AddThis Feed Button "Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated"

Monday, February 14, 2011

Dr. Wakefield: Was Attack Based on Conflict of Interest?

Quick Vaccine Facts

As reported by the New England Journal of Medicine - 35% of adverse reports for rheumatoid arthritis are associated with MMR.

Rubella vaccine caused 55% of RA cases 1991-1998 in girls.

1 of 3 damaged neurologically from DPT;  35,000 yearly.

Pertussis: Babies die 7 times greater within 3 days of vaccination.  Reported as SIDS.  Journal of Pediatrics shows only 40-45% non-sustained effectiveness.  In an Ohio outbreak, 82% of those vaccinated developed the disease.
Is it just conceivably possible, that the BMJ's decision to commission and publish Brian Deer's series of  articles attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield's personal and scientific integrity--without giving him an opportunity to defend himself--and to lend its unwavering editorial endorsement to the charges--might be influenced by a SIGNIFICANT financial conflict of interest? 

In 2008, the pharmaceutical giant, Merck, signed a partnership agreement with the BMJ Group that effectively gave the company control of 350 interactive continuing medical education courses in over 20 medical therapy areas?

In 2009, The Lancet also entered into a Merck partnership. 

"This unique partnership will change the face of medical education in Europe and beyond, allowing users access to most of BMJ Learning's library of 'Continuing Medical Education' (CME) and 'Continuing Professional Development' (CPD) content. " 

Why did the BMJ conceal from readers--of both the Deer series and the BMJ editorial excoriating Dr. Andrew Wakefield, charging him with deliberate fraud and financial conflict of interest--the fact that the BMJ had a partnership with Merck, manufacturer of 13 vaccines--including the MMR vaccine, which is at the center of the Wakefield controversy?  

The BMJ editorial accompanying Deer's articles, did its best to lend authority to the vaccine industry (Merck's) perspective. In an introductory sound bite the editors declare: "Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare."
Read more....


AJ said...

Supporters of Wakefield have tried every argument they can think of to challenge the BMJ articles --- except one. They don't use the GMC transcripts to show that they are wrong.

The transcripts are available (with a bit of work) for free from the GMC in Manchester. I've got them. The doctors testified and were cross-examined for weeks.

The reasonable conclusion for not using the transcripts to criticize the BMJ article is simple --- the transcripts back up the articles.

Please note that the conclusions of the panel on the charges are irrelevant here. The issue is what do the medical records of the children AT THE ROYAL FREE (not their GP) say and how does that compare to the 1998 paper.

fielskie said...


Anonymous said...

Someday the truth we be known about these monstrosities called vaccines.
Of course, the medical establishment and public lives in Vaccine Damage Denial where they will do anything to deny conflicts of interest and put down anyone who dares to question safety of vaccines.

There are other studies out there showing the exact same thing Wakefield did in his study. Yet they act as if its the only one in the world. Vaccines have never shown to be safe or affective. And they never will because conventional medicine is epic failure and any good parent whos not brainwashed by mainstream media will keep there kids far away from mainstream "evidence-based" medicine.

There is no evidence anymore. Its all about the profit, which is the only reason vaccines continue.