Did Andrew Wakefield Perpetrate an "Elaborate Fraud"?

[barracuda]

I don't have access to his medical history, unlike Brian Deer and the "Lancet 12" children (how DID that happen, anyway?).

The records became available under FOIA as part of the GMC proceedings. That might explain why Wakefield didn't feel so much like exposing himself or the parents in question to cross-examinations about those histories. And while we're on the subject...

I don't think this allegation of fraud is one of them. If Deer is serious this process needs to go to court, and then one or the other will be looking bad because of the allegations.

Just for the record, the GMC thing was a legal proceeding, which ended with the revocation of Wakefield's licence after he offered no defense. As well, he withdrew his SLAPP suit for defamation against Deer and Channel 4 once he had used every delaying tactic in the book in a futile attempt to evade progress on a long and costly action which he had brought in hopes of scaring everybody. So it's not like he hasn't had his day in court.

[stickdog99]

Come on, Plutonia. This is the simplest of all possible requests.

Please explain to me about the supposed Scientology plot to get people to question vaccination. Why? Why do Scientologists want to get people to question vaccination? Blah blah blah

It's just what the cult does, sticky

Again this "line of reasoning" makes no sense.

As I understand your argument, it goes thusly:

(1) The Co$ is a giant scam.

(2) Any organization that questions any vaccine or vaccine ingredient must be a giant scam.

(3) Therefore, I must conclude that any organization that questions vaccination is a Co$ front if any message board or blog post claims as much.

How does this make any sense whatsoever? First, why do you presuppose that there is something bad about with questioning specific vaccines and/or specific vaccine ingredients? Is there something bad about questioning specific medicines and/or specific medicine ingredients? Is there something bad about questioning specific foods or food ingredients? So why can't people question specific vaccines and/or specific vaccine ingredients without the Co$'s diabolical influence?

Look, you don't have to prove to me that the Co$ is bad. Frankly, it doesn't help your argument in any way to do so. I know the Co$ is bad. But I don't think questioning certain vaccines or vaccine ingredients is bad, so I don't see the "obvious" connection that you see. Even if I did think that questioning certain vaccines or vaccine ingredients was bad, this would not get around your fundamental logical flaw of assuming that if two entities share an important characteristic, then there is likely to be some direct connection between them.

Consider this argument:

(1) TV preachers are a giant scam.

(2) The Afghanistan occupation is a giant scam.

(3) Therefore, all organizations that actively support the Afghanistan occupation are likely fronted by TV preachers, and everyone should believe any such claims unquestioningly.

How does this make any sense? Because this is exactly how you sound to me.

[stickdog99]

Call me crazy, but I just keep seeing this Co$ conspiracy everywhere! ...

This is a link to the Foster report on Scientology. This is what the report states.

"Of course there are a number of other organisations in which Scientologists are actively involved. I do not know precisely how many but broadly the list would cover the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Scientology Ex-Service Men and Women's League, The National Trust, Conservation Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Campaign against Psychiatric Atrocities, Society for Individual
Freedom, the Association for Health Development and Aid etc."

The BMA and BMJ have made no statement either way in terms of the current status of scientology. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that they are sympathetic to their ideas in psychiatry as featured on a number of occasions by the BMJ.

It is notable to observe their decision in the case of Raj Persaud.

The GMC began investigating Persaud when he ran afoul of The Church of Scientology, which holds that the entire field of psychology is fraudulent. A 2005 Independent article in which Persaud criticized Scientology's founder, L Ron Hubbard, was found to contain plagiarized passages. After the article was published, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which was founded by The Church of Scientology, brought a formal complaint to the GMC"

Raj Persaud's position was as follows :-

"In this Dr Persaud declares himself "shocked" to receive notice of the retraction and by its proposed terms. He says that the BMJ edited the first paragraph of his original copy, which attributed all subsequent paragraphs to the work of Thomas Blass, whose book he was reviewing. "The implication in the retraction, that in writing this book review I took from sources other than writers whose material I was reviewing without permission or acknowledgement and sought to pass the work off as my own, is wholly unfounded. It is not clear from the retraction that the BMJ knew, as it did, I had sent the copy of the published BMJ review to Thomas Blass; the absence of any subsequent complaint from him would be widely taken as implicit permission from the author to write about his work on this occasion, as I had done."

In conclusion, we have the Foster report admitting that scientologists exist in the British Medical Association. We have a leading psychiatrist criticising the Church of Scientology. We have the British Medical Association's propaganda machine being sympathetic to scientologists views. We then have the BMJ dissociating from a psychiatrist who has written against scientology. From an observational point of view, it is rather fascinating.

Hard not to see a vast pernicious, pervasive conspiracy, really.

You do realize that the BMJ is the journal that commissioned and published Rob Deer's article that eviscerated Wakefield. Right?

Thanks for outing Rob Deer as a closet Scientologist, Plutonia!

barracuda, I suggest you remove all your links to Deer's work post haste! Deer has been clearly associated with known Scientologist sympathizers and thus every link to everything he has ever written clearly qualifies as a Scientology source!

[stickdog99]

I don't have access to his medical history, unlike Brian Deer and the "Lancet 12" children (how DID that happen, anyway?).

The records became available under FOIA as part of the GMC proceedings. That might explain why Wakefield didn't feel so much like exposing himself or the parents in question to cross-examinations about those histories. And while we're on the subject...

I don't think this allegation of fraud is one of them. If Deer is serious this process needs to go to court, and then one or the other will be looking bad because of the allegations.

Just for the record, the GMC thing was a legal proceeding, which ended with the revocation of Wakefield's licence after he offered no defense. As well, he withdrew his SLAPP suit for defamation against Deer and Channel 4 once he had used every delaying tactic in the book in a futile attempt to evade progress on a long and costly action which he had brought in hopes of scaring everybody. So it's not like he hasn't had his day in court.

Come on. All we know is that Wakefield's lawyers advised him that he had more to lose than he had to gain by pursuing these matters in court. A legal ruling proves very little about truth as anyone who has ever had any prolonged experience with the legal system can attest. The lack of a legal ruling proves even less about the truth, as anyone who has ever made a legal settlement outside of court can attest. What the lack of pursuit of a legal case is supposed to prove is beyond me.

And, at least as a far as I can figure out from Deer's rambling screeds, the GMC revoked Wakefield's license because of financial interest disclosure issues, not scientific fraud.

[barracuda]

Fortunately, you don't have to figure out Deer's "rambling screeds" regarding this particular point, because I posted a link to the complete .pdf of the GMC Determination and sanction against Wakefield upthread, and it is nice and briefly concise for easy reading.

All we know is that Wakefield's lawyers advised him that he had more to lose than he had to gain by pursuing these matters in court.

That's important to know, though, because that actually tells us something, i.e. his lawyers let him know that he wouldn't be winning a libel suit against Deer or Channel 4, and/or that he would wind up hurt by pursuing it any further, and he took their advice.

[stickdog99]

I think part of the noise surrounding this debate stems from the fact that people used his original study, a joke as you say to make all sorts of claims.

To me thats no different to the medical establishment skepdick hardline attitude and this whole controversy is made far worse by the clash of those two ideologies. I'm not saying either side is right, cos they are both wrong, but in he specific instance of Wakefield and this study ... I think there are clear examples of stuff where I think he was pilloried as his professional career was ruined, but i don't know enough about it to judge with authority or knowledge.

Yep. I'm still not sure if Wakefield is a well-meaning guy who compromised himself financially because all of his other doctor friend blokes were getting away with it or a carefully constructed poison pill.

I don't think this allegation of fraud is one of them. If Deer is serious this process needs to go to court, and then one or the other will be looking bad because of the allegations. Thats the only way to clear the air properly.

Agreed. Except I am not sure a conventional court is the best way to determine whether fraud was perpetrated in a set of medical case studies. Personally, I'd like to see Wakefield tried by a jury of prominent corporate medical researchers who then commit to having their own studies judged by the same guidelines.

Its a big shame the noise has stopped a proper public examination of the potential health risks of vaccines. Personally I think that would come down in favour of vaccination as a concept with each situation deserving individual consideration. Thats just my opinion tho.

Sounds good. I'd love to see research convincing me of the safety of the vaccine regimen currently recommended for US infants. I'd also love to see some basic toxicological studies done on aluminum adjuvants to help quantify what dosages of these adjuvants are generally safe and what dosages of these adjuvants are generally problematic in both mice and primates, because the few recent studies that exist do not paint a pretty picture.

Cheers to you as well, Joe.

[stickdog99]

Fortunately, you don't have to figure out Deer's "rambling screeds" regarding this particular point, because I posted a link to the complete .pdf of the GMC Determination and sanction against Wakefield upthread, and it is nice and briefly concise for easy reading.

Thanks for bringing this link front and center to my attention.

