Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegations of vaccine autism data fraud
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) In light of new evidence that has emerged clearing Dr Wakefield of the allegations that he fabricated study data involving MMR vaccines and symptoms of autism, Dr Wakefield is now publicly demanding a retraction from the British Medical Journal and author Brian Deer. Documents just made public reveal that another medical research team which included a senior pathologist independently documented evidence of a possible MMR vaccine - autism link 14 months before Dr Wakefield's paper first appears in The Lancet -- based on several of the same children appearing in Dr Wakefield's study.
These documents include detailed clinical notes describing the pathology in seven children following MMR vaccination. These notes include references to "autism" and chronic gastrointestinal inflammation, among others.
This evidence, which was just made public, refutes the accusations of fraud leveled against Dr Andrew Wakefield by the British Medical Journal and reporter Brian Deer. This evidence was made available to the BMJ before the publication of their accusations, but they chose to ignore it. Dr Wakefield, in essence, has been falsely accused by the BMJ in what is now being widely recognized as a political witch hunt against the most visible researcher questioning the safety of MMR vaccines.
BMJ caught in highly politicized scientific fraud
The BMJ, in essence, has been caught pulling off what may be the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated by any medical journal in the history of the world. It grossly misrepresented the facts in falsely accusing Dr Wakefield of fabricating the clinical trial data that led to his landmark study being published in The Lancet in 1998. The innocence of Dr Wakefield has now been established by these newly-released documents.
The British Medical Journal also failed to disclose that its own finances are largely funded by vaccine manufacturers who fill the journal with paid advertising, and that such financial ties may have influenced the journal's decision to attempt to destroy the reputation of a researcher whose findings threatened the profits of its top sponsors. If you follow the money in this story, in other words, it leads right to the editors of BMJ, whose salaries are effectively financed by vaccine manufacturers. This all-important conflict of interest is almost never discussed in the mainstream media, by the way.
In light of the evidence that has now been made public, clearing Dr Andrew Wakefield of any wrongdoing, Dr Wakefield is publicly demanding that the BMJ issue a full retraction of its Brian Deer article accusing Dr Wakefield of fabricating the data. His statement is entitled, "Uncovered Documents Prove There Was No Fraud in Lancet Case Series" and is included here in its entirety:
STATEMENT BY DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD
Uncovered Documents Prove There Was No Fraud in Lancet Case Series
British Medical Journal and Sunday Times author Brian Deer misrepresent facts in latest articles wrongly accusing Dr. Wakefield of altering clinical histories of autistic children
In a series of articles published in the UK Sunday Times and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), written by freelance journalist Brian Deer and BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee, I am accused of altering the clinical histories and test results in autistic children in order to manufacture a novel disease – a disease described in The Lancet in 1998 that Brian Deer claims does not exist. I have documents that confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did not falsify this data; that the finding of bowel disease in these children is real; and that these findings were accurately reported in The Lancet in 1998.
The first document describes 7 of The Lancet children and was written by Professor John Walker-Smith in December 1996, 14 months before The Lancet paper was published. Professor Walker-Smith prepared this document in an exercise that, in his words, “was totally unrelated to Andy Wakefield”. The document was a report prepared for a scientific meeting, and was based upon Professor Walker-Smith’s own independent assessment of the children’s condition.
He was assisted by a senior pathologist and an expert in bowel disease, Dr. Dhillon, who reported on the microscopic findings in the children’s intestinal tissues. This independent analysis was conducted to a high level of scientific rigor, and are the precise findings reported in The Lancet.
These documents, including Professor Walker-Smith’s report; the transcript of his sworn testimony before the UK medical regulator (2), the General Medical Council (GMC), and the relevant sections of the statement of Dr. Dhillon to the GMC3; were available to Deer and the editors of the BMJ well in advance of their recent publication. They knew, or should have known, that their allegations against me were false. It is clear that the BMJ acted recklessly by failing to check these facts adequately before making their false allegations.
On the basis of this evidence, the British Medical Journal must retract these articles, or face the consequences.