Appendix 10: Predatory Propagandists: Cyber Weapons of Mass Deception (Part B)

A Concerted Effort to Suppress Vaccine Research & Destroy an Academic Career In 2006, Judy Wilyman, then a student at the University of Wollongong, was awarded high distinction for her master’s thesis, a critique of the Australian government’s whooping cough vaccination policy. . . . Continue reading →

28. Fear Mongering

A concerted push for compulsory childhood vaccination is fueled by a fear mongering campaign Professor Andrew Pollard A headline in The Guardian (July 2017) announced, Small decline in MMR vaccination rates could have dramatic effect, experts warn. It went on to declare: . . . Continue reading →

L’affaire Wakefield: References

[1] Alpha-1-Antitrypsin, Autism, And Coeliac Disease, John Walker-Smith and Judith Andrews, The Lancet, 1972; cited by Professor Walker-Smith in his autobiography, Enduring Memories, 2012, p. 211-3; Perinatal Measles Infection And Subsequent Crohn’s Disease. Ekbom A, Wakefield AJ, Zack M, Adami HO. Lancet . . . Continue reading →

23. Fake Evidence, Fabricated Accusations

Grading sheets were distorted and deconstructed into “fake evidence”; accusations of institutional research misconduct were extended to all the co-authors, the Lancet editor, and the Royal Free Hospital Dr. Dhillon Dr. Dhillon’s grading sheets that were submitted by Dr. Lewis with his . . . Continue reading →

27. BMJ Editor Declares End of Autism-Vaccine Debate

BMJ editor-in-chief called for an end to the debate about an autism link to multiple vaccines. The BMJ defamation strategy was calculated not only to defame Dr. Wakefield; it sought to expunge the Lancet article from the medical scientific literature, to delegitimize . . . Continue reading →

25. GMC Conflict of Interest Charges Against Dr. Wakefield

GMC conflict of interest charges against Dr. Wakefield (GMC charges in italics) (a) Dr. Wakefield failed to disclose to the Ethics Committee and to the Editor of the Lancet his involvement in the MMR litigation: Response: Knowledge about his work in preparation . . . Continue reading →

24. Pervasive Conflicts of Interest

Let’s examine the pervasive, significant conflicts of interest of the adversaries vis-à-vis COI charges against Dr. Wakefield Every adversarial player in the Wakefield Inquisition had major financial interests[167] that were threatened by Dr. Wakefied’s MMR research. (1) The initial attacks on Dr. . . . Continue reading →

21. BMJ’s Objectives

The objectives of the BMJ campaign were: To disqualify the scientific merit of the Lancet study; To delegitimize Dr. Wakefield’s entire research oeuvre; To convince the medical community that Dr. Wakefield must be shunned; To demonize Andrew Wakefield as a pariah; To . . . Continue reading →

20. BMJ Accusation Diverted Attention from Concrete Evidence of CDC Fraud

The BMJ declaration of fraud diverted attention from documented evidence of scientific fraud in pivotal CDC- Danish studies; its principle investigator, criminally indicted for fraud The BMJ imprimatur was needed to focus on Andrew Wakefield and convince the medical community and the . . . Continue reading →

19. Deer’s BMJ Articles Not Peer Reviewed

Sworn testimony by Deputy Editor & internal correspondence confirm that Deer’s BMJ articles were not peer reviewed Internal BMJ correspondence entered as evidence in a legal defamation suit against the BMJ reveals that the written, published and publicized assertions repeatedly made by . . . Continue reading →

18. BMJ Editor Declares Wakefield Guilty of “Elaborate Fraud” Without Evidence

BMJ editor-in-chief, Dr. Godlee amplified GMC charges declared Dr. Wakefield guilty of “elaborate fraud” and “falsification”  In January 2011, the BMJ editor-in-chief went far beyond the GMC charges when she escalated the propaganda campaign against Dr. Wakefield, issuing a BMJ editorial pronouncement: . . . Continue reading →

17. GMC Panel Found NO Scientific Fraud

The GMC panel found no evidence to support Deer’s allegation of “scientific fraud” The most serious allegation that Deer made in his complaint to the GMC in 2004, was “scientific fraud.”31 The definition of fraud:[148] “Fraud can be fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism . . . Continue reading →