ROB SCHNEIDER FOR 2012.
My vote is assured.

Rob was very eloquent about his opposition to forced vaccination. Nicely done indeed.

The study had 13 subjects and started with 4 controls but that number went down to 2. The researcher Laura Hewitson is married to the IT director for one of Wakefield's companies. Wakefield is the original discredited researcher that conducted the first fraudulent study.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/07/26/laura-hewitson-has-left-the-universi...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/16/too-much-vaccineautism-monkey-busin...

Inability to show how something scientifically causes something generally is good grounds for discrediting something. Just saying "These monkeys got a vaccine AND THEN THEY GOT AUTISM!" doesn't prove shit. If autism is caused by white noise of cities then the monkey's being near large cities during key moments in brain development would cause it just like it's suspected it starts in humans.

My god, did anyone else notice that it started raining right after we injected those monkeys with vaccines ...Of course the elitist scientists are probably going to try and discredit my link between rain and vaccines. Just because I can't show how one causes the other. DETAILS DETAILS.

Are you questioning the validity of the study?

Or do you want a reproduction of the findings?

Yeah, I'm flat out calling it false. Either they falsified data or they are just bad scientists.

On what basis rests your claims of falsification?

perhaps it is the loss of fear that they fear...good point

Perhaps they fear pandemics of disease that haven't existed in our country since we started vaccinating our children coming back? Just a thought.

Pandemics that KILL people. Even if vaccines cause autism (which they've been proven not to) would you rather that your child DIE from measles or would you rather your child have a 1 in 400 chance of getting autism which is non-lethal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_outbreaks_in_the_2000s

Go ahead and read how many of those were caused by unvaccinated children. Do you think any of the parents who lost their children to measles took any comfort in the fact that their child never had a chance of getting non-lethal autism from a vaccine? Now they don't have a child at all.

It's a pilot study.

Not so fast!

Professor John Walker Smith (Coauthor of the 1998 study that was attacked by the BMJ) Dr. Wakefield and the Royal Free doctors, were just vindicated in March of this year (2012) by the High Court (U.K.).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/9149338/James-Lefanus...

Dr. Wakefield is currently in lawsuit against the British Medical Journal (BMJ) for defamation of his work which he is now very likely to win following this years exoneration by the High Court of the U.K.

They were vindicated of professional wrong doing. The court could not find any evidence that they had purposely fudged their data. Their study however was not vindicated by the court. It is still considered a pile of junk. I just wrote a research paper on this very subject and I could not find one peer reviewed study that confirmed the Wakefield/Smith findings. I could not find any peer reviewed studies that found a connection between autism and vaccines. What I did find was a study of umbilical cord blood that found 100% of the newborns tested had over 200 industrial chemicals, pesticides and toxins in their systems on the day they were born. These toxins included high levels of mercury and even D.D.T.

I guess blaming the toxic environment for a rise in health problems just isn't fashionable.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php

"They were vindicated of professional wrong doing. The court could not find any evidence that they had purposely fudged their data. Their study however was not vindicated by the court."

Again, hence the pending defamation suit against BMJ filed this year. Now cleared of wronging, Wakefield/Smith are VERY likely to win...

http://www.drwakefieldjusticefund.org/

There is actually not a lot studies done on the matter... AT ALL. More on that later...

They may well win their defamation suit. That does not however verify the study. It is still a load of crap. The very reason they were accused of wrong dong was because the medical community believed no one could make as many research mistakes as they did and they must have fudged the data. This is what people have grabbed on to. If they did not get convicted of professional misconduct, then their study was verified. It was not. The court could not find any evidence of wrong doing. What that means is the study was junk because these two guys are innocently incompetent.

The problem is you are already assuming they made "mistakes". Which can't be assumed because is at the heart of the defamation suit against BMJ.

The very people who accused Dr. Wakefield's 1998 study of being fraudulent, i.e. the British Medical Journal , Dr. Fiona Godlee, Brian Deer. are the very ones being sued for defamation

These are the original sources of the alleged "Mistakes". The BMJ attack articles were just accepted at face value and parroted around the scientific community.

I'm not assuming anything. Peer review found the study to be stunningly flawed. That's why they were accused of wrong doing. The study was so flawed that the medical community believed it had to have been done on purpose. The defamation suit is over the accusation of professional misconduct. What the court said is they could find no evidence of wrong doing. What that means is they got it dead wrong through incompetence. The study itself is research garbage. In fact, the Lancet retracted the study. Not because these guys were accused of wrong doing, but because the study was junk.

