
Kim Stagliano on The GMC Hearing: "The Censorship of Autism Treatment"

The Lancet Retraction

The-lancet-illustration Read the full article in Bloomberg News HERE.

By Michelle Fay Cortez

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The Lancet medical journal retracted a 1998 study that linked a routine childhood vaccine to autism and bowel disease after a U.K. investigation found flaws in the research.




The paper was retracted from the published record, stripping it of its scientific claims...


just a Mother

Parents are not going to fall for this dirty trick by Lancet.The autism garaph matches with the increased vaccination rates. They have started poisoning our children in the lat seventies.Thank you Willie for explaining this
horrific and shameful situation.There are billions of dollars on the table(selling vaccines),we, the parents need to send them a crystal clear message that poisoning our children


"Daddy, I bounce in my bed because my stomach hurts me all the time."

Nevermind that I would not have been able to hear these sad words without biomed. 2 years ago I probably just would have been hit or bit.

Yes, it is just a relief that now that this article has been retracted I can finally tell him he's wrong. His stomach must not hurt. Nothing is wrong, it's a mystery again.


You know FMC, at least JC did a bit of research and found the good old Danish MMR study, the one full flaws in methodology as well as being fundamentally flawed in approach, being a cohort study.

I suppose you think that sloppy cohort studies prove the MMR is completely safe for everyone, vaccine insert safety information be damned. Well, wait a few more years then. Safety studies done by the manufacturer or distributors don't always end up working out in the end. There is a long history of this if you care to do some reading.


[[Children who have been vaccinated develop autism at the same rate as those who have not.]]

What a bunch of hooey. Where for art thou background data?

And please, for the love of Gawd, the authors retracted an interpretation of the study... and the paper did NOT PROVE an association.

*head, meet wall*


I feel for you folks, but the rabidity of your belief set, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, is a bit frightening (speaking here about vaccines and autism).

JC is the only poster here who has presented a reasonable, cogent set of thoughts and questions.


Rei entire physician groups opposed various vaccines and were not listened to, now of course, the Hep B damage is a reality children have died or been injured for what? It certainly was not science. Check out what the AAPS has to say about Hep B.

It is apparent that critical medical decisions for an entire generation of American children are being made by small committees whose members have incestuous ties with agencies that stand to gain power, or manufacturers that stand to gain enormous profits, from the policy that is made. Even if such members recuse themselves from specific votes, they are permitted to participate in discussions and thus influence the decision. Moreover, there is the potential for deal- making. Or there may be a simple disinclination to cause problems for one member's agenda in the expectation that that member will reciprocate.
Should a physician advise against a mandated vaccine, he faces increased legal liability should the patient acquire the disease. Moreover, he may risk his very livelihood if he is dependent upon income from “health plans” that use vaccine compliance as a measure of “quality.”
Information given to parents about this vaccine often does not meet the requirement for full disclosure. For example, it may state that “getting the disease is far more likely to cause serious illness than getting the vaccine.” This may be literally true, but it is seriously misleading if the risk of getting the disease is nearly zero (as is true for most American newborns). It may also be legalistically true that “no serious reactions have been known to occur due to the hepatitis B recombinant vaccine.” However, relevant studies have not been done to investigate whether the temporal association of vaccine with serious side effects is purely coincidental or not.
It should be noted that a less than 1 in 1,000,000 purely hypothetical risk may be used to justify costly federal regulations on highly useful products that are used voluntarily.
• There may be large genetic differences in susceptibility to vaccine adverse effects.
The committee has been told that serious reported adverse effects seem restricted to Caucasians. Yet the oft-cited long-term safety study was conducted in Alaskan natives, and many studies involved Asians. In adults, 77% of the reactions involve women, who are generally more susceptible to autoimmune diseases. This deserves serious study, not off-hand dismissal (“nurses always over-report”). Universal immunization could lead to disproportionate injury to susceptible populations, who might also be the least affected by the disease one is trying to prevent.
Even more alarming is the huge increase in reports of autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, with devastating, life-long impacts. Much of this could be due to overdiagnosis (now rewarded by numerous government subsidies). The change in behavior that many parents observe related to vaccines could be coincidental, or it might reflect a desperate need to explain a disastrous occurrence. Nonetheless, the implications are so grave that immediate investigation is needed. Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction (say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an impassioned crusade for universal vaccination.
• Hepatitis B vaccine as a cause of sudden infant death has not been ruled out.

