Pharma have no scruples when it comes to meddling professionals!

For the last few weeks I have been writing about how Big Pharma are persecuting and destroying the professionals who get in their way of making money in the vaccine business. Pharmaceutical Industries cannot have interfering professionals getting in their way of making lucrative profits, so whenever a professional speaks out about the dangers of vaccines, out of the blue appears a complainant complaining about whether that professional is 'fit to practice'. In my article Pharma + Professional Persecution = Profits

I said :-

"Pharmaceutical Industries have few morals when it comes to dealing with professionals who step over the line and try to expose the adverse reactions to their vaccines and drugs.Of course the drug companies do not work alone, they foster strong connections with Governments,who in turn influence the medical profession and even the media. This allows the freedom to pedal their wares without the fear of reprisal. A whistle blowing professional is a spanner in their well oiled works and must be silenced quickly and efficiently, the methods the drug companies often use to do this can only be described as barbaric."

Let's look at three of the professionals who have spoken out about their concerns on adverse reactions to vaccines and how that is put into practice.

Dr Andrew Wakefield - for information into the background of his case go to

Cry Shame

In 2004 a complaint was made to the GMC about Dr Wakefield not by a client as one would expect but by Brian Deer, Deer, a freelance journalist, was at the time working for the Times newspaper group. The person who commissioned Brian Deer was a Paul Nuki of the 'Sunday Times', sometimes Head of Newsroom investigations and "Focus" editor. Paul Nuki is son of Professor George Nuki. Professor George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories' Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval. ......sitting on the CSM with Professor George Nuki was Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor Sir David Hull [April 2008]

MMR/AUTISM & THE TAMING OF THE BRITISH MEDIA

That is suspicious enough but this is where things begin to get very suspicious.

Was it I wonder a pure coincidence that Brian Deer who was previously well known for his support for Glaxo Smith Kline's vaccine programme chose to find a commissioning editor in a man whose father was connected to various vaccine companies and had sat on the very committee that mistakenly passed the Pluserix MMR vaccination for safety? Maybe, however.........

Last week Brian Deer wrote this article in the Sunday Times

In this article Deer reports that Wakefield had misreported and changed results in his research that in 1998 that was reported in the medical journal The Lancet.

Deer claims that :-

"However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children´s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal."

However since that article in the Sunday Times was written it has materialized that Deer had actually made the above claims up. See Here

An article by Melanie Phillips in the Spectator revealed at no time when writing in the Sunday Times had Deer actually revealed that HE was the complainant. She says:-

"What the Sunday Times did not report was that the GMC investigation into Wakefield was triggered by a complaint from... Brian Deer, who furnished the allegations against him four years ago. He has thus been reporting upon the hearing into his own complaint. Since when has a reputable paper published a story by a reporter who is actually part of that story himself -- without saying so – and who uses information arising from the disciplinary hearing which he himself has instigated and which is investigating allegations he himself made in the first place?"

So actually Deer was not reporting the news as one would expect from a reputable journalist but instead was making it, or at least trying to.

It also appears that Deer had continued an on going campaign through his own website against Wakefield and was even appealing for donations to keep his work going.

Deer claims on his website not to be a complainant in the case. However the seventy pages of GMC charges against the eminent doctors appear based closely on the freelancer´s allegations including those The Sunday Times refused to publish in 2004. It seems difficult for the public to conceive how such a close personal involvement can fall within the normal range of detached objectivity and impartiality required of someone claiming to follow the calling of a professional journalist.Of course if you think back to his Glaxo Smith Kline affiliations you have to wonder if he had not got unrevealed conflicts of interest that make it worth his while. This is pure speculation and maybe a very suspicious mind on my behalf of course.

Before leaving the Wakefield Case I would just like to mention that Melanie Phillips is a journalist who works for the Daily Mail. In November 2005 she wrote an article on MMR triple vaccine, which Ben Goldacre a journalist for The Guardian, subsequently condemned. Her article was then discussed and vilified on the BMJ website rapid responses. See Her Response She writes in her usual forthright manner.

Of course again Pharma influences seem to be at work because Dr Goldacre won the Glaxo SmithKline sponsored Association of British Science Writer's award for the best feature science article of 2003 for his article on MMR 'Never mind the facts',

See Here his name listed with a few other famous names all who have written for various newspapers supporting the MMR and all with very strong alliances with Glaxo or other giant drug firms.

Now lets move to the case of Dr Jayne Donegan.

In Dr Donegans case a Judge Sedley complained about her to the GMC. Note once again not a client. In her case the prosecution expert witness for the GMC was a Dr David Elliman. Read her own account of her case from the beginning here and see

"how some members of the UK´s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation are so zealotic and unethical they are prepared to

give inappropriate and misleading evidence on vaccines to the English Court

this was just to ensure two little girls were vaccinated against the children´s and mothers wishes

when that was not in the children´s best interests

how the GMC prosecutor´s expert witness, Dr David Elliman, was prepared to twist the facts and give inappropriate and misleading evidence against Dr Donegan.

Dr Elliman is a consultant paediatrician of Great Ormond St Childrens´ Hospital London, lifelong vaccination proponent, and sometime UK HPA spokesman on vaccination issues."

Like Brian Deer, Dr David Elliman to has links to Glaxo Smith Kline.and another drugs giant Merck.