It's the peer review itself that's a party of the currently pending defamation suit.

One of the allegations is they received funding from pharmaceuticals companies when they published the attacks on Dr. Wakefield research.

That's a tough allegation to prove, but if it is proven, it's fatal to the peer review, (the most important source of the scientific claims against him) and discredits the idea that his study somehow was "junk" based on the slander of corrupted peer review.

If he wins (not just wins but wins on these allegations), it shows the strong arm of the pharmaceutical industry in corrupting the scientific peer review process and based on that I wouldn't be surprised if lancet was in someway coerced into retracting the study.

All that remains is to wait and see the outcome of the case...

Now who's assuming. The court did not say that the Wakefield/Smith study was not mistaken. It said the mistakes in the study, as far as Smith is concerned, were not done purposefully.

Wakefield is not suing a single person in the medical community. He is not suing the people who had Smith charged with professorial misconduct. He is not suing the other scientists who could not duplicate his findings. He is suing a man named Brian Deere, the journalist who broke the story and Fiona Godlee, the editor of The British Medical Journal.

This court case does not say anything about Wakefield except put him in a bad light. Look at the undisputed facts section 4 and 5 in the final decision. It says the study was originally undertaken to ascertain whether there is a causative connection between MMR vaccines and other disorders. Only after the involvement of a law firm hoping to sue on behave of parents did the objective of the study change. After the law firm got involved the objective was to find a connection between vaccines and autism. Not see if there is one. To find one. The court decided it could not be proven that Walker Smith knew about this.

In section 6 Wakefield himself says in a 1997 letter "It is clear that the legal involvement by nearly all the parents will have an effect on the study as they have a vested interest. I myself simply will not appear in court on this issue." He was willing to state publicly that he had found a connection between MMR and autism but he wouldn't do it under oath? Wakefield has been thanked for single-handedly bringing previously controlled diseases back to the United Kingdom

Again. The court did not verify the study. It said mistakes made by Smith were innocent.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/08/andy-wakefield-exonerated-because-j...

Read this one. It shows that when some of the children were retested none of Wakefield's findings were confirmed. One child was tested by 3 different labs in the U.S.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/antivaccine-hero-andrew-wakefield-...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

"Now who's assuming..."

I'm talking about the defamation suit.

"Wakefield is not suing a single person in the medical community.'

Really? Because the listed parties to the suit include DR. (emphasis on doctor) Fiona Godlee, and the British Medical Journal, an open access peer review medical journal -over 150 years old- and the most prominent and flagship general medical journal for all of Britain!

And the British Medical Journal provides an interview at its own website with the Dr.Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-chief of the.... British Medical Journal.

http://group.bmj.com/group/media/interview-with-fiona-godlee-bmj-editor-in-chief...

The only one who is NOT from the medical community and a party to the defamation suit is the journalist Brian Deere.

"The court did not verify the study."

No kidding. The Court will not "verify" the study. The burden is not on the Court to prove it right. The burden was on the peer reviewed British Medical Journal to prove it wrong, through honest research. Which apparently they didn't do and this is now the subject of the defamation lawsuit against them. If proven that the peer review was corrupted by payments from pharmaceutical companies, then Dr. Wakefields study stands on its own unless someone not blatantly corrupted refutes it.

He is not suing Godlee as a medical practitioner. He is suing her as an editor and for the comments she made. He is not however suing Stephen Bustin, who testified about his shoddy methods. He is not suing the General Medical Council who said he should be struck off the medical record. He is not suing any of the peer review scientists who say they could not duplicate his findings. He is not suing The Lancet which retracted his paper because it was deemed fraudulent. He is not suing the 12 co-authors of his paper which a majority of have since repudiated his findings.

It's interesting that you say that the Walker Smith court case does not verify the Wakefield study because that is exactly what the Wakefield followers say it does.

Did you read the Science Based Medicine article that lays out just how fraudulent the Wakefield study is? They say his study was the worst science imaginable, and that he was correctly dragged before the General Medical Council on charges of professional misconduct, and he is not suing them. They point out that he was trying to get his own measles vaccine patented.

Watch what happens when Wakefield loses his suit, which he will surely do. The Wakefield followers will cry conspiracy. The same people who now claim the Smith case exonerates Wakefield will have a fit when it is shown that he was not slandered. They will claim he was slandered and the court was bought off by Big Pharma.