All we know is that Wakefield's lawyers advised him that he had more to lose than he had to gain by pursuing these matters in court.

That's important to know, though, because that actually tells us something, i.e. his lawyers let him know that he wouldn't be winning a libel suit against Deer or Channel 4, and/or that he would wind up hurt by pursuing it any further, and he took their advice.

Not exactly. All this tells us is that when Wakefield considered his lawyer's advice and hourly rates, he determined that putting this barrister's children through college at the potential cost of opening further legal proceedings against him was not the wisest possible investment he could make.

While I am not contending Wakefield is innocent of the 200+ charges Deer has brought against him over the last seven years, please imagine how he would feel at this point if he were actually innocent of 195 of them, other than you can't fight Pharma Hall.

[catbirdsteed]

I don't have access to his medical history, unlike Brian Deer and the "Lancet 12" children (how DID that happen, anyway?).

The records became available under FOIA as part of the GMC proceedings. That might explain why Wakefield didn't feel so much like exposing himself or the parents in question to cross-examinations about those histories. And while we're on the subject...

I don't think this allegation of fraud is one of them. If Deer is serious this process needs to go to court, and then one or the other will be looking bad because of the allegations.

Just for the record, the GMC thing was a legal proceeding, which ended with the revocation of Wakefield's licence after he offered no defense. As well, he withdrew his SLAPP suit for defamation against Deer and Channel 4 once he had used every delaying tactic in the book in a futile attempt to evade progress on a long and costly action which he had brought in hopes of scaring everybody. So it's not like he hasn't had his day in court.

b, I'm having a hard time finding a specific ref for the FOIA on the records, could you please help me with that? It certainly might explain a lot. thank you.

[Plutonia]

Plutoinia posted: "I knew it was bad but is it really that bad that you had to use copy-pasta in a comment section for your linked citation!?
Well, let's see. Here's the original source: http://www.whale.to/v/staff.html"
Plutonia, I don't know what you are suggesting here. I have certainly posted some links that don't pass RI "muster".
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi search phrase: "Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000" Perhaps you know more about the internets than I do, but the document seems to be widely distributed, and if it ORIGINALLY came from whale.to then you have some kinda point.

Oh right sorry got carried away. I should have looked more carefully. That report is available at some 7000 sites, or is at least cited by title. The first that Google lists is the whale.to site.

The tenth happens to be Kevin Leitch's blog Left Brain Right Brain. He's the guy who first investigated the Scilon infiltration of the autism care/advocacy community, back in 2006. In 2007 he had a bit of trouble with one of those Generation Rescue volunteers, a man by the name of John Best aka fore sam, which caused Kevin to decide to quit blogging. His site was down for a while but thankfully, he has since resumed. This is an account of what happened from Liz Ditz's I Speak of Dreams blog - it may be a bit difficult to follow but it's her responding to a comment left on her blog previously:

Beyond Appalling and Disgusting: The Thug John Best, jr

Update: February 2010. Best's blog has been put behind a warning label by Blogger. I received a comment (see below) from a person whose email seems to be fraudulent. I'm posting the comment here, up front.
...

My response

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I'll take your points one by one.

>I don't understand all the hate towards John Best.

Perhaps you didn't notice that the post you commented on was from 2007. At that time, Mr. Leitch, whose daughter also has autism, was at that time 7 years old, non-verbal, and had several problematic behaviors. In other words, she had "severe autism".

Mr. Best, in the months leading up to the post:

* Appeared at autism conferences using a nametag with Mr. Leitch's daughter's real name
* Encouraged others to mock Mr. Leitch's daughter
* Wrote blog posts purporting to be written by Mr. Leitch's daughter
* Made internet appeals for funds for treatment for Mr. Leitch's daughter, the funds to be sent to Mr. Best's home address.

Sources for the above assertions:

* http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2006/1 ... stic-peopl
* http://onedadsopinion.blogspot.com/2007 ... eable.html
* http://thefamilyvoyage.blogspot.com/200 ... evail.html
* http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/ ... ice_of.php

In Mr. Leitch's own words in the fall of 2006

John Best at AWARES

John has developed what seems to be an unhealthy interest in my daughter. I find it incredibly disturbing. More so than I can possibly convey in writing. I don’t give a stuff if he or his crowd insult me personally, I’m a big boy – but time after time he has seen fit to abuse my daughter. Who can forget his charming comparison of my daughter to a trained monkey:

"My wife bought too many bananas so I;ll send some for your daughter"

which came about as a result of me detailing her progress (the crime being of course that she’s progressing without chelation/ALA/megadose vitamins or HBOT).

