The Wakefield Saga to Date

Image result for Andrew Wakefield images
Dr Wakefield (along with his co-authors) concluded that further studies should take place to examine an association found between gut disbiosis in children with autism and the measles portion of the MMR. He suggested the measles vaccine be given seperately until such studies could take place. The paper was reviewed by peers and published in the Lancet.
What ensued was an all-out character and career assassination by journalist-turned-shill, Brian Deer. Who was later found to have fabricated ALL of the information used against wakefield and his team.
Dr. Wakefield's co-author has since been granted complete vindication and his license returned. Dr. Wakefield could enjoy the same if he chose to return to England to have his case heard.
1. His work was not a scientific "study."
Wakefield et al actually published a "paper". Scientific papers are designed to answer a simple question. In this case the question was; do children with regressive autism have chronic enterocolitis?…/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911…/abstract
2. "His paper claimed the MMR caused autism."
Wakefield et al's conclusions documented in his paper: "We identified associated gastrointestinal (GI) disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers."
He does NOT say the MMR vaccine causes autism or even that the GI disease was caused by the MMR. He answered the simple question that yes... GI disease and developmental regression was seen in a group of "previously normal children". Wakefield et al's conclusion is now validated with the weight of scientific data.
We now know that gastrointestinal disease is closely related to autism; " microbiome-CNS signaling", "gut bacteria may contribute to ASD", "overlaps with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and autoimmunity", "microbiome growth", "Maladaptive behaviors correlate with GI problems", "dietary factors may play a role as secondary triggers of autism", "gastrointestinal dysfunction characterizes a subset of children with ASD", "immune reactivity to gluten", "affected activity of brain regions", "addressing GI problems", and on and on (science references).…/dietary-therapies-gi-science.html
His paper's conclusions were REPLICATED and proven true:
Walker, S., Fortunato, J., Gonzalez, L., Krigsman, A. (2013). Identification of unique gene expression profile in children with regressive autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and ileocolitis. PlosOne. Retrieved from…/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pon…
"Taken as a whole, the picture that emerges is one in which GI symptomatic children with ASD in whom cellular infiltrate is present in the ileum and colon have a distinct molecular signature that is consistent with the larger disease categories of gastrointestinal disease, and more specifically, overlaps with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and autoimmunity."
Krigsman et al. (2010). Clinical presentation and histologic findings at ileocolonoscopy in children with autistic spectrum disorder and chronic gastrointestinal sysmptoms. Libertas Academia. Retrieved from
Conclusions: Patients with autism or related disorders exhibiting chronic gastrointestinal symptoms demonstrate ileal or colonic inflammation upon light microscopic examination of biopsy tissue. Further work is needed to determine whether resolution of histopathology with appropriate therapy is accompanied by GI symptomatic and cognitive/behavioral improvement.
3. "Wakefield was charged with "fraud", or "forged data"
The data in question was the pathology reports that showed gastointestinaldisease. Wakefield was not in charge of evaluating the pathology reports in this paper that was the charge of Dr. John O' Leary an independent Dublin pathologist. Dr. O'Leary stands by his reports, and they are not challenged by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC).
The UK General Medical Council charged Wakefield with serious professional misconduct and sanction, Wakefield was found guilty by the GMC (General Medical Council, pg. 7 & 9).
Professor Walker-Smith was also charged with and found guilty of serious professional misconduct and sanction, just as Wakefield. The description of the charges were similar with one variation being the monies given to Wakefield via the Legal Aid Board (LAB). On appeal all of the GMC's rulings toward Walker-Smith were overturned. the UK High Court's Mr. Justice Mitting criticized the U.K. General Medical Council, stating its judgment had been "based on inadequate and superficial reasoning" (High Court Of Justice, 2010).
The claims of the BMC were deemed false to which they did not appeal this decision.
Professor Murch's official charges were also serious professional misconduct and sanction. He was found guilty of professional misconduct but not of sanction.
On 9 November, David Lewis of the National Whistleblower's Center in Washington DC published a letter in the BMJ ( arguing that Wakefield did not commit research fraud.…/re-how-case-against-mmr-vaccine-was-fi…
This comment typically refers to the clinical investigations carried out by Walker-Smith, which included colonoscopies, barium studies, and lumbar punctures (LP). On appeal this charge by the General Medical Council as being "not clinically indicated" (pg. 4) was overturned by the U.K.'s High Court Of Justice (High Court Of Justice, 2010).
It is also important to note that the children had a positive diagnosis of GI disease through this workup, and were appropriately treated. The parents gave full consent for the procedures and were satisfied with the diagnosis and subsequent treatment. These children were not managed appropriately by their general practitioners regarding their untreated colitis. Further the LP's were ordered to asses the function of the CNS, which is appropriate since we now know that autism is a brain (encephalopathy)/body disorder, and the vaccine strain of measles has been found in the CNS of patients with encephalitis (science references). Barium studies are routine in assessing the upper GI tract.
This is a thorough examination of the entire Wakefield story. After an encounter with a patient's mother, a doctor realizes he was parroting things told to him without researching the truth, and in the end, says he would apologize to Dr. Wakefield if he ever met him: