top of page

"That One Study" - A Rebuttal

I found this brilliant, anonymous post online - check it out!

This is Dr. Wakefield's study that was published then retracted from the Lancet. He was one of thirteen authors. The study was published in 1998.

Do yourself a favor and read it. They do not claim the vaccine caused autism. They simply convey what the parents reported, which was that both autism and bowel troubles began directly after receiving the vaccine. It would have been fraudulent and unethical not to report that.

The CDC got wind of this and decided to look into it. They did, and initially found a 760% increased risk of autism based on vaccines given in the first month of life alone. This was not the mmr vaccine and it was most definitely not the entire schedule. Something else was at play. Here are their initial findings.

They convened a meeting to discuss these findings. At the meeting the decision was made to cover up the findings and carry on with vaccination as usual. You can read the transcript of that meeting here.

They then spent the next four years trying to hide the relationship between vaccines and autism. They went so far as to throw data in the trash. Literally. They brought a trash can into the room and threw uncooperative data in the trash.

You can listen to the testimony of one of the researchers who did this. Here is U.S. Representative Bill Posey reading the testimony of CDC employee, Dr. William Thompson on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Skip to 3:45 in the video if you want to skip the hyperbole.

Discredited, you say?

Even the head of the CDC admitted on CNN that vaccines cause autism. She did it with a forked tongue. What she said was, "Vaccines cause autism like symptoms." Autism is defined by its symptoms, so autism like symptoms is the same thing as autism. She then went on to say "vaccines do not cause autism." One is a lie. Here is the video of her appearance on CNN in 2007. She is now president of Merck's international vaccine division:

You see, there were people attempting for years to get this information hidden. While I was not privy to the inside dealings, an executive of the manufacturer of the vaccine in question was also an officer of the parent company of the journal that published the paper. His brother was the judge deciding the court case for which the study was originally done:

The son of one of the men who originally approved the vaccine was an editor of a prominent newspaper in London. He hired a reporter to spread rumors about Dr. Wakefield:

They put pressure on the thirteen doctors and scientists who had written the paper. In 2004, six years after the paper was written, they finally got ten of the authors to put their names to a "Retraction of an Interpretation." The interesting thing to note is, the interpretation they are retracting is not found in the original paper, so it was purely a publicity stunt.

Here is their "Retraction of an Interpretation."

Apparently that was not sufficient, so they continued to pursue a full retraction. They finally got it, but it was about as weak a retraction as could possibly be. It did not call into question any of the findings but considering that most people only read the news report, not the real thing, it was all that was needed.

Here is the reason it was retracted:

"the claims in the original paper that children were 'consecutively referred' and that investigations were 'approved' by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false."

You can read the retraction here:

Now does that sound like his findings were disproven?

The Editor in Chief of the Lancet at the time this fiasco was occurring has written a scathing indictment of medical science and medical science publishing that he printed in his own journal. Was it a direct response to his experience of spending years trying to defend this good science from being retracted for commercial and political purposes? It is hard to know. It seems broad and general. Either way, he was at the heart of the process and it took twelve years for them to force the retraction. That is unheard of. Here is his scathing indictment:

The paper was a write up of a series of clinical cases. It did not require a stamp of approval from the ethics board. All the parents have spoken publicly in gratitude of the doctors and researchers involved.

Have the findings been disproven? Remember, the findings were not epidemiological in nature. They were simply reporting a correlation between autism and bowel disease and possibly with vaccines in most of the patients being treated.

In fact, many scientist and doctors across the world have reproduced these findings. You can find a list of twenty eight such studies here, though they represent only a small fraction of the work inspired by the original paper. These are not specifically papers linking vaccines and autism. Like the original paper, they are more focused on linking autism and bowel disease:

That said, others have done a ton of research on the link between vaccines and autism. You can find another 120 plus studies linking vaccines and autism here. They are all peer reviewed, published in medical scientific journals. They represent the tip of the iceberg:

There have been a handful of studies, mostly performed by the CDC themselves, that have "failed to find a link" between vaccines and autism. They are touted in the media as proof there is no link. If you actually read the studies you will find they do no such thing. You can read an excellent expose on the tobacco science being used to claim "the science is settled" and "there is no link between vaccines and autism" by somebody who has actually read all the studies. Many of the studies are simply fraudulent. Others are so poorly designed as to be bound to fail. There is not a good study in the bunch:

Learn more in this book:


PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.


bottom of page