Well now he’s stooped even lower. This year's AWARES conference is well under way. John has apparently changed his stance from last year where he stated that AWARES was a made up conference solely to trap him (John has a little problem with ego and reality) and decided to attend again this year.

This time though he joined up with the username ‘Megan Leitch’ and made numerous posts abusing autistic members of the conference and pushing chelation as the only cure. When I was made aware of this, I contacted the conference administrator and after satisfying himself that what I was saying was true, he deleted all posts from that user and deleted the account.

What sort of utter coward assumes the identity of a six year old autistic girl? I am in two minds at whether to follow up on this legally. I’m not sure what constitutes identity theft in a legal sense but I intend to find out. But of course this goes far beyond identify theft. To anyone with an ounce of morality, posting in the name of a child to further your own agenda is so tasteless that I don’t think there are adjectives to describe this particular act. Assuming the identity of an autistic child because you don’t like the child’s father or what he has to say is…..disturbing….

In the fall of 2007, Mr. Best upped his attacks on Mr. Leitch, using the voice of Mr. Leitch's daughter. As a consequence of these actions, Mr. Leitch felt he must close down his blog.

Mr. Best's intemperate comments were well-known before the Leitch affair. A father of an autistic child collated some of Mr. Best's more objectionable statements here. I think you might want to read through the sections, here:

http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot. ... -hits.html

>The man has a severly autsitic son you heartless thugs.

I'd like to point out that of the folk repudiating Mr. Best's behavior on the blog post above, five have children who are "severely autistic": nonverbal or minimally verbal, some who still struggle with toilet training, some with self-injurious behaviors.

>Yet, you hipocrites call him a thug?

Of those five bloggers (and others who blog) who have children severely affected by autism, none have threatened another blogger, or impersonated or mocked other children on their blogs.

Mr. Best's behavior was beyond the bounds of civilized behavior.

>He's the one targeted and abused by you all.

No, you are mistaken. No one would pay attention to John Best (or Foresam) if he did not repeatedly show up in blog comments using vile language and threatening others with harm.

>Hey, man up or woman up whatever. This is USA, not North Korea folks, if you don't like
>what he says, defend your position or don't listen to him

I think that is exactly what the bloggers listed in this post in 2007, 2.5 years ago, and have continued to do.

>but to go on a campaign to destroy his freedom of speech

How is remonstrating with Mr. Best for his uncivilized, reprehensible behavior a "campaign to destroy his freedom of speech"? No one organized a campaign to have his blog (hate-spewing though it is) shut down.

However, I think you might be referring not to this post from 2007, but the current situation.

Best uses Blogger as his blogging platform. Earlier this week, Blogger briefly shut Best's blog down. It is back up, but now comes with a content warning.

https://www.blogger.com/blogin.g?blogsp ... pot.com%2F

I had nothing to do with Blogger's decision to first shut down, and then re-install with a content warning.

>says more about you than I cared to really believe. Now I will spread the word to all other
>parents of autistic children about how abusive and cowardly you people are for going after >John Best.

That is your perfect right. But again, I'd like to point out, if you are going to "spread the word to all other parents of autistic children" -- many of those parents, those who blog and don't agree with Best that chelation is the only way to "recover" children with autism -- are well aware of Best's heinous behavior.

>You owe th is man an apology. He's obviously under a lot of stress.

If any apologies are owed, it isn't to Best

>People are aggressive when they are under stress and feel hopeless.

Many of the autism parents that Best has verbally assaulted and abused are in the same boat as Best, but somehow they have had the integrity and dignity to refrain from verbal assaults and abuse. Some of Mr. Best's "stress" is self-imposed.

Update: Best's behavior constitutes cyberbullying.

I have an internet friend I've never met in real life, Kevin Leitch. I know he is a real person, through a number of sources. Until this weekend, he wrote the excellent blog Left Brain / Right Brain. He is closing it because a moral midget named John Best is harassing his daughter, who has autism.

The reason LB/RB is shutting is because I cannot continue to allow my beautiful eldest girl to be exposed to the hatred and bullying she is recieving from John Best. John has seen fit to compare my beautiful child to a trained monkey because he didn't like the fact she was progressing. He has made numerous jokes at her expense on that theme. He has assumed her identity online. He has encouraged others to do the same.

John Best also appears as "Fore Sam" in blog comments.

I will miss Kev's commentary and especially his wonderful videos of his daughter.

....

If you'd like to see a sample of what passes for Best's thinking, Joseph of Natural Variations compiled a list of "John Best's Greatest Hits", back in March 2006.

John Best and his buddies have been assaulting the online autism community for years. I recommend everyone go and have a look at John Best's blog just to see the worst of the Mercury Militia in it's den. Or google "fore sam" to see his contribution to the discussion: http://hatingautism.blogspotdotcom

As for that report, "Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making Majority Staff Report Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives June 15, 2000"? It was authored by Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana). Here is the Congressman receiving Freedom Magazine Human Rights Leadership Award from Scientologist Ann Archer in 2006



that's from here: http://scientology-tor.ca/freedommag/newdothtml

And here's the cult's Freedom Magazine in it's context.

[Plutonia]

Look, you don't have to prove to me that the Co$ is bad. Frankly, it doesn't help your argument in any way to do so. I know the Co$ is bad. But I don't think questioning certain vaccines or vaccine ingredients is bad, so I don't see the "obvious" connection that you see. Even if I did think that questioning certain vaccines or vaccine ingredients was bad, this would not get around your fundamental logical flaw of assuming that if two entities share an important characteristic, then there is likely to be some direct connection between them.

I'm all for true information. sticky. If you have some re vaccine safety, why not share it instead of questioning my questioning of Scientology?

[stickdog99]

The GMC's findings against Wakefield certainly make for good reading.

To summarize:

1) Wakefield ordered medical investigations on 5 sick children he studied without being a qualified paediatrician.

2) Wakefield accepted 50,000 pounds from the Legal Aid Board to cover the expenses of four children in his study, but used half of it for "purposes other than those for which he said it was needed."

3) Wakefield conducted research on 9 sick children without Ethics Committee approval and he failed to report that he failed to obtain this approval in his Lancet paper.

4) Three of these children were given spinal taps that Wakefield claims were clinically indicated, but the GMC says were only for unethical research purposes.

5) Wakefield realized his study would cause great controversy, so he needs to be held to a higher standard than other researchers.

6) Wakefield failed to state in his Lancet paper that the purpose of the original project for which the subjects were admitted was to investigate a new syndrome he believed was associated with MMR vaccination. Wakefield also failed to state in his Lancet paper that some of the children in the study were not routine referrals to the gastroenterology department and that he actively participated in some of these referrals. When questioned about this on two subsequent occasions, he stuck to his story that these children were routine referrals when they were not. Wakefield did not disclose to the Lancet that he had accepted 50,000 pounds from the Legal Aid Board to cover the expenses of four children in his study, nor that he was involved in patenting a measles vaccine that could have competed with the MMR vaccine.

7) Wakefield forged a partnership with the father of one of his child subjects to produce a his new safer measles-only vaccine and tested this vaccine on this child subject with his father's approval

8) Wakefield took blood samples from children for some of his research at a child's birthday party, which was an inappropriate setting. He paid the children 5 pounds each for their trouble, then laughed about his ethical transgression.

9) Wakefield failed to cry at his mother's funeral. (OK. I made this one up.)

*****

I actually believe all of these charges. Wakefield somehow got it in his head that the MMR was causing gastrointestinal problems as well as autism symptoms in children and he sought out subjects to prove his hypothesis. He also took money from the Legal Aid Board to cover the expenses of some of these children, but he double-billed the National Health Service for these expenses. He also ordered tests on some of these children with parental rather than Ethical Committee approval. Then he had the bright idea of helping these children get money for their pain and suffering through litigation. He also had the bright idea of hawking a new measles-only vaccine as a safer alternative to the MMR vaccine he was convinced was unsafe. Finally, he withheld any information that might compromise the publication of his paper from the Lancet.

So, just as I thought, Wakefield's behavior demonstrates that he was a medical research scientist with an agenda (including making a name and some money for himself), like thousands of other medical research scientists.

[catbirdsteed]

Certainly, Best is unhinged, but, at best, the, the above Best post really is off topic. Plutonia, mods?

[Joe Hillshoist]

2) Wakefield accepted 50,000 pounds from the Legal Aid Board to cover the expenses of four children in his study, but used half of it for "purposes other than those for which he said it was needed."


