Statement From Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No Fraud. No Hoax. No Profit Motive.

by Dr. Andrew Wakefield Friday, Jan. 28, 2011 at 8:09 AM



Allegations by BMJ journalist Brian Deer against Dr. Andrew Wakefield's '98 research paper showing links between vaccines and autism have no basis in fact and only demonstrate the scientific ignorance of Brian Deer.



Statement From Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No Fraud. No Hoax. No Profit Motive.

January 24, 2011

AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 13, 2011 -- Dr. Andrew Wakefield issued the following statement today on the recent British Medical Journal articles:

"The British Medical Journal and reporter Brian Deer recently alleged that my 1998 research paper was 'a hoax' and 'an elaborate fraud' and that my motivation was profit.

"I want to make one thing crystal clear for the record – my research and the serious medical problems found in those children were not a hoax and there was no fraud whatsoever. Nor did I seek to profit from our findings.

"I stand by the Lancet paper's methodology and the results which call for more research into whether environmental triggers cause gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in children. In fact, despite media reports to the contrary, the results of my research have been duplicated in five other countries (to see citations to studies, visit http://tinyurl.com/4hrdt5y.)

"It is not unexpected to see poor reporting and misinformation coming from Brian Deer, the lead reporter of the recent BMJ coverage. But to see coverage in other media that cites Deer's shoddy journalism in the BMJ as a final justification to claim there is no link between vaccines and autism is ludicrous. The MMR is only one vaccine of the eleven vaccinations on the pediatric schedule that has been studied for causing developmental problems such as autism. That is fact, not opinion. Any medical professional, government official or journalist who states that the case is closed on whether vaccines cause autism is jumping to conclusions without the research to back it up.

"I continue to fully support more independent research to determine if environmental triggers, including vaccines, are causing autism and other developmental problems. The current rate of autism is 1 in 110 children in the United States and 1 in 64 children in the U.K. My goal has always been and will remain the health and safety of children. Since the Lancet paper, I have lost my job, my career and my country. To claim that my motivation was profit is patently untrue. I will not be deterred - this issue is far too important."

Contact: Esther Bochner, Ebochner [at] skyhorsepublishing.com, 212-643-6816x224

SOURCE Andrew J. Wakefield

http://www.garynull.com/home/statement-from-dr-andrew-wakefield-no-fraud-no-hoax-no-profi.html





If we're going to accuse anyone of conducting research for a profit motive, maybe we need to shine the spotlight back on Brian Deer;





"It is not reasonable to conclude, as they have, that “…none of the antivaccinationists’ claims of widespread injury from vaccines have withstood the tests of time and science” particularly when autism—now a virtual epidemic—has been proven causative and/or contributory in courts of law via a growing number of documented cases.

Regarding ‘follow the money’ pursuits, it should be noted that making money is a good thing. It is HOW one makes money––whether through honest contribution to the betterment of life, or at the expense of others––and HOW one uses money that are important.

Nothing in this writer’s reading of the latest circus of media papers changes beliefs about the character of Dr. Wakefield. Rather, it raises more concern about the motives, knowledge and/or naivety of Dr. Wakefield’s attackers.

In that context, having scanned the latest “journalistic” attacks upon Wakefield for “undisclosed business deals,” which accuse Wakefield of intention to profit on a new vaccine of his design, one is loath to understand why we’ve yet to hear mainstream media attacks upon Dr. Paul Offit, the physician who writes books in support of vaccines while earning “lottery” style profits from the Rotateq vaccine he co-created with Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP) to ‘immunize’ against Rotavirus.

What’s going on here?

At this site: ( http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/voting…) please note authors Dan Olmsted’s and Mark Blaxill’s commentary: …the extraordinary valuation placed on CHOP’s patents [2 million sale to Royalty Pharma] raise concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine — to effectively vote himself rich. [Offit’s earnings estimated between & 55 million]

Further the authors note: The million- million range is consistent not only with CHOP’s published royalty arrangements but with typical medical patent standards:

–At Boston Children’s Hospital, inventors get 25% of “net lifetime revenues” for all income over 0,000. For royalty amounts smaller than 0,000 inventors receive 45-100% of revenues.