There are a lot of intelligent and well trained people opposed to vaccines for ethical and scientific reasons that transcend any of the transparent fraudulent bullshit reasons given by the supporters of the failed hypothesis of vaccine immunological benefit. This is a clear case of devastating risk without reward.

One day these people will be punished for their crimes.


Rei I am a physician too. Vaccines are horse shit and it is that simple my children will never receive another 1 in life. The studies that are published in support of vaccines are most probably fraudulent. Note the following conflict of interest

Dr Kumar, a man who during the hearing refused to answer questions about his shareholding in GlaxoSmithKline, pronounced on behalf of the multinational drug companies and the British government that there was no such thing as vaccine damage and that any parents who claimed that their children had suffered such, would be treated with scorn and contempt.

Brian Deer has carried out his campaign against Dr Wakefield from the pages of the Sunday Times, a paper managed and owned by James Murdoch a man who sits on the board of GlaxoSmithKline. Deer researched his case with the help of Medico-Legal Investigations a private enquiry company funded solely by The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.

The panel gave their verdict after two and a half years partial scrutiny of the case, after legal aid for the parents claims to be heard in a real court, against vaccine manufacturers, was denied by High Court judge Sir Nigel Davis, whose brother, an executive board member of Elsevier the publishers, was on the Board of GlaxoSmithKline.

During the hearing, some of the apparently most authoritative evidence, not about science, but about conflict of interest, was given by Dr Richard Horton the editor of the Lancet one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. The Lancet is owned by Elsevier and Sir Crispin Davis is Dr Horton's line manager.


Read what the United states congressman testified to in front of congress concerning the nepotism, cronyism and fulminating conflict of interest concerning the FDA, CDC, NIH and pharmaceutical industry.

June 15, 2000, 1:00 pm , 2154
committee and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rely on these advisory Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515


The Vaccine industry and the people who support it at all levels are either paid off or extremly stupid. I am not sure which camp you fall in but the entire system is rotten to the core.

Kathy Blanco

If autism is so genetic, why are my three BOY grandchildren, who are unvaccinated, don't have a trace? PLUEEZ,,,and I am saying that because I am a mother of two with autism now in their early and late twenties....who got the SLOWER schedule, but were at the start of the peak in the eighties. Had my four BROTHERS gotten vaccinated like they do today, they would all be full blown autistic, no brainer in my head (like and similar biochemistries, immune genetics, detox ability) So...one generation, slighly autistic like (very very shadowee) due to single vaccines, my children, autistic due to this schedule (though not the current schedule), and now my grandchildren, no vaccines, no autism, no residual anything neurological, very healthy. Think on these things.....

Dr Wakefield...he never said no vaccines, correct? ? He said split them. What's so wrong with that? (albeit, I am totally anti vaccine today)....I just think we have finally laid on the alter of our medical societies our children's lives, by the trust we have in these people. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them today. Then, when you really look microscopically into why vaccines have no value, are dangerous, are contaminated, may be full of retroviruses and future ills, I just say, why don't we just bag this whole idea, and start with the question....what is in that vaccine, and what does it do to a predisposed child? Let's have some biological markers that suggest why this child or that child may not handle them? Hmmm? Not so hard people? Cord Blood IgE? Autoimmune problems in the family? Exposures to toxins? Fluoride? MSG? Harsh Birth? Family history of neurological problems, mito disorders? Helllooooo?

See PERFECT STORM KATHY BLANCO....I dare you to read the entire article...

