Originally Posted by WildKingdom
Actually, I'm perfectly aware of that fact. Just because that author was exonerated in no way changes that fact that the Wakefield paper was bogus and was retracted by the Lancet.
And yet the article from the Daily Mail that you link to ONLY mention's Wakefield's paper. It alludes to lots of other research, but no references are given.
From the Daily mail article:
So, per the bolded, he is a paid expert witness for plaintiff's lawyers. Clearly an unbiased source.
The article only mentions Wakefield's paper, but Dr. Fletcher says that "he has seen a 'steady accumulation of evidence' from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children."
No references were given in that article --which to me says that the journalist did a shoddy job, not that Dr. Fletcher was wrong, because evidence of MMR-induced brain damage has been clearly documented in cases world-wide, including the 2000-odd cases compensated here in the US. It's also been announced very recently in both Italy and France that those governments have conceded MMR-induced autism cases.
Asfor your bolded reference that he was a paid witness for the plaintiff's lawyers, does that make him more biased than those whoa re paid to claim vaccine safety?
Per your quote ("He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see."), it seems to me very important that he mentions "thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see."
This, coming from the Chief Scientific Officer of the Department of Health, and Medical Assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines? The man who was responsible for deciding if new vaccines were safe??
That a man in his position could come to the following conclusion is monumentally important:
"There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
Funny, we've seen similar criticism of the drug industry from Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, and senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, and Dr. Helen Ratajczak, former senior scientist of Bohringer-Ingelheim pharmaceuticals.
Yet some people still insist on focusing on Andrew Wakefield. I guess they think if they fuss enough about Wakefield, nobody will pay attention to the mounting evidence that vaccines can and do cause far more damage than is currently admitted by the pharmaceutical industry.