Wakefield, MMR and Science Ignored

Dr Andrew Wakefield and MMR have become synonymous. He was the first serious contender to question the possibility of a connection between autism and the MMR vaccination. As a result he finds himself facing the General Medical Council and if found guilty it is likely he will never practice medicine in the UK again. We are witnessing an ad hominem assault, instigated initially by Brian Deer of The Times. There are two rather large question marks hanging over this debacle; what exactly was Brian Deer's motivation, and who has most to gain from the very public assassination of Wakefield's character.

One of the allegations Dr Wakefield faces is that he accepted inappropriate funding to investigate a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Yet thousands of doctors do this as routine when approached by a legal team acting on behalf of a client. Lawyers, being lawyers, do not have the expertise to pronounce on medical aspects and therefore to present a credible case in court, hire the services of qualified doctors to act as expert witnesses before litigation can commence.

In pursuit of a claim by over one thousand parents for compensation and recognition that their children had developed autism as a result of vaccination, legal aid was initially granted but the parents then had to provide some medical evidence. This could only be obtained by a qualified medical professional and the services of Dr Andrew Wakefield were retained by the legal firm representing the parents.

The necessary tests on a sample of the children were denied in the UK as health authorities refused to cooperate, citing that it would be 'unethical'. To add to the difficulties drug company representatives and British officials went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the tests being done at all but despite delays and a series of setbacks the tests finally took place in America. The subsequent analysis indicated the MMR strain measles virus was indeed detected in the cerebral spinal fluid of those sampled. However, the story was not over. Elated parents who had struggled for years against indifference and denial thought they had, at long last, evidence that would stand up in a court of law and give them recognition and perhaps compensation for their damaged children. But it was not to be. At the last minute, inexplicably and without reason their legal funding was arbitrarily withdrawn.

Similar results to those of Andrew Wakefield have been found in studies by Dr Vijendra Singh, a research scientist from Utah University, and Dr Arthur Krigsman, a child gastroenterologist from New York University School of Medicine and also by scientists from Norway, Ireland and Japan. Curiously, investigation of these findings has been blocked in the UK.

Vaccination has become a religious doctrine that one questions at the risk of being labelled a heretic and lumped in with holocaust deniers and flat earther's. Those who subscribe to the official line that ‘MMR is safe’ should be aware that ‘death’ is just one of the many side effects listed on the information packs that come with the vaccines. You will need to request the information pack; it will not be offered as routine.

We do not do investigative journalism in the UK. Certainly there exists an abject laziness about questioning the dogma of vaccination. Instead, what journalists and television newsreaders present to us as ‘fact’ actually is presented to them on a plate courtesy of the newswires, or news agencies as they are called. These news agencies are the first port of call by an industrial conglomerate or multinational corporation seeking to market a favourable product image or to issue a 'damage limitation' statement. Or to put it another way, all our information about drug safety, including vaccines, comes from the source; the pharmaceuticals who make and sell them. In this way blatant propaganda is being presented to us as ‘factual news’ and has convinced Health Authorities, doctors and entire populations in developed countries that it is necessary to inject a toxic cocktail of animal, bacterial and viral DNA into a baby’s bloodstream to maintain optimum health.

One does not need to dig very deep into journal archives to find an example that illustrates to perfection the success of corporate brainwashing in convincing otherwise rational people into believing nonsense.

It is an absolute incontrovertible fact, recorded, published and graphed in leading medical journals that all childhood diseases in developed countries had declined by over 90 percent and in the case of measles, by 99.4 percent by the time vaccination was introduced, coinciding exactly with better hygiene, improved sanitation and our understanding of good nutrition. Yet even today, 100 years later, health officials and doctors alike will argue that vaccination was the cause of the decline and that we need to keep on vaccinating to hold disease at bay.

Science, and immunology in particular, have moved on. We are stuck in a time warp where vaccination is concerned A hundred years ago it was believed that inducing antibodies was enough to prevent disease, and all vaccination is still based on that simplistic precept. Now immunologists know there are at least two parts to the immune system and they are reciprocal. Stimulating one, as in vaccination, will severely depress the other, possibly leading to unresolvable chronic disease. Time to stop digging a deeper hole and maybe update our thinking on an outmoded procedure?

Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health and Medical Assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines before he retired, said publicly

“...there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR's introduction, and an extremely worrying increase in childhood inflammatory bowel diseases and immune disorders such as diabetes, and no one in authority will even admit it's happening, let alone try to investigate the causes."

Dr Fletcher should know. He was in charge of vaccination programs in the UK for many years.

He also said

“There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves”.

Of course Dr Fletcher can speak freely now he is retired. To have done so while employed by the Department of Health would have meant professional suicide with the loss of a sizable pension. What does this say about the official information we receive regarding vaccination?

Cambridge University’s Autism Research Centre (ARC) have estimated that one in 58 children in the UK now suffer from some form of autism. None of this takes into account the variable degrees of damage. It is entirely feasible that between the two extremes of ‘severe mental and physical impairment’ and ‘no obvious consequences’, there can be a significant lowering of IQ with latent minimal or partial damage never really noticed or remarked on by anyone. We just assume that Janet has ‘always been a bit slow’, or that Johnny’s tendency to violent reactions is just a ‘characteristic or genetic thing’.

If we consider these recent events: a point blank refusal to investigate the many valid studies into MMR by independent researchers across the world: the sudden and unexplained withdrawal of legal aid funding from parents about to bring a ‘class action’ case to court: and the spiteful witch hunt against Dr Andrew Wakefield - the conclusion is inescapable. There is deliberate connivance and nobody in power wants to discuss openly and in public a possible link with autism and the measles virus.

Reports in the national press that uptake of MMR has fallen to a mere 60 percent in some parts of the country and that those most likely to reject the three in one jab were observed to be from the higher educated classes are hardly surprising. It is surely obvious that better educated and articulate individuals are more confident and able to withstand diktats from authority and critically evaluate the pro’s and con’s of vaccination with their own due diligence. What is more, they are less likely to be fooled by the cynical sophistry of pursuing Andrew Wakefield for supposed infringement of ethics through the courts, and will see it for what it is; a premeditated effort to deflect the real issue; that jabbing viruses into young babies is a game of russian roulette and the real possibility that there may indeed be a link between MMR vaccine and subsequent autism should be investigated independently of pharmaceutical industry influence.

If Dr Wakefield is found guilty it will be a sad day for British justice. No practicing doctor in the UK will ever again dare to speak out against the dangers of MMR. But it will be sadder still for parents of vaccine damaged children, routinely ignored and brutally shunted aside to cope as best they can without financial or medical assistance, all the while knowing there will be no one left to care when they are gone.

Dr Wakefield at the GMC trial - Latest News

Thousands of vaccine damaged children in the UK have been denied medical care by health authorities who shelter behind the claim that autism is a psychiatric disorder which cannot be caused by vaccination. Andrew Wakefield was the only doctor prepared to help these forsaken parents by selflessly, and at great cost to his professional and private life, undertaking to investigate the many health problems the children face in a bid to alleviate some of the distressing symptoms.

Silenced by the media, by the courts and by the government, a few of the parents of autistic children have compiled their heart-rending stories of how they struggled, and still struggle, to cope in the face of dismissive officialdom and a hostile press. You can read about their experiences in a new book called 'Silenced Witnesses'. You will weep. But you will also admire the courage and fortitude and their determination to continue the fight for recognition and acknowledgment of the harm done.

'Silenced Witnesses'- The Parents' Story can be purchased at CryShame.com

Instead of epidemics of infectious disease, there are now epidemics of chronic disease.