He is suing one of the most respected medical journal in all U.k. and the Dr. editor-in-chief.

The peer reviewed journal is the most important defendant that when comes to defamation. Anyone else can fire pot-shots at him with little effect, but being defamed in the British Medical Journal is not only career ending, it creates a chilling effect that dissuades any other Medical researcher from even suggesting, EVEN SUGGESTING there could be a link between vaccines in autism because if they do they will derided and linked with defamed work of Dr. Wakefield.

(As you so aptly tried to do on with you very first comment on this post).

Let's wait and see if he wins the defamation suit against the British Medical Journal. (Which he very likely will.)Then we will see where the chips fall.

Yeah, even the Lancet which published the original Wakefield study has admitted it was a fraud.

Source it please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8493753.stm

http://briandeer.com/solved/lancet-retraction-2010.pdf

Tada. That is the Lancet the original publisher of Wakefield's study printing a retraction of it in which they said and I quote:

"We fully retract this paper from the published record."

Retracted based on these findings:

http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

I was under the impression your previous comment stated, Dr. Wakefield said the study was a fraud, just a moment ago when I responded asking for a source ...

In regards to Your last hyperlink source:

"FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL HEARING
28 JANUARY 2010.:

"On 16 July 2007 a Fitness to Practise Panel considered the case of:
A. Dr Andrew Jeremy WAKEFIELD
GMC reference number: 2733564
B. Professor John Angus WALKER-SMITH."

I think you might need to get up to speed on the outcome of that: as of March 19 2012,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/9149338/James-Lefanus...

As a side note,

Brian deer from braindeer ,com, is one of the defendants of the currently pending defamation suit that was filed this January...

What part of posting the Lancet's own retraction don't you understand? Is the BBC one of the defendants too? Is the Lancet? Did the Lancet ever deny retracting the entire study? PLEASE DO TELL please show me where they said their own retraction was someone else's doing?

Go find me some sources stating any of that.

There's nothing to get up to speed with in what you posted. Did you even read what you posted? It stated the guy working in the bowl disturbance vaccine study was found to have played no role in falsifying data.

Study still fully retracted. One dude originally thought to be part of the falsifying of scientific data found to not be. Autism STILL not caused by vaccines.

What part of:

"Following the judgment of the UK General Medical
Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010," from the Lancet retraction.

Read in conjunction with:

"High Court exonerates Prof John Walker-Smith of charges misconduct by General Medical Council," ( March 2012) do you not understand?

You're being fatuous.

The General Medical Council judgement that was the basis of the 2010 Lancet retraction was appealed and overturned by the High court in 2012.

Should I draw a time-line to make it easier?

Professor John Walker Smith is not some "dude."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/9128147/MMR-doctor-wins-battl...

Professor John Walker Smith co-authored the study published in Lancet that was retracted by Lancet on the basis of of the General Medical Council judgment in 2010. And that basis for the retraction, the General Medical Council's Judgment, was appealed and overturned by the High Court in 2012.

And consequentially, a defamation suit has been filed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield against the British Medical Journal, the editor-in-chief of the BMJ Dr. Fiona Godlee, and Brian Deere (who was the one who initially filed the complaint with the General Medical Council in 2004).

That's where we are at in this saga.

The pharmaceuticals companies have convinced congress and the CDC that it is for the Public good that vaccines don't need to be thoroughly tested. An epidemic of x, y, or z, is right around the corner and we need to get the vaccines to market as soon as possible.

Moreover, once the vaccines hit the market, the vaccine manufacturers can't be sued for injuries resulting from their defectively designed vaccines. Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 they have an ABSOLUTE liability shield. The only product in existence that has this protection.

So pharmaceutical companies have no incentive not to put dangerous vaccine products on the market. And to that end we literally put a whole generation on the autism spectrum, with rates of autism so high among today's children that the American Psychiatric Association is changing the definition to make it less inclusive

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/health/research/new-autism-definition-would-ex...

don't think they won't...remember this from last year?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-advisers-endorse-t...

when you are creating the problem and the partial solution there is no need to wade through the process. Take it to the bank, it has become the new way and it is crap.

Good grief!

yes it is

You're a real peace of work .... a low-life scum! My daughter has aitism, caused by MMR vaccines, and because of jerkoffs such as you, we will never see ANY of the drug companies held to answer for putting out what they knew would create problems.

The recent HPV vaccine offered to young teenage girls is a case in point.