#dr wakefield

“No- you- you are- break—“

“Marcus??”

“Break— SHUT THE HELL UP.”

“WHO YOU THINK YOU TALKING TO??”

New Study Shows LED Lights Attract Fewer Insects than Other Lights

The team now highlights the urgent need for further research on other heat-seeking flies that transmit disease, including mosquitoes that are carriers of pathogens that cause damaging diseases such as malaria and Zika fever.

The study, funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and UK lighting manufacturer Integral LED, used customised traps at 18 field test sites across south-west England

Independant media and journalists seem to be the only ones focused on the facts in this case. Watch the full interview with the facts from the person accoused of all sorts of things that don't match the facts.

Amplify’d from naturalnews.tv

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the British Medical Journal, science and vaccines (4580 views) Uploaded 2/4/2011 12:02:32 AM by HealthRanger   (108 videos)

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the British Medical Journal, science and vaccines. In this video interview, Dr Wakefield says that BMJ is factually incorrect in accusing Wakefield of falsifying the study data in his 1998 paper published in The Lancet. "[The data] were faithfully reproduced in the Lancet paper, and they were made in the most scrupulous, meticulous way. Those are the facts. Brian Deer knew those facts. When he made his allegations to the BMJ, he knew those facts. Did he disclose them to the BMJ? More importantly, did the BMJ, as a peer reviewed scientific journal, did they check the facts? Because the facts were fully available to them in the book Callous Disregard."

Read more at naturalnews.tv

The British Medical Journal misrepresented the facts in this case where research established a link between vaccines and autism. In the court case, the BMJ also failed to disclose that its funding comes primarily through vaccine producers. The allegations it made, that Dr. Wakefield fabricated his study, have been proven false.

Amplify’d from www.sott.net

In light of new evidence that has emerged clearing Dr Wakefield of the allegations that he fabricated study data involving MMR vaccines and symptoms of autism, Dr Wakefield is now publicly demanding a retraction from the British Medical Journal and author Brian Deer. Documents just made public reveal that another medical research team which included a senior pathologist independently documented evidence of a possible MMR vaccine - autism link 14 months before Dr Wakefield's paper first appears in The Lancet -- based on several of the same children appearing in Dr Wakefield's study. These documents include detailed clinical notes describing the pathology in seven children following MMR vaccination. These notes include references to "autism" and chronic gastrointestinal inflammation, among others.

This evidence, which was just made public, refutes the accusations of fraud leveled against Dr Andrew Wakefield by the British Medical Journal and reporter Brian Deer. This evidence was made available to the BMJ before the publication of their accusations, but they chose to ignore it. Dr Wakefield, in essence, has been falsely accused by the BMJ in what is now being widely recognized as a political witch hunt against the most visible researcher questioning the safety of MMR vaccines.

BMJ caught in highly politicized scientific fraud

The BMJ, in essence, has been caught pulling off what may be the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated by any medical journal in the history of the world. It grossly misrepresented the facts in falsely accusing Dr Wakefield of fabricating the clinical trial data that led to his landmark study being published in The Lancet in 1998. The innocence of Dr Wakefield has now been established by these newly-released documents.

The British Medical Journal also failed to disclose that its own finances are largely funded by vaccine manufacturers who fill the journal with paid advertising, and that such financial ties may have influenced the journal's decision to attempt to destroy the reputation of a researcher whose findings threatened the profits of its top sponsors. If you follow the money in this story, in other words, it leads right to the editors of BMJ, whose salaries are effectively financed by vaccine manufacturers. This all-important conflict of interest is almost never discussed in the mainstream media, by the way.

Read more at www.sott.net