Heidi N

What it all comes down to is this. Just how many people who are attacking Dr. Wakefield have recovered a child from autism, and let's compare that to how many people with autism have been recovered due in part to Dr. Wakefield. The time has come when results speak louder than bureaucratic science. The amount of parents choosing to believe in the results is growing everyday. My children are recovered. I choose to listen to those who have actual success, and it has made all the difference.


And here I am, from a family which has opposed vaccination for generations...and I have two quite healthy grandchildren...coincidence of course.


Rei, you're making absolutely no sense at all. If we always opposed vaccinations, how did our kids come to be vaccine-injured?


Rei and Carol:

This is what's scary:

Graph of Autism Increase 1975-2009:



Rei and Carol..

Please explain a 600% increase in autism over the last 20 years. I was never afraid of vaccines and I never heard of Andrew Wakefield til long after my son was dxed. I actually believed in vaccination but now I question the judgement of giving a young child 24+ vaccines by age two w/o any research on the culmulative effects on an infants immature immune system.

Wakefield's supposed indisgressions pale in comparison to the fact that culmulative safety studies have not been done or, if they have, the results have never been made public.

If a single vaccine carries a degree of risk, then what is the culmulative risk? Is it multiplied? Using an untested schedule is like playing Russian roulette when you consider the culmulative risks.

Parents see autistics kids in their communities. They know families with autistic kids. They hear about soaring rates and that is what is causing the fear not Wakefields research. The fear will continue until the government stops ignoring the crisis.

I don't blame Wakefield for any of this.. I am fearful for the kids. We are losing a generation and that is very sad.

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

Autism is a disintegration, contraction, and detachment of being, experience, and consciousness. These numerous vaccines are making us increasingly unconscious and reactive in various, numerous, and unpredictable ways.


As a Physician I could not be happier with Lancet finally retraccting from this study, which was frown upon by the Medical community and it was only useful to feed fear among parents by people who always opposed vaccinations.


I just read this in The New Yorker online. It regurgitates all the talking points.

Autism, Vaccines, and The Lancet
Posted by Michael Specter


More than a decade after The Lancet published a study led by Andrew Wakefield that connected the symptoms of autism directly to the Measles-Mumps and Rubella vaccine, the journal issued a full retraction today.

Published in 1998, the notorious study—so severely flawed that ten of its thirteen authors long ago retracted their contributions—has been long been completely discredited. Yet the wave of fear and panic that it set off, in the United Kingdom and the United States, persists to this day. Vaccine rates plummeted, and measles—a disease that killed 160,000 people in the developing world last year—has returned to places that hadn’t reported a case for years.

The article fueled a massive, and remarkably vibrant, anti-vaccine movement in the United States, led by people who insist that a connection between autism and the inoculation exists. More than ten major studies have been carried out to test that thesis; no correlation has ever been discovered. Children who have been vaccinated develop autism at the same rate as those who have not.


The Lancet acted today only because it no longer had a viable choice: last week, Britain’s General Medical Council issued a scathing statement detailing Wakefield’s unethical methods. The council found him guilty of “callous disregard” for the pain of the children in his study as well as of dishonesty.

In 2004, the journal published a statement on the controversy the study caused, but it was not a retraction. Today’s release ended with these words: “we fully retract this paper from the public record.”

If only it were possible to retract the fear and confusion the article caused. Unfortunately, that could take at least another decade.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/02/autism-vaccines-and-the-lancet.html#ixzz0eQEra5gK


My blind 90 year-old aunt residing in a nursing home was happy to report to me today that she heard on the radio "the shots don't cause autism" hoping I would be relieved to hear it. Apparently we can all breathe a sigh of relief for some reason only others can fathom.

JB Im afraid parents are stupid. I know we were at one time.


You can't retract a paper after it has been published. If a publisher (like the Lancet) stands by evidence presented in 1998, it should be legally compelled to stand by that same evidence a mere dozen years later.

Facts don't change. Facts are either true or they are not. If a fact is true in 1998, it is still true in 2010. Publishers of medical and scientific journals are not is the business of defending truth. These publishers are in the business of defending what is right.

And in this case, what is right is what is true. Unless, of course, a mistake has been made with the truth. But even in that case, what is right must prevail over what is true.


