words like “censorship” and “afraid”.

        Except that they will go instantly into the trash.

      • Chris August 9, 2016 at 23:54 #

        Wow, Matt, Nick was even dumber than I thought! He doubled down by insisting thimerosal was part of the MMR. Yes, he should be banned.

    • Chris August 9, 2016 at 03:35 #

      Let me add that bringing up anything to do with “mercury” in association with MMR is also totally clueless and lame:

  13. Wendy Stephen August 8, 2016 at 17:00 #

    The litigation in the UK certainly failed to find that the MMR was the cause of autism. Even after thousands of hours of legal work, dozens of experts reports, somewhere in the region of fifteen case management conferences at the Royal Courts of justice and an astonishing £26m of legal aid spent on the case, the claimants own legal team had to advise the LSC that as things stood they could not make a case to prove that the MR and MMR vaccines caused ASD. In those circumstances the funding body had a duty to remove funding for what they had been advised was currently a non viable case. It always struck me as odd that the claimants did not question why it was after such a hefty investment in so many ways, over a significant number of years, that the claimants own legal team were forced to admit that even they could not argue a case to support causation between MMR and autism, choosing instead to argue that the conduct of the LSC in removing funding, was unjust.

  14. Science Mom August 19, 2016 at 20:16 #

    We discovered an 8th vaccine, the Hibtiter was also used and our records have been examined and accepted by all concerned. We hold all the batch numbers of the vaccines used. We blame the action not the vaccine although the MMR 11 is recorded as being responsible for vaccine damage according to VAERS. Jodie’s story is being plugged in most cases without consulting us.

    Eight vaccines drawn up into a single syringe. How fascinating as that would be 4 mL of liquid.

  15. W Marchant August 24, 2016 at 11:55 #

    WE DO NOT MAKE THE RECORDS AND ARE HAPPY FOR ANY CHECK UP ON THEM.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Science of Vaccines | theautisticperspective - September 11, 2014

    […] sample sizes. Second of all, that study has been refuted a thousand times. I’ll just leave some links right here.(TL;DR: Wakefield was an honest to gods shill. I’m not being offensive, […]

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,455 other followers

%d bloggers like this: