The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was Des

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:19 am

Obama Grants Immunity to CDC Whistleblower on Measles Vaccine Link to Autism
by Health Impact News Editor
February 3, 2015

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

After six months and nearly one billion tweets on Twitter, it took a media frenzy over a small measles outbreak in California at the beginning of 2015 to draw the attention of some in the national media to finally start reporting on the significance of the CDC Whistleblower story from the summer of 2014.

Patrick Howley of The Daily Caller has reported that the Obama administration has granted whistleblower immunity to Dr. William Thompson, a senior epidemiologist at the CDC who co-authored and published research on the MMR vaccine for the CDC back in 2004. His decision to become a whistleblower and reveal data that was concealed by the CDC linking the MMR vaccine to autism among African American boys was revealed during the summer of 2014.

In his report, Howley links to a letter published on the Natural News website from the summer of 2014 sent by Dr. Thompson to then-CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding in February 2004, where he expressed his concerns to Dr. Gerberding about how the CDC was concealing data linking the measles MMR vaccine to autism. (Letter here.)

February 2nd, 2004

Dear Dr. Gerberding,

We've not met yet to discuss these matters, but I'm sure you're aware of the Institute of Medicine Meeting regarding vaccines and autism that will take place on February 9th. I will be presenting the summary of our results from the Metropolitan Atlanta Autism Case-Control Study and I will have to present several problematic results relating to statistical associations between the receipt of MMR vaccine and autism.

It's my understanding that you are aware of several news articles published over the past two weeks suggesting that Representative David Weldon is still waiting for a response from you regarding two letters he sent you regarding issues surrounding the integrity of your scientists in the National Immunization Program. I've repeatedly asked individuals in the NIP Office of the Directors Office why you haven't responded directly to the issues raised in those letters and I'm very disappointed with the answers I've received to date. In addition, I've repeatedly told individuals in the NIP OD over the last several years that they're doing a very poor job representing immunization safety issues and that we're losing the public relations war.

On Friday afternoon, January 30th, I presented the draft slides for IOM presentation to Dr. Steve Cochi and Dr. Melinda Wharton. The first thing I stated to both of them was my sincere concern regarding presenting this work to the Institute of Medicine if you had not replied to Representative Weldon's letters. I have attached the draft slides for your review. I have been told that you have suggested that the science speak for itself. In general I agree with that statement, but as you know, the science also needs advocates who can get the real scientific message out to the public.

In contrast to NIP's failure to be proactive in addressing immunization safety issues, you have done an amazingly effective job addressing the press on a wide range of controversial public health issues including SARS, Monkey Pox and Influenza. The CDC needs your leadership here because I may very well be presenting data before a hostile crowd of parents with autistic children who have been told not to trust the CDC. I believe it is your responsibility and duty to respond in writing to Representative Weldon's letters before the Institute of Medicine meeting and make those letters public. Otherwise, you give the appearance of agreeing with what he has been suggested in those correspondences and you're putting one of your own scientists in harms way. This is not the time for our leadership to act politically. It is a time for our leadership to stand by their scientists and do the right thing. Please assist me in this matter and respond to Representative Weldon's concerns in writing prior to my presentation on February 9th.

Sincerely,

William W. Thompson, PhD
Epidemiologist
Immunization Safety Branch


Howley points out that Gerberding is now an executive vice president at Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that is currently the sole manufacturer of the measles vaccine. Gerberding originally left the CDC to take the position of president of Merck’s vaccine division.

Dr. Brian Hooker Spent 10 Years Trying to Obtain CDC Documents on Measles Vaccine Study

Image
Dr. Coleen Boyle of the CDC testifies under oath before Congress in November 2012 that the body of evidence shows there is no connection between mercury in vaccines and autism. Dr. Boyle was a co-author with Dr. William Thompson on the 2004 study.

As we have previously reported, Dr. Brian Hooker spent 10 years fighting the CDC and submitting over 100 Freedom of Information Acts to obtain the raw data from studies the CDC conducted that allegedly proved there was no connection between the measles MMR vaccine and autism. It was almost exactly one year ago from now, in February of 2014, that Dr. Hooker was finally able to secure the raw data from the studies he was seeking, with the help of Congressman Bill Posey, which revealed that the CDC had data linking the measles MMR vaccine to autism for over 10 years.(Original story and press release here.)

At the time this was revealed, the mainstream media either ignored it, or vilified it as insignificant.


CDC Whistleblower Contacts Dr. Hooker

A few months later, Dr. Brian Hooker received a phone call from Dr. William Thompson of the CDC, one of the original authors of the 2004 study. A series of phone calls took place, and Dr. Hooker recorded some of them. Here is the now famous video that was released in the summer of 2014 that mainstream media basically ignored:



CDC Director of Immunization Safety Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Measles Vaccine to Autism

Image
Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH.

While most of the mainstream media was ignoring this story, independent journalist and former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson called Dr. Frank DeStefano, the CDC Director of Immunization Safety, who was a co-author with Dr. William Thompson in the 2004 CDC study on the MMR vaccine, and asked him some questions about the concealed data Dr. Thompson had revealed.

She recorded her phone call and posted it on her website here.

Transcript:

Dr. Frank DeStefano: I think what [Thompson’s] saying there was a larger, um, uh, odds ratio or association among the–the larger group and that there was not, uh, as strong an association among the birth certificate sample. And I mean, what I say to that, I think we discussed that, uh, as I recall, this was like, you know, over ten years ago, and, uh, I think at the time we had consensus among all co-authors that the birth certificate sample provided the more valid results because it could uh, it had more complete information on, uh, on race for one, and secondly, more importantly, it had information on important factors that, uh, had to be you know controlled for particularly in studies of autism, in particular, it would be things like birth weight, the mother’s age, the mother’s education. So I think for those reasons we were able to adjust for these factors and we thought, you know, we uh, our opinion was that that the results of the birth certificate sample provided the more reliable results. And I think, you know, as I recall, we all came to consensus and, uh, signed off on that, uh, in the paper.

Attkisson: Were you aware of any of his concerns of, you know, have you been aware before today of any of his concerns about this?

DeStefano: Uh, uh, yeah, I mean I’ve continued to see, uh, uh, see him for over the past ten years and we’ve interacted fairly frequently, and, uh, uh, no I wasn’t aware of this.

Attkisson: So whoever he raised his concerns to, he didn’t, he didn’t raise it to you or anybody you knew of?

DeStefano: No, I mean the last time I saw him was probably about two months ago, and he didn’t mention anything about this.

Attkisson: And at the time he didn’t seem concerned when you said there was a consensus?

DeStefano: No, yeah, I mean at the time he did these analyses he did, you know, he did point out that in one group, you know in that larger group the the the measures of association [between MMR vaccine and autism] were higher than in the, uh, birth certificate group and, you know, we discussed that and for the reasons I mentioned, uh, we came to consensus that the, uh, birth certificate uh results were more valid.

Attkisson: Um, I was looking at one of the birth certificates and it doesn’t have -– maybe you could find one that has birth weight, mother’s education, the one I’m looking at doesn’t have any of that on there.

DeStefano: Ah, I mean I don’t know what, which one you’re looking at, I mean we get to these data were, uh, you know, right from the birth, birth, uh, the Georgia birth certificate files that contained those data.

Attkisson: Ok. Does is it a valid way of you know, you guys, scientists decide things before papers are published, of course, you use your own judgment on things, but isn’t there a way, is there a valid way to look at it the way Thompson is, where he thinks, apparently, that the larger group without the birth certificates was reason for concern and something that should have been reported? To me, as just as a layperson, I would like to know that -– even if, even if it culled out when you, when you got the group down through the birth certificates, I would, I still think it would be pretty important to know…

DeStefano: No, I mean, I think, you know, the other, the other important consideration here is looking at what, what time period we’re talking about. We’re, you know, autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb. And, you now, it doesn’t, some of the behaviors and such don’t come apparent, become apparent until maybe the child is one, two, three years old. But, uh, uh what we know about autism that, uh, the, uh, characteristics or behavioral signs do become ava–, you know, apparent by 24 months of age, so. So we had different cut-offs, before 18 months of age, there was no difference in, in any group in terms of, uh, vaccination levels, between the cases and controls. At 24 months of age, when, uh, au—you know—behaviors of autism or some features of autism become apparent, there was no difference between the, uh, cases and controls in any group, it was at 36 months where there was a slight differen—and the difference was we’re talking about a difference between 93% versus 91%, not a, a big difference. But, so that’s at 36 months. And at 36 months, an exposure around that time period is just not biologically plausible to have a uh, uh, a causal association with autism. I mean autism would’ve already started by then. [I me?] I reiterate it probably starts in the womb, but even if you’re saying, you wanna call it starting by the time some behavioral features become apparent, it had started before 36 months. And then, you know, we, from, so I think from a biological argument, it’s implausible this was a causal association. And then I think we have, uh–pretty convince–

Attkisson: Let me just, let me just interrupt what, before I lose that thought. So you already made up your mind regardless of what the stats show that if it, certain things show that it didn’t make sense, you wouldn’t, you would try to find out a way to…

DeStefano: No, that’s not we said, I’m just saying, you know, you interpret, you interpret findings, also, you know, there’s the statistics, then you have to also interpret, bring in things like biological plausibility, how do you interpret these results? So I think we had pretty strong evidence that these results at 36 months were primarily a reflection of requirements to attend early intervention special education programs for the for the children with autism. And why do we say that? We say that because the effect was almost all seen in children 3-5 years of age and those were the ones that early education programs and 98%, you know, 98% of that of that age group was in special education programs for which vaccination was of a requirement.

Attkisson: Is there any possibility that it is biologically plausible and you just haven’t, you know, that that’s, the consensus is that it’s not, among you guys, but that it is and you’re overlooking that?

DeStefano: I’m, I’m not aware of any data would, that would s–, you know, that would say that, uh, you would have, um, onset of autism after 36 months.


Attkisson asked the CDC director why the excluded data linking the measles vaccine to autism in African American boys would not be important enough to investigate further, since it contained such a higher rate of autism. Dr. DeStefano’s reply was very typical of the bias that currently exists among CDC scientists when it comes to autism:

you know, autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb. And, you now, it doesn’t, some of the behaviors and such don’t come apparent, become apparent until maybe the child is one, two, three years old.


In other words, they believe autism is completely due to genetic factors, and not environmental factors. Of course, this theory of the genetic cause of autism lends itself to billions of dollars in drug research, even though it contradicts both scientific evidence, as well as the experience of many tens of thousands of parents who saw their completely normal child rapidly digress shortly after receiving vaccines. Even the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out damages to children with autism as a result of vaccines, including the measles MMR vaccine.

Obama Has Granted Whistleblower Immunity – What’s Next?

Now, many months later after all of this information was revealed, Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller has picked up the story, and revealed that Dr. Thompson actually obtained whistleblower status from the Obama administration “months ago.”

So what’s next?

Howley reports that Congressman Posey staffer Anna Schartner stated:

“We’re working with the Science Committee to get a hearing,” Anna said. “What we’re talking about is integrity within an agency. It’s rightfully under the purview of the Science Committee.”


In an interview with Dr. Gary Null on his national radio program last month (January 2015), Dr. Brian Hooker stated that Dr. Thompson is currently cooperating with members of a Congressional subcommittee. Also:

Thousands of American parents with vaccine damaged children, suffering from permanent neurological impairment and autism, await a trial that will finally bring to justice many of the nation’s top health officials. (Source.)


The Mainstream Media is Covering the Wrong Measles Story

Yesterday, we published an article about how the mainstream media was not covering the charges of fraud against Merck regarding the measles MMR vaccine in the current measles debate. (See: Why is the Mainstream Media Ignoring Measles Vaccine Fraud Cases?)

We mentioned not only the CDC whistleblower story, but also the federal lawsuit with allegations of fraud over the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine, in a case filed back in 2010 by two virologists who worked for Merck, and became whistleblowers.

Hours later, The Daily Caller published the report by Patrick Howley. This is a positive move in the right direction that we hope other media sources will follow.

The United States does not currently have a measles epidemic. We have an autism epidemic.

Image
The-Autism-Catastrophe

It is time to stop denying the vaccine link to autism, and work on a solution to the very obvious problems that exist in the vaccine industry. Autism is a much more serious problem than the small number of measles cases we are currently seeing. We cannot continue to deny this problem exists, if we expect to find real solutions.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:19 am

Obama Admin Grants Immunity To CDC Scientist That Fudged Vaccine Report…Whistleblower Plans To Testify Before Congress
by Patrick Howley
Political Reporter Daily Caller
2/3/15

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Thomas Frieden, director of U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, speaks during a news conference in Freetown December 17, 2014. REUTERS/Baz

The Obama administration has granted whistleblower immunity to a federal government scientist that claimed he intentionally omitted information in a study that could have shown a race-based link between vaccines and childhood diseases including autism.

That scientist, still employed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is working closely with a congressman’s office to tell his story to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

No official study has ever linked childhood vaccinations to serious mental defects or to autism or related disorders. Currently, controversy engulfs presidential contenders Chris Christie, Rand Paul and also Hillary Clinton after their past statements suggesting a possible vaccine-to-illness link were publicized this week in the midst of a measles outbreak.

In 2004, Dr. William S. Thompson worked on a report for the CDC’s National Immunization Program. That report, which ran in the “Pediatrics” medical journal, came to the conclusion that there’s no link between vaccines and autism and that no racial group is more likely to be damaged by vaccines.

But Thompson said that he and other CDC scientists intentionally fudged the results, manipulating the pool of children they analyzed and limiting the proper number of African-American children from participating. The authors limited black children from showing up in the results by excluding babies without a state of Georgia birth certificate.

“It was a mutual decision among the five co-authors,” Dr. Brian Hooker told The Daily Caller.
An associate professor at California’s Simpson University, Hooker found out about the deception by secretly taping conversations that he had with Thompson last year. After beginning to talk to Thompson in 2013, he ended up getting Thompson’s information on audio record and disseminated the information in the vaccine-skeptic online community.

“I live close to the Oregon border. I taped the conversations in a hotel room,” Hooker said.

“I didn’t want people to run out and delay vaccination because of this, because it was only one piece of data. But it was the one piece of data that CDC chose to cover up,” Hooker said.

“I did record phone conversations without his prior knowledge. That’s not something I took lightly, and I went to the state of Oregon to do it,” said Hooker, the father of an autistic child. “I live fairly close to the Oregon border, so for most of the conversation I was taping him in a hotel. The stuff that was being revealed was really radioactive. I consulted with two different attorneys and decided to go ahead and record these phone calls.”

With Thompson’s lead, Hooker revised the data. “When I ran the effect for males only for African-Americans the likelihood was 3.36. Stronger effect in African-American males and it looked like the effect was exclusively in African-American males, not females.”
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:54 am

CDC Whistleblower Revealed
by Dr. Andrew Wakefield
© AutismMediaChannel 2014

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.








[CDC WHISTLEBLOWER CONFESSES TO VACCINE-AUTISM FRAUD]

an Autism Media Channel exclusive

[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] Oh my God, I cannot believe we did what we did. But we did. It's all there. It's all there.

[DECADE-LONG COVER UP PUT MILLIONS OF INFANTS AT RISK]

[Andy Wakefield] This is a real story of a real fraud.

["... THAT PAPER"]

[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] It's the lowest point in my career, that I went along with that paper.

[Andy Wakefield] A deliberate, high-level deception of the American people with disastrous consequences for its children's health.
In order to give context to the extraordinary story that you're about to hear, a little historical perspective is important.
Many of you will have heard of Tuskegee.
Dirt-poor sharecroppers in Lincoln County, Alabama.
Black men with syphilis.
In 1932, 339 men were told by the Public Health Service,
the forerunner of today's CDC,
that they had "bad blood."

[COLORED PEOPLE. DO YOU HAVE BAD BLOOD? FREE BLOOD TESTS. FREE TREATMENT. BY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND GOVERNMENT DOCTORS. YOU MAY FEEL WELL AND STILL HAVE BAD BLOOD. COME AND BRING ALL YOUR FAMILY. FRIDAY.]

The motive of Public Health doctors ...
was to study the natural history of syphilis in the Black man.
"Natural history" in this case means "deliberately untreated."

[UNTREATED SYPHILIS IN THE MALE NEGRO. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TREATED AND UNTREATD CASES. READ BEFORE THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, SECTION ON DERMATOLOGY AND SYPHILOLOGY, KANSAS CITY, MOS., MAY 11-15, 1930. R.A. VONDERLEHR, ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL. TALIAFERRO CLARK, MEDICAL DIRECTOR (RETIRED). O.C. WENGER, SURGEON, AND J.R. HELLER JR., ASSISTANT SURGEON, UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. A DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT IN PREVENTING THE TRANSMISSION OF SYPHILIS IS ONE OF THE BASIC PROBLEMS IN THE CONTROL OF THIS DISEASE. SECOND IN IMPORTANT TO IT IS THE EFFECT WHICH TREATMENT ...]

These men were deliberately left untreated ...
even when something as effective as penicillin came along.
Worse still, those infected were actively prevented by Public Health doctors ...
from getting this life-saving drug.

[HUNDREDS OF BLACK MEN DISCOVERED MASSACRED IN SYPHILIS "EXPERIMENT"]

Men suffered and died;

[SYPHILIS]

women continued being infected;
and babies continued to be born ...
with congenital syphilis.
A shiny, new CDC that took over in the late 1960s ...
refused to stop the experiment.
Not until every last man had been opened up on their autopsy table.

[MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
DATE: NOV. 16, 1972
TO: Director
Center for Disease Control
THROUGH: Administrator, HS __ 11/22
FROM: Assistant Secretary for Health
SUBJECT: Termination of USPHS Study of Untreated Syphilis (the Tuskegee Study)

As recommended by the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc Advisory Panel, I have decided that the "Tuskegee Study" as a study of untreated syphilis must be terminated. I will advise you of the necessary steps to be taken to assure that appropriate medical care be given to all remaining participants in the "Tuskegee Study" as a part of the close-out phase of the project.
Merlin K. DuVal, M.D.
TERMINATION MEMO]


The experiment was stopped, not because the CDC realized the barbaric nature of their enterprise, but because a whistleblower by the name of Peter Buxtun ...
leaked the story to a journalist at The Washington Star.
The story was published on July 25, 1972, hit the front page of the New York Times, then the experiment was stopped shortly thereafter.
Congressional hearings followed.
So unethical, so inhumane was this Public Health experiment,
that it led to a change in the CDC's code of medical ethics. EXCEPT it didn't.
Thirty years later, the CDC was to do something arguably far worse.

[AUTISM, VIRAL INFECTION AND MEASLES-MUMPS-RUBELLA VACCINATION
BY ANDREW J. WAKEFIELD FRCS AND SCOTT M. MONTGOMERY PH.D., DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE, ROYAL FREE AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MEDICAL SCHOOL, LONDON, UK.
THE KEY TO UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY: CHANGING THE PATTERNS OF CHILDHOOD INFECTION
AN ANSWER TO THIS ETIOLOGICAL PUZZLE LIES IN THE CHANGING PATTERN OF EXPOSURE TO INFECTIOUS DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD. PATTERNS OF EXPOSURE TO COMMON CHILDHOOD VIRAL INFECTIONS PLAY A LARGE PART IN DETERMINING BOTH THE SEVERITY OF THE ACUTE DISEASE AND THE RISK AND NATURE OF DELAYED CONSEQUENCES OF INFECTION. ACTING POSSIBLY THROUGH BYSTANDER MECHANISMS, CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE TO MICROBIAL ANTIGENS ALSO PLAYS A CRUCIAL ROLE IN EARLY IMMUNE PROGRAMMING AND, THUS, THE SUBSEQUENT HANDLING OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANTIGENS UNRELATED TO THE ORIGINAL INFECTION [12]. ONCE AGAIN THE PATTERN OF EXPOSURE MAY BE FUNDAMENTAL TO THE INTEGRITY OF THIS IMMUNE PROGRAMMING.
PATTERNS OF EXPOSURE TO COMMON CHILDHOOD INFECTIONS ...]


Over a decade ago, Dr. Scott Montgomery and I put forward a hypothesis for MMR vaccine and autism. The age that you receive the vaccine influences the risk. This makes sense, for some infections, like measles, the age of infection changes the outcome.
We shared this hypothesis with vaccine officials, members for the Centers for Disease Control, at meetings in Washington, D.C.,
and Cold Spring Harbor.
A group of senior vaccine safety people at the CDC studied it. It panned out.
We were right. At least partly.

[SAMPLE SELECTION FOR MMR/AUTISM STUDY]

By November 9, 2001, nearly 13 years ago,
senior CDC scientists knew that younger age of exposure to MMR ...
was associated with an increased risk of autism.
In 2004 they published.
But they hid the results.

[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] It's the lowest point in my career, that I went along with that paper.
And I went along with this, we didn't report significant findings.

[Andy Wakefield] MMR was declared safe.

[DR. COLEEN BOYLE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM]

[Dr. Coleen Boyle] The IOM has evaluated this issue back in 2004, and again most recently in 2011, and their conclusion, not just looking at the work that was done at CDC, but with the total body of evidence, was suggesting that vaccines and their components did NOT increase the risk of AUTISM.

[Andy Wakefield] What Dr. Coleen Boyle, the co-author of that blighted paper did NOT tell Congress, is that she and her colleagues had deliberately concealed the autism-vaccine link from the Institute of Medicine, and the public.
Ironically, they even received an award from the Secretary of Health and Human Services for this work.

[LANDMARK PUBLICATIONS: MADDSP. HHS SECRETARY'S AWARD FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE: THE AUTISM PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE TEAM. DESTAFANO F, KARAPURKAR T, THOMPSON WILLIAM, YEARGIN-ALLSOPP M, BOYLE C. AGE AT FIRST MEASLES-MUMPS-RUBELLA VACCINATION IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM AND SCHOOL-MATCHED CONTROLS PEDIATRICS 2004;113(2):259-266.]

So troubling was the fraud, that one of the CDC researchers broke ranks.
Eventually he made contact with Dr. Brian Hooker, father of a vaccine-injured child with autism, and a vaccine safety researcher.

[Brian Hooker, Ph.D.] Uh, I received a phone call out of the blue. It had a 404 area code, so I knew it was from the CDC.
And lo and behold, it was Bill Thompson. He had much to confess.

[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] I'm completely ashamed of what I did. I have great shame now. I was complicit, and uh, I went along with this.

[Brian Hooker, Ph.D.] Dr. Thompson had appointed me his priest. And when he appointed me his priest, then he started confessing. And we have had many, many phone exchanges. We've exchanged dozens of emails. And he has released quite compelling information regarding fraud and malfeasance in the CDC.

[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] We didn't report significant findings.

[Andy Wakefield] Thompson sent Hooker information that was never intended for public scrutiny.
From their own data sheets, dated 2001,
Dr. Hooker analyzed the CDCs results,
and he found the same risk of autism that the CDC scientists had themselves identified.

[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] It's all there! It's all there!

[Andy Wakefield] He confronted Thompson.

[Brian Hooker, Ph.D.] He has expressed significant remorse for lying, for burying data.

[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] I have great shame now when I meet families with kids with autism, because I have been part of the problem.

[Andy Wakefield] This week, August 10, 2014, Dr. Hooker published the real findings:
A 340% increased risk of autism ...
in boys receiving the MMR on time compared with those receiving it later.
Thirteen years,
and tens of thousands of children later.
As I've said, Dr. Montgomery and I were only partly right.
The risk of autism from early MMR vaccination was seen in Black children,
Black boys.
Those boys for some reason are at very high risk.
Consistent with the CDC's own findings,
the rate of autistic regression in Black children is reported to be twice that in white children.

[RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN DEVELOPMENTAL REGRESSION IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS. BY ADIAHA SPINKS-FRANKLIN, AMY SHUI, ROCHELLE SEXTON, JENNIFER B. SWANSON, ROBERT G. VOIGT. PEDIATRICS, TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL/BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, HOUSTON, TX; BIOSTATISTICS, MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, BOSTON, MA.
BACKGROUND: AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS (ASD) ARE COMMON NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS THAT OCCUR IN 1 IN 88 CHILDREN. IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD OF CHILDREN WITH ASD HAVE DEVELOPMENTAL REGRESSION. WHILE THERE ARE NO REPORTED GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RATES OF REGRESSION, IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER THERE ARE RADICAL DISPARITIES IN RATES OF REGRESSION.
OBJECTIVE: TO DETERMINE THE RATE OF DEVELOPMENTAL REGRESSION, AND WHETHER RACIAL DISPARITIES EXIST IN THE RATE OF REGRESSION, AMONG PRESCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN IN THE AUTISM TREATMENT NETWORK (ATN) DATABASE.
DESIGN/METHODS: SUBJECTS INCLUDED ALL NON-HISPANIC BLACK, NON-HISPANIC WHITE, AND HISPANIC CHILDREN AGES 37-71 MONTHS IN THE ATN DATABASE WITH DATA FROM A PARENT FORM REPORTING WHETHER EACH CHILD EXPERIENCED DEVELOPMENTAL REGRESSION. THE RATE OF REPORTED DEVELOPMENTAL REGRESSION WAS DETERMINED, AND THE RATE OF REGRESSION BY RACE WAS EVALUATED. LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS WAS ...]


[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] Oh my God, I cannot believe we did what we did.

[Andy Wakefield] Tuskegee revisited.
Scientist Dr. David Lewis, an international expert in whistle blowing and the detection of scientific fraud, reviewed the original CDC documents and the paper they published in 2004.

[Dr. David Lewis, Ph.D., Research Microbiologist] Probably this is the clearest case,
and the easiest case, in which to answer "Is it fraud, or is it an accident,
or it is just an artifact of the study?" What we're dealing with here, clearly is fraud.

[Brian Hooker, Ph.D.] He knows that he is culpable for damage. He knows that he's culpable for permanent damage of a large, significant portion of the population in the United States.

The Obama administration has granted whistleblower immunity to a federal government scientist that claimed he intentionally omitted information in a study that could have shown a race-based link between vaccines and childhood diseases including autism.

-- Obama Admin Grants Immunity To CDC Scientist That Fudged Vaccine Report … Whistleblower Plans To Testify Before Congress, by Patrick Howley


[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] The higher ups wanted to do certain things, and I went along with it.

[Andy Wakefield] Dr. Frank DeStefano, Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, and Dr. Coleen Boyle. They knew, they let it happen, and they could have stopped it.
Michigan lawyer Allison Folmar,
an award-winning advocate for children and parental rights, gave her reaction.

[Allison Folmar, Lawyer] Um, I feel, first and foremost as a human being, you know, betrayed.
When you lose your faith and trust in humanity, you know,
how do you repair that?
I mean, I don't even know what to say to be honest.

[Brian Hooker, Ph.D.] Thompson is very regretful about his involvement.

[Dr. William Thompson, Senior Epidemiologist at the CDC] It's the lowest point in my career that I went along with that paper.
And I'm not going to lie. Um, I basically have stopped lying.

[Andy Wakefield] You see, vile as the crimes of Stalin,
Pol Pot,
and Hitler were, these men were not hypocrites,
their motives ambiguous,
or their rhetoric [inaudible] with apparent caring and compassion.
These men were not entrusted with the welfare of their victims.
Their mottos did not include the words ...
"To Save Lives and Protect."
They were not running a mandatory program disguised as caring.
How many children?
How many went to the war in that decade of science?
How many presidents, Mr. Obama?

AUTISM MEDIA CHANNEL, copyright 2014
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:53 am

Letter to Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
from Dave Weldon, M.D., House of Representatives
October 31, 2003

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


WASHINGTON OFFICE
2347 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202_225-3571

DISTRICT OFFICE:
BREVARD CO. GOVT. COMPLEX
2725 JUDGE FRAN JAMESON WAY
BUILDING C
MELBOURNE, FL 32940
(321) 632-1776
https://www.house.gov/weldon

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

DAVE WELDON, M.D.
15TH DISTRICT, FLORIDA
COMMITTEE
APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEES
VA, HUD, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

October 31, 2003

Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N .E.
Atlanta, GA 30333

Dr. Julie Gerberding,

I am writing to follow up on our conversation about the article (Verstraeten et. al.,) that will be published in the November 2003 issue of Pediatrics. I have reviewed the article and have serious reservations about the four-year evolution and conclusions of this study.

Much of what I observed transpired prior to your appointment a year ago as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I am very concerned about activities that have taken place in the National Immunization Program (NIP) in the development of this study, and I believe the issues raised need your personal attention.

I am a strong supporter of childhood vaccinations and know that they have saved us from considerable death and suffering. A key part of our vaccination program is to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that these vaccines, which are mandatory, are as safe as possible. We must fully disclose adverse events. Anything less than this undermines public confidence.

I have read the upcoming Pediatrics study and several earlier versions of this study dating back to February 2000. I have read various e-mails from Dr. Verstraeten and coauthors. I have reviewed the transcripts of a discussion at Simpsonwood, GA between the author, various CDC employees, and vaccine industry representatives. I found a disturbing pattern which merits a thorough, open, timely, and independent review by researchers outside of the CDC, HHS, the vaccine industry, and others with a conflict of interest in vaccine related issues (including many in University settings who may have conflicts).

A review of these documents leaves me very concerned that rather than seeking to understand whether or not some children were exposed to harmful levels of mercury in childhood vaccines in the 1990s, there may have been a selective use of the data to make the associations in the earliest study disappear.
While most childhood vaccines now only have trace amounts of mercury from thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs), it is critical that we know with certainty if children were injured in the 1990s.

Furthermore, the lead author of the article, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, worked for the CDC until he left over two years ago to work in Belgium for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer facing liability over TCVs. In violation of their own standards of conduct, Pediatrics failed to disclose that Dr. Verstraeten is employed by GSK and incorrectly identifies him as an employee of the CDC. This revelation undermines this study further.

The first version of the study, produced in February 2000, found a significant association between exposure to thimerosal containing vaccines (TCV s) and autism and neurological developmental delays (NODs).
When comparing children exposed to 62.5 pg of mercury by 3 months of age to those exposed to less than 37.5 pg, the study found a relative risk for autism of 2.48 for those with a higher exposure level. (While not significant in the 95% confidence interval for autism, this meets the legal standard of proof exceeding 2.0.) For NODs the study found a relative risk of 1.59 and a definite upward trend as exposure levels increased.

A June 2000 version of the study applied various data manipulations to reduce the autism association to 1.69 and the authors went outside of the VSD database to secure data from a Massachusetts HMO (Harvard Pilgrim, HP) in order to counter the association found between TCV s and speech delay. At the time that HP's data was brought in, HP was in receivership by the state of Mass., its computer records had been in shambles for years, it had multiple computer systems that could not communicate with one another (Journal of Law, Ethics and Medicine Sept. 22, 2000), and it used a health care coding system totally different from the one used across the VSD. There are questions relating to a significant underreporting of Autism in Mass. The HP dataset is only about 15% of the HMO dataset used in the February 2000 study. There may also be significant problems with the statistical power of the HP dataset.

In June of 2000 a meeting was held in Simpsonwood, GA, involving the authors of the study, representatives of the CDC, and the vaccine industry. I have reviewed a transcript of this meeting that was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Comments from Simpsonwood, NJ meeting include: (summary form, not direct quotes):

• We found a statistically significant relationship between exposures and outcomes. There is certainly an under ascertainment of adverse outcomes because some children are just simply not old enough to be diagnosed, the current incidence rates are much lower than we would expect to see (Verstraeten);

• We could exclude the lowest exposure children from our database. Also suggested was removing the children that got the highest exposure levels since they represented an unusually high percentage of the outcomes. (Rhodes)

• The significant association with language delay is quite large. (Verstraeten);

• This information should be kept confidential and considered embargoed;

• We can push and pull this data anyway we want to get the results we want;

• We can alter the exclusion criteria any we way we want, give reasonable justifications for doing so, and get any result we want;


• There was really no need to do this study. We could have predicted the outcomes;

• I will not give TCV s to my grandson until I find out what is going on here.

Another version of the study -- after further manipulation -- finds no association between TCV s and autism, and no consistency across HMOs between TCVs and NODs and speech delay.

The final version of the study concludes that "No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes," and that the lack of consistency argues against an association. In reviewing the study there are data points where children with higher exposures to the neuortoxin mercury had fewer developmental disorders. This demonstrates to me how excessive manipulation of data can lead to absurd results. Such a conclusion is not unexpected from an author with a serious, though undisclosed, conflict of interest.

This study increases speculation of an association between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. I cannot say it was the author's intent to eliminate the earlier findings of an association. Nonetheless, the elimination of this association is exactly what happened and the manner in which this was achieved raises speculation. The dialogue at the Simpsonwood meeting clearly indicates how easily the authors could manipulate the data and have reasonable sounding justifications for many of their decisions.

The only way these issues are going to be resolved -- and I have only mentioned a few of them -- is by making this particular dataset and the entire VSD database open for independent analysis. One such independent researcher, Dr. Mark Geier, has already been approved by the CDC and the various IRBs to access this dataset. They have requested the CDC allow them to access this dataset and your staff indicated to my office that they would make this particular dataset available after the Pediatrics study is published.

Earlier this month the CDC had prepared three similar datasets for this researcher to review to allow him to reanalyze CDC study datasets. However when they accessed the datasets -- which the researchers paid the CDC to assemble -- the datasets were found to have no usable data in them. I request that you personally intervene with those in the CDC who are assembling this dataset to ensure that they provide the complete dataset, in a usable format, to these researchers within two weeks. The treatment that these well-published researchers have received from the CDC thus far has been abysmal and embarrassing. I would also be curious to know whether Dr. Verstraeten, an outside researcher for more than two years now, was required to go through the same process as Dr. Geier in order to continue accessing the VSD.

You have not been a part of creating this current situation, but you do have an opportunity to help resolve this issue and ensure that confidence and trustworthiness in the CDC and our national vaccination program is fully restored. I would ask that you work with me to ensure that a full, fair, and independent review is made of the VSD database to fully examine this matter. I would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to move this process forward.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with you on this urgent matter of great importance to our nation's most precious resource, our children.

Sincerely,

Dave Weldon, M.D.
Member of Congress
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:46 am

Missing the Mercury Menace?
by Neil Munro
National Journal
1/3/04

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Julie Gerberding: The CDC director faces a dispute over mercury in vaccines that is likely to heat up soon.

Parents of autistic children are vigorously challenging a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study concludes there is no consistent evidence that a mercury-based preservative in CDC-mandated vaccines has caused an increase in the number of children with autism.

A CDC official who helped write the study accepted the critics' charge that it contained many children too young to be diagnosed as autistic. "This is true," said scientist Frank DeStefano.

The CDC's manipulation of the study data, say the parents, hides the true autism rate and obscures the link between autism and vaccinations. The parents and some scientists argue that the large increase in autism rates over the past decade was likely caused by some children's genetic vulnerability to mercury in additional vaccines that the CDC mandated after 1990. The mercury is in a preservative called thimerosal.

After 1999, vaccine makers ended the use of mercury in routine childhood vaccinations, following a request from government officials -- although the officials never stated that the mercury was harmful. But the mercury dispute is likely to heat up soon because CDC Director Julie Gerberding and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson are weighing a proposal by a panel of vaccine experts to give children between the ages of 6 months and 23 months as many as five flu shots. Gerberding and Thompson can recommend that the flu shots be mercury-free, or they can allow many additional children to receive mercury-laden shots.

The CDC would not say whether Gerberding will urge that thimerosal be left out of the 2004 flu vaccines. According to Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., Gerberding has said she is considering whether to appoint an outside ombudsperson to investigate the possible link between autism and mercury. Weldon, a physician, wants the data used in the new study to be shared with outside researchers.

This seemingly arcane fight has enormous stakes. If the parents are right, then many infants overseas are endangered by vaccines that contain mercury. Moreover, American parents could follow the example of parents in the U.K., where the public distrust of the government's vaccination professionals has reduced vaccination rates and spurred harmful outbreaks of measles and other diseases. Several pharmaceutical companies could be forced to pay billions of dollars if parents' groups are victorious in anti-thimerosal lawsuits in which the CDC study and other reports are being used as ammunition. This fight has already reached Congress: In early 2003, Democratic senators defeated a Republican effort to win legal protections for the companies that made thimerosal-containing vaccines.

The CDC's report, published in the November issue of Pediatrics, summarized a three-year study of brain-related diseases in children. The study, titled "Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases," began in 1999. It was conducted by a panel of four CDC vaccine experts and four employees of the two HMOs that provided data on more than 100,000 children. The study examined the incidence of a wide variety of medical problems and concluded that no consistent connection existed between the mercury-containing vaccines and the diagnoses neurological problems in children born between January 1992 and December 1998. Overall, "the risk [of autism] does not change ... from the lowest level of exposure [to thimerosal] to the highest level," DeStefano said.

But to reach this conclusion, CDC experts reduced by roughly 45 percent the number of children in the study who were age 4 or older, said Mark Blaxill, a member of Safe Minds, an Atlanta group that opposes the use of mercury in vaccines. Because autism is normally diagnosed only after age 4, the CDC's method greatly reduced the number of children in the study who could be found with autism, Blaxill said.

According to the report, the older children were excluded because their health records were incomplete. DeStefano declined to say why the CDC did not exclude a comparable proportion of the younger children, to balance out the age groups in the study. "We could follow up on it" by launching another study, he said.

The CDC's exclusion of the older children is akin to excluding many older people from a study on the hazards of smoking, said Mark Geier, a geneticist and a vaccine specialist for 25 years. Geier has investigated the mercury issue for Weldon and gives expert-witness testimony on behalf of parents and some companies in vaccine-related lawsuits.

Blaxill said the CDC's professionals also disguised the incidence of autism by treating early symptoms of autism as other illnesses. For example, many autistic children are initially classified before age 4 as having speech and language delays or "misery disorder." The inclusion of many children too young to be definitively diagnoses with autism would result in autistic children's being mislabeled with other ailments, such as those very speech or language delays, Blaxill said. "It is true," DeStefano said, that the study could have mislabeled young autistic children. But, he added, "this study just provided an initial evaluation." CDC officials are now preparing a follow-up study of 300 autistic children and 900 other children, for publication in 2006, he said.

The new study's database was divided by gender for some analyses, but the results were combined in tables for the final article in Pediatrics. Because as many as 90 percent of autistics are boys, these tables hide links between autistic boys and mercury amid a population of relatively healthy girls, Geier said. He says that such an approach is like using men's low rates of breast cancer to downplay the cancer's rate in women. A CDC statement said the analysis of boys and girls "mirrored the results" in the Pediatrics article.

CDC officials also divided the study into many small studies and then highlighted the differences in the sub-study results to dismiss a link between autism and mercury, Blaxill said. For example, he said, the data from the larger of the two HMOs showed a link between mercury and autism, but CDC professionals tried to discredit the link by citing differences in the second HMO's data set, which was only one-eighth as large as the first one's sample. The CDC should have either set aside the data from the smaller HMO, or combined all the HMO data, Blaxill said.

"If we had done that," DeStefano countered, "the results from [the larger] HMO-B would have overwhelmed [the smaller] HMO-A." Instead, the scientists tried to perform the same analysis on both HMO data sets, in hopes of discovering a matching trend, he said.

Image
Dave Weldon: A physician, he wants CDC data on mercury and autism to be shared with outside researchers.

Blaxill cited data prepared by the CDC authors in 2000 and released under a Freedom of Information Act request lodged by Safe Minds. The figures showed that the rate of "neurodevelopmental disorder" -- a catchall term that encompasses autism -- was six times as great among 14,739 children given more than 75 micrograms of mercury by the third month of life as it was among 4,510 children who were given no mercury.

With Weldon's backing, Geier won limited access to the CDC database used in the new study and then looked at those children who got diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis shots both with and without mercury. This analysis showed "more than a twentyfold increase in autism" among the children who got mercury in four of these shots, Geier said.

Statements in government e-mails, in conversations and in documents obtained under Safe Minds' FOIA request have intensified the parents' suspicion of DeStefano and the CDC. In a July 2000 meeting of the study's authors and advisers, Richard Johnston, a pediatrics professor at the University of Colorado, said, "I do not want [my] grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on." Johnson confirmed he said this, but would not comment on the CDC study, because he has joined a pending review of the controversy at the Institute of Medicine. The Institute is part of the private National Academy of Sciences.

The Chairman of the CDC study, Thomas Verstraeten, has come under critics' scrutiny because he left the CDC to tak ea job with vaccine maker Glaxo-SmithKline. Yet according to e-mails and transcripts obtained by Safe Minds, in 2000 Verstraeten urged fellow CDC officials to carefully consider a link between mercury and autism: "I do not wish to ... sound like being convinced that thimerosal is or was harmful, but at least I feel we should use sound scientific argumentation and not let our standards be dictated by our desire to disprove an unpleasant theory." Once Verstraeten had joined Glaxo-SmithKline, "his involvement in this study was limited to reviewing drafts of the manuscript," according to a CDC statement.

Since 1990, an increasing number of children have been diagnosed with the most acute form of autism. In the 1980s, this diagnosis was given annually to roughly 1 in 10,000 children. But since then, experts have reported a huge increase. In five counties surrounding Atlanta, the rate has grown to roughly 1 in 325 children, according to a CDC study. According to the Education Department, 65,396 autistic children were in federal school programs in 2000, up from 12,222 in 1993. The 2000 total included few children under age 6.

Few adult autistics can work. Lifetime health care, therapy, and support costs amount to more than $1 million. Parents initially bear the financial burden, but as the children become adults, the costs shift to the states or the federal government.

Some parents of autistic children say vaccinations gave their children more than 100 times the maximum intake of mercury recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency. One of those parents is Lyn Redwood, a founder of Safe Minds. She is a nurse and the mother of a 9-year-old autistic boy, Will. "I have 'before [vaccination]' pictures where he is smiling, gorgeous, and looking at the camera, and I have 'after' pictures .. and there's a shell of a child left," she said.

The author can be reached at nmunro@nationaljournal.com
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sun Feb 28, 2016 5:16 am

New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again
by healthimpactnews.com
March 11, 2013

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.




Controversial Doctor and Autism Media Channel Director proven right: MMR Vaccine Causes Autism & Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Autism Media Channel [1]

Two landmark events -– a government concession in the US Vaccine Court, and a groundbreaking scientific paper -– confirm that physician, scientist, and Autism Media Channel [AMC] Director, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and the parents were right all along.

In a recently published December 13, 2012 vaccine court ruling, hundreds of thousands of dollars were awarded to Ryan Mojabi, [i] whose parents described how “MMR vaccinations,” caused a “severe and debilitating injury to his brain, diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’).”

Later the same month, the government suffered a second major defeat when young Emily Moller from Houston won compensation following vaccine-related brain injury that, once again, involved MMR and resulted in autism. The cases follow similar successful petitions in the Italian and US courts (including Hannah Poling [ii], Bailey Banks [iii], Misty Hyatt [iv], Kienan Freeman [v], Valentino Bocca [vi], and Julia Grimes [vii]) in which the governments conceded or the court ruled that vaccines had caused brain injury. In turn, this injury led to an ASD diagnosis. MMR vaccine was the common denominator in these cases.

And today, scientists and physicians from Wake Forest University, New York, and Venezuela, reported findings that not only confirm the presence of intestinal disease in children with autism and intestinal symptoms, but also indicate that this disease may be novel. [viii] Using sophisticated laboratory methods Dr. Steve Walker and his colleagues endorsed Wakefield’s original findings by showing molecular changes in the children’s intestinal tissues that were highly distinctive and clearly abnormal.

From 1998 Dr. Wakefield discovered and reported intestinal disease in children with autism. [ix] Based upon the medical histories of the children he linked their disease and their autistic regression to the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR vaccine). He has since been subjected to relentless personal and professional attacks in the media, and from governments, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. In the wake of demonstrably false and highly damaging allegations of scientific fraud by British journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal, Dr. Wakefield is pursuing defamation proceedings against them in Texas. [x]

While repeated studies from around the world confirmed Wakefield’s bowel disease in autistic children [xi] and his position that safety studies of the MMR are inadequate, [xii] Dr. Wakefield’s career has been destroyed by false allegations. Despite this he continues to work tirelessly to help solve the autism catastrophe.

The incidence of autism has rocketed to a risk of around 1 in 25 for children born today.
Meanwhile governments, absent any explanation and fearing loss of public trust, continue to deny the vaccine autism connection despite the concessions in vaccine court.

Speaking from his home in Austin, Texas, Dr. Wakefield said,

There can be very little doubt that vaccines can and do cause autism. In these children, the evidence for an adverse reaction involving brain injury following the MMR that progresses to an autism diagnosis is compelling. It’s now a question of the body count. The parents’ story was right all along. Governments must stop playing with words while children continue to be damaged. My hope is that recognition of the intestinal disease in these children will lead to the relief of their suffering. This is long, long overdue.”


Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a best selling author, [xi] founder of the autism research non profit Strategic Autism Initiative (SAI), and Director of the Autism Media Channel.

“Identification of Unique Gene Expression Profile in Children with Regressive Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Ileocolitis [2]” PLOS ONE March 8, 2013, available online at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058058 [2]

______________

References

[i] Decision Awarding Damages to Ryan Mohabi 13 Dec 2012 [3]

[ii] Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award [4] September 9, 2010 2:14 PM

and

Decision Awarding Damages 21 July 2012 [5]

[iii] http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/def ... -0738V.pdf [6] (see footnote 4)

[iv] Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? [7] February 11, 2009 3:20 PM CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson

[v] KIENAN FREEMAN RULING CONCERNING “ENTITLEMENT” [8] – September 25, 2003

[vi] MMR: A mother’s victory. The vast majority of doctors say there is no link between the triple jab and autism, but could an Italian court case reignite this controversial debate? [9] By Sue Reid – Daily Mail15 June 2012

[vii] JULIA GRIMES – DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES [10] January 12, 2011

[viii] Walker S., Fortunado J, Krigsman A., Gonzalez L. Identification of Unique Gene Expression Profile in Children with Regressive Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Ileocolitis [2]

[ix] Wakefield AJ. Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines – The Truth Behind a Tragedy [11]. 2010. Skyhorse Publishing, NY, NY. Chapter 1, footnotes 1 & 4, p.20

[x] For Affidavits see http://www.DrWakefieldJusticeFund.org [12]

[xi] Wakefield AJ. Waging War on the Autistic Child [13]. 2012 Skyhorse Publishing NY, NY. Chapter 2, footnotes 2 11, pp. 255 256

[xii] Jefferson T et al, Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine 21 (2003) 3954–3960

Source: Press Release from Autism Media Channel [1]

Here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s research:

The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63 [14]
The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372 [15]
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517 [16]
Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005 [17]
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103 [18]
Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3 [19]
Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85 [20]
The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10 [21]
Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11 [22]
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98 [23]
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161 [24]
Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6 [25]
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13 [26]
Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144 [27].
Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35 [28]
Lancet. 1972;2:883–884 [29].
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62 [30]
Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372 [31].
Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382 [32].
American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605 [33].
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517 [34].
Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34 [35].
Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477. [36]
Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16 [37]
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465 [38]
Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991 [39]
Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sun Feb 28, 2016 5:33 am

Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award
By Sharyl Attkisson
CBS News
September 10, 2010

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
On July 20, 2010, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation (Proffer). On July 20, 2010, petitioners orally accepted respondent's Proffer. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioners are entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the court awards petitioners:

1. A lump sum payment of $1,507,284.67, representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($624,713.32), lost future earnings ($674,410.67) and pain and suffering ($208,160.68), in the form of a check payable to petitioners, as the court appointed guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of Child Doe/77, for the benefit of Child Doe/77. No payments shall be made until petitioners provide respondent with documentation establishing that they have been appointed as the guardian(s)/conservator(s) of Child Doe/77's estate;

2. A lump sum payment of $140,109.67, representing compensation for past unreimbursable expenses, payable to John and Jane Doe/77, petitioners;


Image
Nine-year-old Hannah Poling is shown. (AP Photo/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, John Spink)

The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.
In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah's care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child's lifetime.

Hannah was described as normal, happy and precocious in her first 18 months.

Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor's visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae.

Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn't respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah's parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It's taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries.

In acknowledging Hannah's injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn't "cause" her autism, but "resulted" in it. It's unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism "test cases" have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court.

care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($624,713.32), lost future earnings ($674,410.67) and pain and suffering ($208,160.68), in the form of a check payable to petitioners, as the court appointed guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of Child Doe/77, for the benefit of Child Doe/77. No payments hall be made until petitioners provide respondent with documentation establishing that they have been appointed as the guardian(s)/conservator(s) of Child Doe/77's estate;


Time Magazine summed up the relevance of the Poling case in 2008: ...(T)here's no denying that the court's decision to award damages to the Poling family puts a chink -- a question mark -- in what had been an unqualified defense of vaccine safety with regard to autism. If Hannah Poling had an underlying condition that made her vulnerable to being harmed by vaccines, it stands to reason that other children might also have such vulnerabilities."

Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child."

Read the newly-released decision on Hannah Poling's compensation.

© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:51 am

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES: CHILD DOE/77, a minor, by [DELETE] Parents and Natural Guardians, JANE DOE/77 AND JOHN DOE/77, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
MMR Vaccine; Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Finding of Entitlement; Damages Decision Based On Proffer

by the United States Court of Federal Claims, OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
July 20, 2010

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


[DELETE]
[DELETE]

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
(E-Filed: July 21, 2010; Re-Issued: July 22,2010;
Re-Issued for Redaction: July 23, 2010; Re-issued for Redaction: August 27, 2010)

CHILD DOE/77, a minor,
by [DELETE] Parents and Natural Guardians,
JANE DOE/77 AND JOHN DOE/77,
Petitioners,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.

MMR Vaccine; Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Finding of Entitlement; Damages Decision Based On Proffer

[DELETE]
Special Master Campbell-Smith

TO PUBLISH

Clifford J. Shoemaker, Vienna, VA, for petitioners

Catharine E. Reeves, Washington, DC, for respondent

CAMPBELL-SMITH, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES [1]

On October 25,2002, petitioners, John and Jane 00e177, filed a petition on behalf of their minor child seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("the Vaccine Program") for a vaccine-related injury. [2]

Respondent has conceded that petitioners are entitled to compensation due to the significant aggravation of Child Doc/77's pre-existing mitochondrial disorder based on an MMR vaccine Table presumptive injury of encephalopathy, which eventually manifested as a chronic encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder and a complex partial seizure disorder as a sequela.

Based on the persuasive factors supporting petitioner's vaccine claim and respondent's election not to challenge petitioner's claim, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Program. Accordingly, a determination of damages is appropriate.

On July 20, 2010, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation (Proffer). On July 20, 2010, petitioners orally accepted respondent's Proffer. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioners are entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the court awards petitioners:

1. A lump sum payment of $1,507,284.67, representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($624,713.32), lost future earnings ($674,410.67) and pain and suffering ($208,160.68), in the form of a check payable to petitioners, as the court appointed guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of Child Doe/77, for the benefit of Child Doe/77. No payments shall be made until petitioners provide respondent with documentation establishing that they have been appointed as the guardian(s)/conservator(s) of Child Doe/77's estate;

2. A lump sum payment of $140,109.67, representing compensation for past unreimbursable expenses, payable to John and Jane Doe/77, petitioners;

3. A lump sum payment of $7,821.81, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of [redacted) Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioner and

[redacted) Department of Community Health Subrogation Unit
[redacted)
[redacted)
[redacted)
Attn: [redacted)

4. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract(s), subject to the conditions described in paragraph II. D. of the attached Proffer, paid to the life insurance company(ies) from which the annuity(ies) will be purchased.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith. [3]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Patricia E. Campbell-Smith
Special Master

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

[DELETE], a minor, by her Parents and Natural Guardians,
Petitioners,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.

No. [DELETE] V
Special Master
Campbell-Smith

RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation

A. Life Care Items


The respondent engaged life care planners Suzanne Labansky, MSN, CRRN, CCM, CLCP, MSC, and Ginger Walton, MSN, FNP, CNCLP, and petitioners engaged life care planner Terry Kennedy Arnold, RN, CDMS, CRRN, CLCP, CNLCP, to provide an estimation of [DELETE] [DELETE] future vaccine injury-related needs. All items of compensation identified in the life care plan are supported by the evidence and are illustrated by the chart entitled Appendix A: Items of Compensation for [DELETE], attached hereto as Tab A. [1]Respondent proffers that [DELETE] should be awarded all items of compensation set forth in the life care plan and illustrated by the chart attached at Tab A. Petitioners agree.

B. Lost Future Earnings

The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, [DELETE] will never be gainfully employed. Therefore, respondent proffers that [DELETE] should be awarded full lost future earnings as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(B). Respondent proffers that the appropriate award for [DELETE] lost future earnings is $674,410.67. Petitioners agree.

C. Pain and Suffering

Respondent proffers that [DELETE] should be awarded $208,160.68 in actual and projected pain and suffering. This amount reflects that the award for projected pain and suffering has been reduced to net present value. Sec 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioners agree.

D. Past Unreimbursable Expenses

Evidence supplied by petitioners documents their expenditure of past unreimbursable expenses related to [DELETE] vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioners should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $140,109.67. Petitioners agree.

E. Medicaid Lien

Respondent proffers that [DELETE] should be awarded funds to satisfy the State of [DELETE] Medicaid lien in the amount of $7,821.81, which represents full satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the State of [DELETE] may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid payments the State of [DELETE] has made to or on behalf of [DELETE] from the date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a result of her vaccine-related injury suffered on or about July 19, 2000, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

II. Form of the Award

The parties recommend that the compensation provided to [DELETE] should be made through a combination of lump sum payments and future annuity payments as described below, and request that the special master's decision and the Court's judgment award the following:

A. A lump sum payment of $1,507,284.67, representing compensation for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($624,713.32), lost future earnings ($674,410.67) and pain and suffering ($208,160.68), in the form of a check payable to petitioners, as the court-appointed guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of [DELETE], for the benefit of [DELETE]. No payments shall be made until petitioners provide respondent with documentation establishing that they have been appointed as the guardian(s)/conservator(s) of [DELETE] estate;

B. A lump sum payment of $140,109.67, representing compensation for past unreimbursable expenses, payable to [DELETE], petitioners;

C. A lump sum payment of $7,821.81, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of [DELETE] Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioners and

[DELETE] Department of Community Health
Subrogation Unit
[DELETE]
[DELETE]
[DELETE]
[DELETE]

Petitioners agree to endorse this payment to the State of [DELETE]

D. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract(s), subject to the conditions described below, that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan, as illustrated by the chart at Tab A attached hereto, paid to the life insurance company(ies) [2] from which the annuity(ies) will be purchased. Compensation for Year Two (beginning on the first anniversary of the date of judgment) and all subsequent years shall be provided through respondent's purchase of an annuity(ies), which annuity(ies) shall make payments directly to petitioners as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of [DELETE], for the benefit of [DELETE] [DELETE], only so long as [DELETE] is alive at the time a particular payment is due. At the Secretary's sole discretion, the periodic payments may be provided to petitioners in monthly, quarterly, annual or other installments. The "annual amounts" set forth in the chart at Tab A describe only the total yearly sum to be paid to petitioners and do not require that the payment be made in one annual installment.

1. Growth Rate

Respondent proffers that a four percent (4%) growth rate should be applied to all nonmedical life care items, and a five percent (5%) growth rate should be applied to all medical life care items. Thus, the benefits illustrated in the chart at Tab A that are to be paid through annuity payments should grow as follows: four percent (4%) compounded annually from the date of judgment for non-medical items, and five percent (5%) compounded annually from the date of judgment for medical items. Petitioners agree.

2. Life-contingent annuity(ies)

Petitioners will continue to receive the annuity payments from the Life Insurance Company(ies) only so long as [DELETE] is alive at the time that a particular payment is due. Petitioners shall provide written notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Life Insurance Company(ies) within twenty (20) days of [DELETE] death.

3. Guardianship

No payments under section II. A. shall be made until petitioners provide the Secretary with documentation establishing their appointment as the guardian(s)/conservator(s) of [DELETE] [DELETE] estate. If petitioners are not authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of [DELETE] at the time a payment is to be made, any such payment shall be paid to the party or parties appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to serve as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of [DELETE] upon submission of written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary.

III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment

A. Lump Sum paid to petitioners, as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of [DELETE] for Yr 1 life care expenses, lost future earnings, and pain and suffering: $1,507,284.67

B. A lump sum paid to petitioners: $140,109.67

C. Reimbursement of the Medicaid lien: $7,821.81

D. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract(s) described above in section II. D.

Respectfully submitted,

TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General

TIMOTHY P. GARREN
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division

MARK W. ROGERS
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division

CATHARINE E. REEVES
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Telephone: (202) 307-1400

Dated: July 20, 2010

TAB A

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Note: Compensation Year 1 consists of the 12 month period following the date of judgment.

Compensation Year 2 consists of the 12 month period commencing nil the first anniversary of the date of judgment. As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to the court-appointed gllardian(s)/custodian(s) of the estate of [DELETE], for the benefit of [DELETE], for lost future earnings ($674.41O.67), pain and suffering ($208,160.68), and Yr 1 life care expenses ($624,713.32): $1,507,284.67.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to petitioners, [DELETE] and [DELETE] for past un-reimbursable expenses: $140.109.67.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment jointly to petitioners and the [DELETE] as reimbursement for the state's Medicaid lien: $7,821.81.

Annual amounts payable through an annuity for future Compensation Years follow the anniversary of the date of judgment.

Annual amounts shall increase at the rates indicated in column "G.R." above, compounded annually from the date of judgment.

Items denoted with an asterisk (*) covered by health insurance and/or Medicare.

Items denoted with an "M" payable in 12 monthly installments at the discretion of respondent.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Note: Compensation Year 1 consists of the 12 month period following the date of judgment.

Compensation Year 2 consists of tile 12 month period commencing on the first anniversary of the date or judgment.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment shall make the following payment to the court-appointed guardian(s)/custodian(s) of the estate of [DELETE] for the benefit of [DELETE] for lost future earnings {$674.410.67), pain and suffering ($208.160.68), and Yr 1 life care expenses ($624,713.32): $1.507,284.67.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to petitioners. [DELETE] [DELETE] for past un-reimbursable expenses: $140,109.67.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment jointly to petitioners and the State of [DELETE] as reimbursement for the state's Medicaid lien: $7,821.81.

Annual amounts payable through an annuity for future Compensation Years follow the anniversary of the date of judgment.

Annual amounts shall increase at the rates indicated in column "G.R." above, compounded annually from the date of judgment.

Items denoted with an asterisk (*) covered by health insurance and/or Medicare.

Items denoted with an "M" payable in 12 monthly installments at the discretion of respondent.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Note: Compensation Year 1 consists of the 12 month period following the date of judgment.

Compensation Year 2 consists of the 12 month period commencing on the first anniversary of the date of judgment.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to the court-appointed guardian(s)/custodian(s) of the estate of [DELETE], for the benefit of [DELETE], for lost future earnings ($674,410.67), pain and suffering ($208,160.68), and Yr 1 life care expenses ($624,713.32): $1,507,284.67.

As soon as is practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to petitioners, [DELETE] and [DELETE] for past un-reimbursable expenses: $140,109.67.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment jointly to petitioners and the State of [DELETE] as reimbursement for the state's Medicaid lien: $7.821.81.

Annual amounts payable through an annuity for future Compensation Years follow the anniversary of the date of judgment.

Annual amounts shall increase at the rates indicated in column "G.R." above, compounded annually from the dale of judgment.

Items denoted with an asterisk (*) covered by health insurance and/or Medicare.

Items denoted with an "M" payable in 12 monthly installments at the discretion of respondent.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Note: Compensation Year I consists of the 12 month period following the date of judgment.

Compensation Year 2 consists of the 12 month period commencing on the first anniversary of the date of judgment.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to the court-appointed guardian(s)/custodian(s) of the estate of [DELETE] for the benefit of [DELETE] for lost future earnings ($674.410.67), pain and suffering ($208,160.68), and Yr 1 life care expenses ($624,713.32): $1,507,284.67.

As soon as is practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to petitioners, [DELETE] and [DELETE] for past un-reimbursable expenses: $140.109.67.

As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment jointly to

PETITIONERS and the State of [DELETE] as reimbursement for the state's Medicaid lien: $7,821.81

Annual amounts payable through an annuity for future Compensation Years follow the anniversary of the date of judgment.

Annual amounts shall increase at the rates indicated in column "G.R." above, compounded annually from the date of judgment.

Items denoted with an asterisk (*) covered by health insurance and/or Medicare.

Items denoted with an "M" payable in 12 monthly installments at the discretion of respondent.

_______________

Notes:

1. Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that all of the decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless an issued decision contains trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, or the decision contains medical or similar information the disclosure of which clearly would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. When a special master issues a decision or substantive order, the parties have 14 days within which to move for the redaction of privileged or confidential information before the document's public disclosure.

2. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa-10-§ 300aa-34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.

3. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties' joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

Notes: RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

1. The chart at Tab A illustrates the annual benefits provided by the life care plan. The annual benefit years run from the date of judgment up to the first anniversary of the date of judgment, and every year thereafter up to the anniversary of the date of judgment.

2. The Life Insurance Company must have a minimum 0[$250,000,000 capital and surplus, exclusive of any mandatory security valuation reserve. The Life Insurance Company must have one of the following ratings from two of the following rating organizations:

a. A.M. Best Company: A++, A+, A+g, A+p, A.+.r, or A+s;

b. Moody's Investor Service Claims Paying Rating: Aa3, Aa2, Aal, or Aaa;

c. Standard and Poor's Corporation Insurer Claims-Paying Ability Rating: AA-. AA. AA+, or AAA;

d. Fitch Credit Rating Company, Insurance Company Claims Paying Ability Rating: AA-. AA. AA+, or AAA.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:15 am

Plaintiff's Original Petition: DR. ANDREW J . WAKEFIELD, MB., BS., FRCS. v. THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, a d/b/a of BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP LTD, also d/b/a BMJ GROUP, and BMJ, BRIAN DEER, individually, and DR. FIONA GODLEE, individually.
by Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield, MB., BS., FRCS.
January 12, ___

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


CAUSE NO. 0-1-GN-12-000003

Filed: 12 January 3 A10:14
Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza
District Clerk
Travis District
D-1-GN-12-000003

DR. ANDREW J . WAKEFIELD, MB., BS., FRCS.
v.
THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, a d/b/a of BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP LTD, also d/b/a BMJ GROUP, and BMJ, BRIAN DEER, individually, and DR. FIONA GODLEE, individually.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
250TH
FOR THE __ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY:

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield, MB., BS., FRCS, and files this Original Petition complaining of Defendants The British Medical Journal a d/b/a of BMJ Publishing Group LTD, also d/b/a BMJ Group and BMJ, Brian Deer, individually, and Dr. Fiona Godlee, individually, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows:

I. DISCOVERY LEVEL

1.1 Discovery in this case shall be conducted under a Level 3 Discovery Control Plan.

II. PARTIES

2.1 Plaintiff, Dr: Andrew J. Wakefield, MB., BS., FRCS. ("Dr. Wakefield") is a resident of Austin, Texas.

2.2 Defendant BMJ Publishing Group LTD which does business as The British Medical Journal, BMJ Gro~IP, and BMJ (hereinafter collectively "BMJ") is a British limited liability company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom that may be served with process pursuant to Section.10(a) of the Hague Convention by serving this Original Petition via international registered mail as follows: BMJ Publishing Group LTD, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WCIH 9J,P, United Kingdom. Issuance of Citation for BMJ Publishing Group LTD d/b/a The British Medical Journal, BMJ Group and BMJ is requested at this time.

2.3 Defendant Brian Deer is a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom who may be served with process pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters ("Hague Convention") via international registered mail as follows: Brian Deer, 65 Herne Hill House, Railton Road, London, SE24 OEF, United Kingdom. Issuance of Citation for Brian Deer is requested at this time.

2.4 Defendant Dr. Fiona Godlee is a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom who may be served with process pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Hague Convention via international registered mail as follows: Dr. Fiona Godlee, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WCIH 9JP, United Kingdom. Issuance of Citation for Dr. Fiona Godlee is requested at this time.

III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

3.1 Venue in this defamation lawsuit is mandatory in Travis County, Texas pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.017, because Travis County was the residence of Plaintiff, Dr. Wakefield, at the time of the accrual of the causes of action alleged herein.

3.2 The amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional range appropriate to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.

3.3 This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to the Texas Long-Arm Statute and consistent with the requirements of Due Process because the Defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privileges, benefits, advantages, and profits of conducting their affairs in the State of Texas by directing a significant and regular flow of publications, including periodicals, journals, articles, subscriptions, and electronic media to institutional and individual residents of this State. Defendants further committed a tort, which is the subject of this suit, in whole or in part, in this State, to wit, authoring, editing, and approving articles and making statements with knowledge or intent that said articles be published and statements be made and directed to residents of this State, including, but not limited to Plaintiff at his residence in Austin, Texas. Said articles, publications and statements contained false and defamatory allegations about Plaintiff Dr. Wakefield and his affairs, business and reputation in the State of Texas as detailed herein.

IV. FACTS

4.1 This defamation lawsuit arises, in part, out of the publication on or about January 5, 2011 and thereafter, in the British Medical Journal, of an article authored for the BMJ by Brian Deer, titled Secrets of the MMR Scare (Exhibit A) and accompanying editorials by the BMJ's editor, Fiona Godlee (Exhibit B 1-2). Defendants' article and editorials, distributed to subscribers in Texas and which form the basis of Plaintiffs claims, contained unfair, incorrect, inaccurate and unjust criticisms of findings previously reported by Dr. Wakefield and 12 other co-authors. More significantly, Defendants accused Dr. Wakefield of fraud and of fraudulently and intentionally manipulating and falsifying data and diagnoses in connection with a clinical paper he co-authored called Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, originally published in the medical journal The Lancet in 1998 (the "Lancet Paper"). Defendants' false and defamatory allegations have been widely disseminated by Defendants through the BMJ and other sources since their original publication.

4.2 In his work for the Lancet Paper, Dr. Wakefield along with twelve other physicians and researchers reviewed twelve cases of sick children presenting pervasive developmental disorders and gastrointestinal symptoms. For the majority of these children, their parents had reported the onset of their respective initial behavioral symptoms in near temporal proximity to each child having received an injection of the Measles, Mumps & Rubella ("MMR") vaccine. In the Lancet Paper, Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues described inflammatory disease in the intestinal lining of these children, possibly related to the MMR vaccine being given all at once. The result of these case studies (a "case series") was documented and summarized in the Lancet Paper that was published in 1998.

4.3 Defendants' article and editorials, published by the BMJ in January 2011, and thereafter, and Defendants' subsequent republication of the information contained therein, and additional defamatory statements, including on Defendant Brian Deer's website and elsewhere, (hereinafter collectively the "Defamatory Statements") charged Dr. Wakefield with intentionally or knowingly manipulating or falsifying data and diagnoses in connection with the findings in the Lancet Paper. These statements against Dr. Wakefield were directed at Dr. Wakefield's activities in Texas, where he now is (and was at the time of the publication of the Defamatory Statements) a resident of Austin, Travis County, Texas. The Defamatory Statements were and are false and written and published with actual malice and intended to cause damage to Dr. Wakefield's reputation and work as a researcher, academic and physician and to permanently impair his reputation and livelihood.

4.4 . The charges made by Defendants that Dr. Wakefield fraudulently and intentionally manipulated or falsified data or diagnoses in the Lancet Paper are false. Purporting to offer a "re-analysis" of the medical records -- many of which Defendants knew were not in the possession of or used by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues at the time of the publication of the Lancet Paper -- for the twelve subject children, Defendants knowingly and with actual malice misrepresented information, data and diagnoses for the purpose of creating the false impression that it was Dr. Wakefield who had manipulated or altered data or diagnoses. Based on Defendants' purported "reanalysis," Defendants made and continue to make assertions that Plaintiff Dr. Wakefield committed fraud and is "a fraudster."


4.5 On January, 5, 2011, Defendants' published their article, Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Case Against the MMR Vaccine was Fixed authored by Defendant Brian Deer. (Exhibit A). This article contains numerous false and misleading statements concerning Plaintiff Dr. Wakefield which constitute libel per se and per quod. Examples of the defamatory statements in this article include the following:

• Dr. Wakefield's case study was ''fixed'' and based on "bogus data";

• Dr. Wakefield's findings were "manufactured" to give "the appearance of a link [to] autism";

• Dr. Wakefield's "undisclosed goal" of the project "was to help sue the vaccine's manufacturers" and that "Wakefield evidenced his [new] 'syndrome' for the lawsuit, and built his platform to launch the vaccine scare";

• Deer's self-proclaimed "investigation of the MMR issue exposed the frauds behind Wakefield's research";

• Dr. Wakefield doctored the underlying subjects' data to reach his conclusions as "[n]o case was free of misreporting or alteration";

• The children who were the subjects of the Lancet Paper "were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation"; and,

• Plaintiff Wakefield, "nevertheless, now apparently self-employed and professionally ruined, remains championed by a sad rump of disciples." These statements are false and defamatory.

4.6 Along with the BMJ's publication of Deer's article were equally malicious and defamatory "editorials" by the editor of the BMJ, Defendant Godlee. The first editorial, titled Wakefield's Article Linking MMR Vaccine and Autism was Fraudulent, (Exhibit B-1) was published on the same day as Deer's article. The editorial states: "it has taken the diligent skepticism of [Deer], standing outside medicine and science, to show that the [Lancet Paper] was in fact an elaborate fraud." Godlee goes on to state that Deer's article "shows the extent of Wakefield's fraud and how it was perpetrated ... and how Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients' medical histories in order to support his claim of having identified a new syndrome." Godlee's libelous rhetoric, including but not limited to the following, is factually inaccurate, malicious, unwarranted and constitutes defamation per se:

"Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children's cases accurately? No." (Exhibit B-1 at p. 2).


The BMJ is supposed to be a respected medical journal, focusing on facts and research. Instead, Godlee, Deer and others at the BMJ used the BMJ to launch an unprecedented personal attack on a doctor who was part of a group of well respected physicians that presented a case study that simply suggested that there might be a connection between the combined MMR vaccine, when administered as a combination of live viruses to certain children, and autism and that suggested further research is warranted.

4.7 Godlee followed with a second editorial called, Editor's Choice: The Fraud Behind the MMR Scare on January 6, 2011. (Exhibit B-2). Likewise false and malicious are the editorial's claims that again parrot the Defendants' earlier groundless assertions. Defendant Godlee's editorial falsely states that, "data had been substantially misrepresented in order to give the result Wakefield needed." Defendants further falsely state that the BMJ had confirmed "extensive falsification" in the Lancet Paper and defamatorily refers to the Lancet case study as Dr. Wakefield's concocted "MMR scare" and falsely states that it was not merely "bad science," but a "deliberate fraud." Similarly false were Godlee's and the BMJ's claims that "in no single case can the medical records be fully reconciled with what was published," by Dr. Wakefield. Additionally, the editorial falsely claims that Dr. Wakefield's findings were not honestly documented which resulted in a "deeply shocking" "breach of trust."

4.8 Interestingly, at the time the editorials and the Deer article were published, the Defendants failed to disclose the fact that the BMJ received significant revenue from the very vaccine manufacturers whose products need further investigation. It was only months later, after the issue was raised by others that the BMJ posted the following: "The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues. The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines." (Exhibit B-3). This statement accompanied the later on-line version of the editorial but was not placed in the on-line version of the Deer article and was not publicized by the BMJ the way the article and editorials were.

4.9 The allegations in Mr. Deer's article, which are summarized and repeated in Godlee's editorials in the BMJ, are based on intentional misrepresentations of the content of the Lancet Paper, with actual malice, for the purpose of falsely stating that the findings referenced in the Lancet Paper were false"and fraudulent and for the purpose of injuring Plaintiff.

4.10 Ironically, the evidence in this case will show that it is Deer, Godlee and BMJ who have provided misleading information regarding these twelve children's histories with the malicious purpose of injuring Dr. Wakefield by falsely making it appear that Dr. Wakefield altered, manipulated or misrepresented data for the twelve cases discussed in the Lancet Paper. In fact, all of the facts and findings in the Lancet Paper are supported by the documents for these twelve patients. Defendants' statement that "[n]o case was free of misreporting or alteration" (Exhibit A p. 5) is false.

4.11 In their publications, the Defendants' mislead the reader to believe that Dr. Wakefield and his co-authors reviewed certain medical records and/or NHS records prior to writing the Lancet Paper, a fact that Defendants knew was false when they made statements stating or implying that Dr. Wakefield had altered or ignored data in records that were not, in fact, in the possession of or used by Dr. Wakefield or his colleagues in writing the Lancet Paper. In actuality, it was the Defendants who misrepresented the data in their "re-analysis" in order to conjure their own conclusions in an effort to defame Dr. Wakefield. However, when the data that underlies the Defendants' conclusions is taken in full-context, it not only confirms the veracity of the Lancet Paper's authors and their findings, but also amplifies the nature of the false and defamatory remarks that Defendants posit about Plaintiff and his character.

4.12 For example, Deer misrepresented the facts of the underlying cases, repeatedly misrepresenting or distorting the content of records for the purpose of falsely accusing Dr. Wakefield of having done precisely what Deer has done. Deer falsely claimed that the records for children 6, 7 and 12 in the Lancet Paper did not have a behavioral diagnosis of autism. Deer states "only one -- child 2 -- clearly had regressive autism. Three of nine so described clearly did not. None of these three even had autism diagnoses, either at admission or on discharge from the Royal Free." (Exhibit A at p. 3). Contrary to Deer's statements (it should be noted that Deer is a journalist and not a medical doctor), based on the clear underlying evidence, these subjects did suffer from autism.

4.13 With regard to child 11 detailed in the Lancet Paper, Deer made several misrepresentations in his efforts to falsely suggest Dr. Wakefield had altered or manipulated data and diagnoses. Deer asserts that symptoms of autism appeared for this child two months earlier than reported in the Lancet Paper and prior to the administration of the MMR vaccine. However, prior to publication of the Lancet Paper, the child's father reported to Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues, and later in person to Deer, (and continues to report) that the child's symptoms did not appear until after receiving the MMR vaccine. Indeed, the child's father has since written Deer and the BMJ to explain that Deer was misrepresenting facts about child 11, yet Deer and BMJ have printed no retraction, correction, or mention of this fact. This failure on Defendants' part is further evidence of their malicious intent to create and foster the false impression that Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues fraudulently altered data and diagnoses for the Lancet Paper.