I can't believe this! Wake up, MSM! Waht's it gonna take!? A full geneeration of effected children?!


I was browsing the web for relevant info on autism (having a son with PDD-NOS), and I had spied the above news of the Lancet's retraction. Out of curiosity, I googled "Incidence of autism non-vaccinated". The second link was for a Time Article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003673,00.html) talking about an extensive study in Denmark that showed no correlation between vaccinated and unvaccinated autism rates. Am I assuming too much that when a nationwide study can find no association between vaccination and autism that perhaps vaccination is neither a primary nor even a major component?

Look. I understand the heartbreak of first learning about the condition in your child. Anecdotally, I've heard people come to the correlation from a seeming cause and effect (my child got the shots then soon after started manifesting). Perhaps for me, the reason that I might lean the other way is that my child started manifesting BEFORE his shots (peculiar repetitive movements and lack of eye contact). All the same, though I didn't think "vaccine", I too did soul-searching, wondering what I or my wife may have done that could have introduced this to our child. How had we failed? If not our fault, then whose? God's?

Back to Dr. Wakefield... I looked through some of the articles on this site and see how you support him. I didn't explore the articles thoroughly to try and understand the science, but from the various reports in the web and media in general, it did seem he had a bit narrow of case study. At some point, the arguments have to break down. Is his study upheld by his peers? No? "It must be a conspiracy to hide the truth." As soon as I hear vast conspiracy (for it would have to be vast), alarms and whistles go off in my head. I don't subscribe to the "vast conspiracy" kinds of theories. I think you have to rethink your arguments with the evidence of the predominant studies thus far.

My feeling? Genetic components that are hereditary but are exascerbatyed by environment... environmental effects on the PARENTS. I do believe environment causes a large role, but on the genes themselves that form the child. Though symptoms don't manifest at birth, the evidence already shows how genetically there are damaged chromosomes in afflicted children. Thus the damage was already there affecting the children as they mature. Though you may completely disagree with me, which is your right, I do not say these things to denigrate. These are my questions, observations, and theories. I just want to urge readers to look in other areas, look for other possibilities. Even if you feel there is a link with vaccines, look at what else could ALSO play a role.


JB Handley




Someone needs to copy it and post it on here then they cant remove it ...unlike the rubbing out the UK is infamous for,Dr Kelly et-al

Behind this until i die ...


Bob Moffitt

Bloomberg.com opening paragraph reports:


Nah .. the GMC investigation did NOT "find flaws in the research".

Not only did they NOT find flaws in the research .. they, by their own admission, didn't even look at the research.

So, it appears a little misleading to me for Bloomberg to suggest "The paper was retracted from the published record, stripping it of its scientific claims...


I guess the powers that be are angry thaat their fake pandemic flopped.


they believe that this restores confidence in their vaccines..lmao..cnn talked about camps..those who believe vaccines cause autism/and those who dont..those who will stand behind wakefield ..will remain standing proudly with integrity truth,and honor..the lancet will slide.into a pool of ignorant denial...along with all their lies and cover ups..{the people have seen and felt the destruction at the most personal level..there children..these damaged familys dont give up..we dont give up..carry on Andy wakefield we are behind you..candace


For anyone trying to post a comment on the NY Times blog today that attacks Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield, FYI, the editors are not posting comments supporting these two individuals, or anything that suggests some validity to their claims. They are only posting comments from people who say hateful things about those who believe in the possibility of a vaccine-autism connection. Since the NY Times published "all the news that's fit to print," I guess that must have run out of room.


Kill you and remove all trace of your existance sounds more like organized crime than medicine. Oh wait, organized crime rings actually try to keep their hit lists centered mostly on adults, so I guess that is an ufair analogy.


So, what does this do to all the articles that reference this one?

Carol Martin

That's odd. It looks like I can still get the paper from The Lancet website. They better fix that right away. This paper is very dangerous and people shouldn't be allowed to read it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment


Your comment could not be posted. Error type:



Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment


Your Information