*****

I actually believe all of these charges. Wakefield somehow got it in his head that the MMR was causing gastrointestinal problems as well as autism symptoms in children and he sought out subjects to prove his hypothesis. He also took money from the Legal Aid Board to cover the expenses of some of these children, but he double-billed the National Health Service for these expenses. He also ordered tests on some of these children with parental rather than Ethical Committee approval. Then he had the bright idea of helping these children get money for their pain and suffering through litigation. He also had the bright idea of hawking a new measles-only vaccine as a safer alternative to the MMR vaccine he was convinced was unsafe. Finally, he withheld any information that might compromise the publication of his paper from the Lancet.

So, just as I thought, Wakefield's behavior demonstrates that he was a medical research scientist with an agenda (including making a name and some money for himself), like thousands of other medical research scientists.

That is true and there is nothing wrong with that if its done properly, (as in proper science) he didn't do that, and tho he may have began to afterward that doesn't help him. Saying I put the cart before the horse when you have ripped off legal aid (I've relied on the Australian version before, its permanantly underfunded.) isn't going to garner any sympathy.

In fact it puts everything he does under scrutiny, regardless of what others do.

[stickdog99]

Call me crazy, but I just keep seeing this Co$ conspiracy everywhere! ...

This is a link to the Foster report on Scientology. This is what the report states.

"Of course there are a number of other organisations in which Scientologists are actively involved. I do not know precisely how many but broadly the list would cover the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Scientology Ex-Service Men and Women's League, The National Trust, Conservation Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Campaign against Psychiatric Atrocities, Society for Individual
Freedom, the Association for Health Development and Aid etc."

The BMA and BMJ have made no statement either way in terms of the current status of scientology. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that they are sympathetic to their ideas in psychiatry as featured on a number of occasions by the BMJ.

It is notable to observe their decision in the case of Raj Persaud.

The GMC began investigating Persaud when he ran afoul of The Church of Scientology, which holds that the entire field of psychology is fraudulent. A 2005 Independent article in which Persaud criticized Scientology's founder, L Ron Hubbard, was found to contain plagiarized passages. After the article was published, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which was founded by The Church of Scientology, brought a formal complaint to the GMC"

Raj Persaud's position was as follows :-

"In this Dr Persaud declares himself "shocked" to receive notice of the retraction and by its proposed terms. He says that the BMJ edited the first paragraph of his original copy, which attributed all subsequent paragraphs to the work of Thomas Blass, whose book he was reviewing. "The implication in the retraction, that in writing this book review I took from sources other than writers whose material I was reviewing without permission or acknowledgement and sought to pass the work off as my own, is wholly unfounded. It is not clear from the retraction that the BMJ knew, as it did, I had sent the copy of the published BMJ review to Thomas Blass; the absence of any subsequent complaint from him would be widely taken as implicit permission from the author to write about his work on this occasion, as I had done."

In conclusion, we have the Foster report admitting that scientologists exist in the British Medical Association. We have a leading psychiatrist criticising the Church of Scientology. We have the British Medical Association's propaganda machine being sympathetic to scientologists views. We then have the BMJ dissociating from a psychiatrist who has written against scientology. From an observational point of view, it is rather fascinating.

Hard not to see a vast pernicious, pervasive conspiracy, really.

You do realize that the BMJ is the journal that commissioned and published Rob Deer's article that eviscerated Wakefield. Right? You do realize that General Medical Council is the panel that censured Wakefield. Right?

While I'm fairly certain that the perfect irony of your breathless "discovery" of Scientologists under the rock of Rob Deer's beloved British Medical Journal and General Medical Council will be lost on you, hopefully everyone else with the patience to have followed this thread to this point will get a small laugh.

Jeff? barracuda?

[stickdog99]

Look, you don't have to prove to me that the Co$ is bad. Frankly, it doesn't help your argument in any way to do so. I know the Co$ is bad. But I don't think questioning certain vaccines or vaccine ingredients is bad, so I don't see the "obvious" connection that you see. Even if I did think that questioning certain vaccines or vaccine ingredients was bad, this would not get around your fundamental logical flaw of assuming that if two entities share an important characteristic, then there is likely to be some direct connection between them.

I'm all for true information. sticky. If you have some re vaccine safety, why not share it instead of questioning my questioning of Scientology?

I'm not questioning your questioning of Scientology. I'm questioning your now clearly disturbing paranoia regarding the supposed intimate relationship of dozens of organizations, both those questioning vaccination and those condemning vaccination questioners, with the ubiquitous evil minions of Scientology.

Does my providing this link automatically make me a member of an evil Aluminum Army fronted by Scientologists?

I'm relatively certain that you would quite easily be able to find some sort of connection between this paper and Scientology, if only you were once again to put the trusty internet to work on the case.