– At Arkansas Children’s Hospital, inventors get 35% of “net royalties” after the first 0K and 50% before that.

– At the University of Virginia, inventors get 15% of “total royalty income” over million and a sliding scale of 25-50%for amounts smaller than that.

– At the University of California, inventors get 35% of “net royalties.” [Emphasis added]

Physicians and hospitals often profit from medical patents, as you can see, so why witch-hunt about Dr. Wakefield’s purported business deals, if there were any?

It is noteworthy that the authors of this NEJM paper have reported many significant conflicts of interest in their disclosure forms, which one must account in evaluating their objectivity. We all make money from our work, so attacking Andy Wakefield for such possible endeavor but not Offit, Poland, and Jacobson makes no sense and merely ‘argumentum ad hominum’ [attacks against a person]. In my view, it is motive and distortion of truth, which are the ‘smell tests’ for the ‘conflict of interest’ issues.

Getting caught up in fallacious ‘argumentum ad hominem’ does nothing to advance the investigation and safety assessment of vaccines. Rather than directing more attention to the circumstances of Andy Wakefield, we need to return our focus to children’s health. Passion, in this context, needs to be first for children’s health, and secondarily, vaccine safety with somewhere trailing down the line––vaccine efficacy. Attacking or defending Andy Wakefield or Paul Offit does not clarify the role of vaccines in either health or disease. It just makes for salacious accusations.

Following this ‘rabbit-hole-to-nowhere’ blame game is completely off-point. If ‘following the money’ demonstrates Andy Wakefield to be lacking in character (which this writer seriously doubts), then so-be-it. Then, let’s “follow the money” for all who profit from the productions, sales, distribution and injecting of vaccines."

entire article here;

http://vactruth.com/2011/01/23/the-saga-of-andy-wakefield-continues/

Retracing the Money Trail from CDC to Pharma

CDC Vaccine Advisor $cores Big $$!



Following allegations against Dr. Andrew Wakefield, researchers retrace the money trail to CDC vaccine advisor;



Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market

By Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill

"Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) took home a fortune of at least million as part of a 2 million sale by CHOP of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine to Royalty Pharma in April of last year, according to an investigation by Age of Autism. Based on an analysis of current CHOP administrative policies, the amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as million.

There is nothing improper about receiving compensation for a patented innovation; but the extraordinary valuation placed on CHOP’s patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine -- to effectively vote himself rich.

Offit has steadfastly refused to say how much he made from the vaccine. Based on the income distribution guidelines set forth in CHOP’s current administrative policy manual (HERE) entitled “Patent and Intellectual Property Policy,” Offit’s share of this transaction -- the “inventor’s share of net income” -- would have earned him a personal distribution of 30%. In a Moody’s report dated June 2008, CHOP reported net proceeds from the Rotateq transaction of 3 million, a deal basis that would put the value of Offit’s 30% share at .9 million.

Although the royalty transaction amounts and current CHOP inventor shares are publicly known, several factors complicate a precise calculation of Offit’s income. Royalty Pharma paid 2 million for the Rotateq royalty stream, but CHOP reported proceeds of only 3 million. Since most universities calculate income based on net royalties, the lower number might more closely reflect the basis for calculating Offit’s income. If CHOP applied an inventor share of 30% to a transaction value of 3 million they would have then been required to distribute .9 million to Offit.

CHOP’s 30% policy for inventor share is consistent with the current practices of other children’s hospitals. But depending on what standard was in effect when the patents were filed and how it was applied to Offit’s proceeds, the amount could be lower. For example, the million difference between the payment made by Royalty Pharma and the proceeds received by CHOP comprises 15.9% of the Royalty Pharma payment (15% is the lowest inventor share percentage we uncovered in our investigation) and could reflect the distribution to Offit,

So although it is clear that Offit’s personal share of CHOP’s royalty transaction was large, the exact amount could range from as little as million to as much as million. Age of Autism chose to feature the smaller amounts in this report."



article here;

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/voting-himself-rich-cdc-vaccine-adviser-made-29-million-or-more-after-using-role-to-create-market.html



Looks like BMJ "journalist Brian Deer is following the wrong money trail!!