Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
February 12 2010
A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey argues that Dr. Andrew Wakefield is currently being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes -- with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.
They state that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign, engineered by vaccine manufacturers, reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues. The retraction was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury.
Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists, of a new set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys. The results were disturbing -- vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.
Behind the scenes, the pressure to keep the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues from being published is immense, and growing every day. Dr. Wakefield is being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign designed to prevent this important new work from seeing the light of day.
The U.S. vaccine schedule has grown from 10 vaccines given to children in the 1980s to 36 today, perfectly matching the dramatic rise in autism. The work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues deserves to be shared with the world to further, rather than censor, scientific progress.
Sources:
Age of Autism February 11, 2010
del.icio.us |
Digg
Email to a friend
Print version
Plain text
Home
Set as homepage
Add to favorites
Mobile site
Rss
Plain text
Archive
What a pitiful piece of text. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Let's see, 1) AndyBoy knew that the tests he relied on to define his imaginary disorder (measles in the gut) were false positives, 2) AndyBoy had a patent for a "transfer factor" that he admitted was a substitute for the measles vaccine (and needed to undermine confidence in the MMR to increase his potion's marketability) 3) AndyBoy used kids referred to him by the lawyers who arranged to pay him...
And Joey Mercola says AndyBoy is being suppressed by a conspiracy? Joey, is there a supplement that you sell that can restore logic function in the brain?
The editors of the journal were influenced by common sense. They saw the flaws in the study (there were many starting with sample size) and they saw how utterly dishonest Wakefield was as I explained above. Then they had an attack of common sense.
As for b.a. comment, no, we are not watering down our immune system. Even with a full load of vaccines today, they expose the immune system to a fraction of the antigens that were used years ago.
Relying on Supplement Sellers, like Mercola, is not a good source of information. IMNSHO, he, like Wakefield, writes to enhance sales.
Looks like the well paid pharma blogger whores already got to this site.
Thanks for forwarding, I read their statement and it is very compelling - why do we give so many vaccines these days, I don't get it.
It's quite moving to see such a well written piece of writing, but most of all one that carries a high weight of truth.
@FreeSpeaker:
What a complete load of rubbish! Aside from the fact that you write as if you have had little education, perhaps you should visit some of these ill children that, after having the MMR are in constant pain - pain that originates in the gut/bowel.
Did you not stop to think that, because Andrew stated that he he believed that the MMR was causing all these problems, he wanted to offer parents an alternative? I didn't think you did.
Andrew never EVER made a profit from anything that he did. Not once.
It seems apparent that you can think of nothing intelligent to say, so you instead attack the author, in what - I can only assume - is your feeble attempt at some degree of humour.
Post your comment