"Professor David Elliman, whose study said fears of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism were unfounded, admitted that he and Dr Helen Bedford had been given money by drugs giants SmithKline Beecham and Pasteur Merieux Merck Sharp & Dohme. Their report, MMR Vaccine - Worries Are Not Justified, is published in the current issue of the medical journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, and was used by the government to reiterate its view that the vaccine is safe."--Media Makers of MMR II---Aventis Pasteur MSD"

So the research funded by the manufacturers of the vaccines is possibly the same research that the Government use to reiterate its view that the vaccines are safe. Mmmm.....

See Here on a page dedicated to David Elliman it clearly has links to this letter :-

"Elliman & Bedford Letter to Private Eye (June 14 2002) MMRgy-bargy

Sir,

Private Eye Special Report - MMR We were saddened (although not entirely surprised), to read the news item about our review, for the British Medical Journal, of the Eye special report. The comment that our report was scathing "...but they would say that, wouldn´t they" could be taken to imply that our critical comments were primarily a result of receiving reimbursement from vaccine manufacturers for attending educational meetings or conducting research. It is a pity that the Eye consider this to be an appropriate response, but then they would say that wouldn´t they? While it is correct to say that we would be critical, it is because we have taken the time to look at ALL the scientific evidence on this issue, not just that provided by a select very vocal group. We would be the first to highlight any manipulation of the truth on the part of drug companies or the Department of Health and are very offended that it is implied that this is not the case.

We would like to point out that the Eye knows that the BMJ omitted to mention the above funding because we have been assiduous in declaring this in the past and it was only an oversight on the part of the BMJ that it did not happened on this occasion. Any funding we receive from vaccine manufacturers does not go into our own pockets. Indeed since we are aware that some people would consider receiving any such funds to be tantamount to being the mouthpiece of the manufacturers, we donate any payments other than funding for research, to charitable organisations. In this instance our fee from the BMJ was donated to the National Autistic Society. What, we wonder will the Eye make of that?

We look forward to reading a more considered review of your comments.

Yours sincerely,

HELEN BEDFORD,

Lecturer in Child Health, Institute of Child Health, London.

DAVID ELLIMAN,

Consultant in Community Child Health, St George´s"

If the coincidences stopped there I would be willing to say ok they are just coincidences, after all Dr's often get funding for research from drugs companies however then we go onto the case of Lisa Blakemore-Brown.

Her final vexatious complaint was from a family suddenly recommended to her from ADDISS or Attention Deficit Disorder Information Support Service.Read her account

"Within a matter of weeks another vexatious complaint was drummed up with a group called ADDISS heavily involved at the outset. This group was just beginning to receive considerable funding from Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company which first produced Thimerosal, a mercury containing vaccine preservative implicated in the rise in autism. Liam Byrne, a Labour Minister who has also had responsibility for matters linked to autism, defended the funding this same group received from the Department of Health at the same time. He was also brought in to spin out the considerable number of recommendations following a two year Select Committee Parliamentary inquiry into the influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Despite knowing about the actions of this group from a colleague, the British Psychological Society ploughed on. The University was bombarded with vexatious calls relating to me and the Director was told, out of the blue, to take early retirement. It was all quite shocking for everyone."

What you must realize of course is that Lisa was one of the first people to bring out concerns about 'Thimerosal' in vaccines being linked to Autism.She mentioned Eli Lilly in her book 'Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry' as being the first drugs company to include Thimerosal in their vaccines. ADDISS very definitely receives funding from Eli Lilly See Here

Shortly after her book was launched the National Autistic Society who always spoke extremely highly of Lisa invited her to speak at the Regents College in Regents Park London.

In her recent article Lisa says

"I was contacted by Judith Barnard and asked to speak at a conference looking at various matters pertaining to autism and they wanted me to speak on my concerns about MSBP. I agreed and this went ahead at Regents College in Regents Park London. I was also asked to meet with Judith Gould at the National Autistic Society to discuss matters. They apologised for not taking seriously my concerns in 1997, saying that they too now had a family being destroyed by a false allegation of MSBP and had finally seen what I had been trying to tell them some 5 years earlier. There was understandable deep concern about the Guidelines and the section I had picked out. Subsequently Judith Gould, Lorna Wing and Judith Barnard attended a meeting at the Department of Health.

They met Jacqui Smith and a civil servant, Jenny Gray. I was not invited to the meeting and from that time on no-one contacted me again from the NAS, well certainly not in a supportive manner. Something clearly happened at that meeting. My book, Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry: Autism, Asperger's Syndrome and ADHD is the only book on autism published by Jessica Kingsley that the NAS do not carry. I address concerns about the use of MSBP, concerns about the possibility that vaccines are implicated in autism, and a full chapter on how the educational system failed children with special educational needs"

In my article Is There More To Professor Simon Baron-Cohen Than Meets The Eye I showed how the NAS was receiving funding from Glaxo Smith Kline on GSK website which said:-

"National Autistic Society (NAS)

NAS provides support and advice to families and individuals across the autistic spectrum and are increasingly concerned by the lack of information and advice available to GPs and health professionals in terms of diagnosing this condition.

We have supported this organisation since 2003.

During 2006:

Our charitable donation of £9,988 will fund a targeted mailing to over 4,000 GP´s surgeries in the UK with information about autism, NAS and their services.

Our funding represents 0.15 per cent of their income overall."

More coincidences? Could be but have a look here and read about many more very famous names in the Vaccine/Autism war and notice they to all have it seems hidden conflicts of interest. This is when you really start to wonder what is really being covered up and for what reason?!!