Linky

It was a monumental year for Wakefield. The original paper that caused all the hubbub was retracted from The Lancet, he lost his medical license in the UK, and now it looks as if the original paper was deliberate fraud.

This guy should serve prison time, at the very very least. Children die because his anti-vaccination lies. But no, he's treated like a celebrity martyr by asshats like Jenny Mcarthy.

What a piece of f-ing scum that guy is.

Totally agree, the guy did so much damage.

Am still not totally convinced there is not a link between autism and MMR vacine.

When my son was 4 months old he had been developing perfectly normally. He recognised us, grasped at things, smiled and laughed - feeding was normal for the age. 2 days after the MMR vaccine however we had a very weird day with him. It was as if he was not aware of us at all, no eye contact, no smiling, hardly feeding at all. I remember spending nearly the whole day trying to make contact with him and to get some kind of reaction out of him but it was as though he totally ignored us.

Fortunately this strange phase only lasted one day and the day after he returned to normal. The only explanation I can think of to have caused this phenomena is the MMR vaccine. Have been very wary since.

You're suggesting your son had 24 hour autism?

Maybe he was just feeling a little bit off due to the vaccine? The vast majority of reactions to vaccinations result from the body's immune system kicking in.
Believe me, there is no link between MMR and autism.

I'm saying my son had some of the symptoms of autism which lasted 24 hours 2 days after an MMR vaccine.

You don't need to be "convinced" - it is fact. The MMR vaccine probably made him a little ill - vaccines are foreign organisms being introduced into the body which can produce similar, milder symptoms of the diseases they're vaccinating against. I had a migraine yesterday. I went to bed without speaking or looking at my girlfriend, and didn't "feed". I did not have 8 hour autism.

What you described are not common signs typical of Autism in an infant. Sounds more like he was just a bit "off" for the day, which could easily be attributable to the vaccine, as I described above.

Enaj actually shows us exactly the damage that this guy has done. Parents were scared by the findings and turned away from the necessary vaccines. The fear upon the publication of this guy's fabricated results is absolutely understandable. Now real science and real clear communication needs to undo Wakefield et. al.'s damage.

Really mate, like the others have said - don't fret, it was most likely a reaction to his body being given a dose of foreign material but it could equally have been any number of external reasons. 24 hours of being spaced out (excuse the simplification) isn't indicative of autism and the whole scare around the MMR vaccine was deliberate lies and not to be believed at all.

Note that this is the conclusion being reported in the media. Initially the science was questioned but now they know there was NO science - he made it all up and deserves to be criminally investigated for it!

D

This paper received a lot of attention and hence underwent very thorough scrutiny which is why the manipulation was uncovered.

What worries me is how many less controversial medical "findings" maybe don't get this level of scrutiny and are just assumed true. No wonder people are losing faith in school medicine.

It's worth mentioning, as it doesn't appear to have been noted so far, that this despicable arsehole was employed to write the original paper by legal firms looking to sue the manufacturers of the vaccine.

He should be prosecuted for the manslaughter of any child whose parents were taken in and subsequently died of preventable diseases, if not publicly disemboweled.

Source please.

I don't think that could ever be proven. He was paid to provide evidence by the lawyers, but whether he used the money to fund the "study" is not clear. At the GMC hearing, it was noted that he should have disclosed this conflict of interests to his co-authors.
But you're right, he is still a despicable arsehole

Until not very long ago the tobacco lobby was sponsoring "research" that "proved" the harmlessness of tobacco smoke. The aerosol industry sponsored research that proved their products weren't harming the ozone layer. Still today the industries that are heavy CO2 producers such as the cement and oil industries are sposnoring research that denies man-made climate change. The scientists who did this and their backers were never publically shamed and neither were they fired. So it seems to me that this guy is being punished much more severely. Or is this guy so much more despicable because he was working against an industrial lobby rather than payrolled by one?

The enquiry heard, and has apparently accepted, that Wakefield was receiving funds from a lawyer called Richard Barr who planned to sue the manufacturers. This has been reported by the press, I watched it on CNN last night but unfortunately the only link I can find for you right now is to the Daily Mail, which is obviously unacceptable. I'll keep looking.

Because he faked the evidence.

Nobody is saying that anyone else who does that in such serious circumstances shouldn't be punished equally severely.

No, it's OK. Here is the original article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683643.ece

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "data".

Sunday Times, 31st December 2006