4.14 Deer asserted in his article that Dr. Wakefield had altered or ignored information from on-duty pathologists as to whether or not the children detailed in the Lancet Paper had intestinal inflammation and specifically, non-specific colitis. However, it was known to the Defendants that the findings of inflammation were based on a blind and systematic analysis of biopsies taken from the children's terminal ileum and large intestine, conducted by an expert pathologist, Dr. Amar Dhillon, and that this analysis was undertaken independently of Dr. Wakefield's involvement in the interpretation of the biopsy findings. Defendants' publications also misleadingly omit that a second independent pathologist, Dr. Andrew Anthony, reviewed the same slides and reached the same conclusions with respect to these children. Dr. Anthony was a medically qualified researcher in the Department of Histopathology at the Royal Free with a published expertise in inflammatory intestinal pathology. And like Dr. Dhillon's review, Dr. Anthony's review was conducted in a blind, unbiased, manner, comparing control slides of normal biopsies, and without the benefit of Dr. Dhillon's grading sheets. This information was deliberately left out of the BMJ publications to create the false impression that Dr. Wakefield had altered the diagnosis for some of the children in the Lancet Paper.

4.15 Deer likewise misrepresented information about the onset of the first behavioral symptoms following administration of the MMR vaccine for several of the children, incompletely reporting on the content of the children's medical records to which Deer had access. He did this for the purpose of creating the impression that Dr. Wakefield had altered or manipulated data. Again, the evidence in this case will show that it was Deer who manipulated the data for the purpose of defaming Dr. Wakefield and that he did so with actual malice. BMJ and Godlee knew that at the time of writing the Lancet Paper, Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues did not use or have in their possession the records used by Deer, however they repeated these false assertions against Dr. Wakefield. In truth, the very records which Defendants' use to allegedly support their own conclusions, actually further confirm the accuracy of the Lancet Paper and Dr. Wakefield's conclusions.

4.16 . Each of the Defamatory Statements which are the subject of this lawsuit are false, known to be false by the Defendants, and were published or stated with actual malice, with the knowledge or intent to harm Dr. Wakefield.

4.17 The BMJ article and editorials were not the end of Defendants' mass propaganda campaign. Within twenty-four hours of Deer and Godlee's initial publications, Defendants were promoting their stories to major print media, radio and television outlets in the United States and in Texas. As noted above, at that time they failed to disclose that the BMJ received advertising and sponsorship revenue from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, including the MMR vaccine.

4.18 On January 6, 2011, Defendant Deer appeared on CNN's American Morning touting his journalistic efforts and again voluntarily offering more false and defamatory statements against Plaintiff Dr. Wakefield.' For example, during his interview on CNN's American Morning, Defendant Deer made the following defamatory remarks concerning Wakefield and his reputation:

• Dr. Wakefield is "a determined cheat";

• Dr. Wakefield embarked in "a campaign of lies"; and,

• Dr. Wakefield is now trying to "work out a nice little living ... at the expense of autistic children."


Defendant Deer stated that "it's not me saying it, it is the editors of that journal [the BMJ] who are behind this." Defendant Deer invited Dr. Wakefield to file a lawsuit against the Defendants stating: "if Wakefield is not 'guilty as charged,' he has the remedy of bringing a libel action against me, against the Sunday Times of London, against the BMJ, against [CNN]." The CNN American Morning show is broadcast in Texas and across the nation.

4.19 The same day Defendant Deer also appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Show? In that appearance Defendant Deer reasserted his slanderous remarks against Dr. Wakefield, including the statement that Plaintiff "takes tangential pieces of research that don't really relate to what he is saying and represent them as somehow endorsing what he said." The Anderson Cooper 360 Show is broadcast in Texas and nation-wide.

4.20 On January 25, 2011, Defendant Deer appeared on the radio talk show The Gary Null Show.3 During this talk show, Defendant Deer championed his work and further slandered and defamed Dr. Wakefield stating:

[Wakefield] has been fired by his employers in Austin, Texas. He has now been branded by the British Medical Journal a fraudster. They described his work as an elaborate fraud, and now I think he's consigned to the realms of being a freelance charlatan preying on the parents of autistic children. So I think that sums up my position.


Defendant Deer went on at length parroting his previous false and defamatory remarks concerning Dr. Wakefield, including the statement: "he [Wakefield] went through the results manually altering test results and diagnoses and histories of the children so to create the appearance that there was a link between MMR and autism."

4.21 As early as April 22, 2011, Defendant Deer published a lengthy, self-congratulatory, four-part article called, Nailed: Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the MMR -- autism fraud on the website http://www.briandeer.com.4 This article, published on Deer's website with links to the BMJ article and editorials, contains the following defamatory statements about Dr. Wakefield:

• Dr. Wakefield's work was "a scandal of astounding proportions;"

• Dr. Wakefield's work "had no scientific basis whatsoever";

• Dr. Wakefield's work was a "sham: laundering into medical literature, as apparent facts, the unverified, often vague, memories and assertions of a group of unnamed parents";5

• "Wakefield had repeatedly changed and misreported diagnoses, histories and descriptions of the children, which made it appear that the syndrome had been discovered";

• "The Lancet paper had been rigged"; and,

• "Even when [Wakefield] knew that his allegations had been proven baseless, he was found promoting them from a controversial business in Austin, Texas called Thoughtful House."

Deer made specific reference to the impact of his allegations in Texas stating: "Wakefield was ousted by the directors of his Texas business." Clearly, Deer intends for his defamatory statements to be widely broadcast in the US and is proud of the fact that they have been. He states on his website:

Among hundreds of broadcast and newspaper reports on the BMJ series, which included all north America networks and reached 47% of Americans surveyed in a Harris poll, The New York Times said in an editorial on January 13: "Now the British Medical Journal has taken the extraordinary step of publishing a lengthy report by Brian Deer, the British investigative journalist who first brought the paper's flaws to light -- and has put its own reputation on the line by endorsing his findings."


Defendant Deer's website article contains a host of links and references to national and global media organizations that have cited his story, claiming that "in the United States alone, nearly 145 million people knew of Deer's findings." In particular he references a Washington Post article: "Among the extensive international reportage of the MMR investigation was a long and detailed account in the Washington Post by distinguished journalist, Glenn Frankel. Among his findings was a plan by Wakefield to move his crusade to Texas where, according to one source, his 'entrepreneurial spirit' will find 'fertile ground' in US privatized health care."

4.22 On April 15, 2011, Defendant Deer presented at the Association of Health Care Journalists Annual Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. At that conference Defendant Deer further defamed Dr. Wakefield. At that conference he slandered Plaintiff Wakefield by stating, among other things, that Dr. Wakefield is "not just incompetent but a fraudster" and by stating that Dr. Wakefield's work is "bullshit."

4.23 In September 2011, Godlee slandered and defamed Dr. Wakefield during a lecture given at the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") in Bethesda, Maryland, which was broadcast nation-wide and is still available on the NIH website.6 For example, in an additional allegation of fraud against Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Godlee referred, in her lecture, to a comparison of the interval between MMR vaccine exposure and "symptoms" in children reported by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues in two different versions of the Lancet Article, a draft prepared in August 1997 and the final published paper, the Lancet Paper. Dr. Godlee went on to use this allegation as her basis to conclude that Dr. Wakefield fraudulently manipulated the reduction of the time interval in order to create "a legally compelling case which would be a maximum of 14 days and in this case an average of 6.3 days." She not only falsely suggested that Dr. Wakefield fraudulently misreported this medical data, but she imputed to him a malignant intent that he knowingly altered this data in an effort to influence vaccine injury litigation. Both allegations are false and defamatory. In addition Godlee accused Dr. Wakefield of committing "scientific fraud" and a criminal act. These allegations are defamatory per se.

V. DEFAMATION

5.1 Dr. Wakefield hereby brings this common law cause of action libel, slander and defamation against Defendants based on the malicious publication of false claims about Dr. Wakefield as detailed above and incorporated by reference herein.

5.2 Each of the Defendants knowingly misrepresented facts with the purpose of making false accusations against Dr. Wakefield. These false statements were published with actual malice.

5.3 These false claims were known to be false by the Defendants at the time they were made and were made and published with the intent to cause substantial harm to Dr. Wakefield's reputation, to open him up to scorn in his community, and to damage his livelihood.

5.4 The false statements, intended by Defendants to injure Dr. Wakefield in his trade and profession, constitute defamation per se, therefore damages are presumed from the publication of these false statements.

5.5 Alternatively, these statements, intended by Defendants to injure Dr. Wakefield in his trade and profession, constitute defamation per quod.

5.6 The malicious publication of the false statements about Dr. Wakefield detailed above have caused and continue to cause actual general and special damages to Dr. Wakefield, including, injury to character and reputation, humiliation, injury to feelings, and loss of earning capacity.

VI. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

6.1 Because Defendants acted with actual malice, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary damages as defined by the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 43.001, et seq.

VII. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

7.1 In addition, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' published false and misleading statements regarding Dr. Wakefield and/or the Lancet Paper.

VIII. PRAYER

Dr. Wakefield hereby prays for a trial by jury as to all disputed issues of fact, and upon findings appropriate, further prays for judgment from this Court against the Defendants for: nominal damages, actual and compensatory damages, special damages, including injury to reputation and character, injury to feelings, humiliation, loss of earning capacity, exemplary damages pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §41.001, et. seq., declaratory relief, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, and for such other and further relief to which he may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

William M. Parrish
State Bar No. 15540325
bparrish@dpelaw.com
Jay D. Ellwanger
State Bar No. 24036522
John D. Saba Jr.
State Bar No. 24037415

DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER &
HARDY LLP
7000 North MoPac Expressway,
Suite 350
Austin, Texas 78731
(512) 539-2626 Telephone
(512) 539-2627 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________

Notes:

1 See American Morning, CNN (Jan. 6,2011), available at http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/06/au ... index.html.

2 See Anderson Cooper 360, CNN (Jan. 62011), available at http://ac360.blogs.cnn.coml20l1l01l07/videojournalist- brian-deer-responds-to-dr-andrew-wakefield.

3 See The Gary Null Show, PRN (Jan. 25. 2011), available at http://www.garynull.com.

4 See Brian Deer, Nailed: Dr. A. Wakefield and the MMR - autism fraud, available at http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm.

5 Deer's article now reads "laundering into medical literature, as apparent facts, the unverified, often vague •• and sometimes altered -- memories and assertions of a group of unnamed parents."

6 See Godlee Lecture (Sept. 6, 2011) available at http://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?File=16828.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Vaccine Autism Cover-up: How One Doctor’s Career was

Postby admin » Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:19 am

APPEAL FROM 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD AFFIRMED -- OPINION
BY JUSTICE FIELD
SEPTEMBER 19, 2014

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014

NO. 03-12-00576-CV

Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield, MB, BS, Appellant
v.
The British Medical Journal Publishing Group, Ltd.;
Brian Deer; and Dr. Fiona Godlee, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD
AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on August 3, 2012. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Next

Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests