Vaccine-Autism Researcher Indicted for Fraud

No, its not about Wakefield. Received this today. May interest some of you.

SILVER SPRING, Md., April 19, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Based on last week's indictment of vaccine-autism researcher Dr. Poul Thorsen for money laundering and mail fraud, the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs (CoMeD), a Maryland-based non-profit organization, is calling for further investigation related to the incident.

Thorsen, a Danish scientist, has already been cited for academic misconduct by Aarhus University in Denmark and is now charged with embezzling a $1 million grant for autism from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). For several years, Thorsen was involved in influential studies defending the controversial use of Thimerosal (about 50% mercury by weight) as a preservative in several vaccines.

Thimerosal has been linked to autism and other neurological diseases by numerous studies. Dr. Paul G. King, Scientific Advisor for CoMeD, explains, "We need to consider the ever-growing body of toxicity studies linking the mercury in Thimerosal to severe neurological deficits, like autism, and to immune-system and mitochondrial damage. Such studies have shown that the level of Thimerosal in vaccines is not safe."

As U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said, "Grant money for disease research is a precious commodity. When grant funds are stolen, we lose not only the money, but also the opportunity to better understand and cure debilitating diseases."

According to CoMeD, U.S. health agencies have relied upon these now questionable Danish studies to sanction the use of Thimerosal. CoMeD registered its concerns about Thorsen and his influence on these studies in a groundbreaking letter to Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General the Department of Health and Human Services, on September 15, 2010. An international community of researchers and advocates signed onto the CoMeD letter.

Now, CoMeD is calling for an independent investigation into the scientific validity of all Danish vaccine-autism studies conducted during Thorsen's tenure and into the possible inappropriate involvement of employees at the CDC. Further, CoMeD is calling for the retraction of the 2004 Institute of Medicine report rejecting the causal relationship between Thimerosal and autism, which relied upon the Danish studies in which Thorsen participated.

CoMeD seeks to restore the public confidence in vaccination programs by banning the use of mercury-based compounds in vaccines and other medicines. Despite CoMeD's efforts, the U.S. continues to license and recommend Thimerosal-preserved vaccines for use in the U.S. and the rest of the world. The World Health Organization, with the strong support of Bill Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, continues to distribute Thimerosal-preserved vaccines in the developing world.

Rev. Lisa K. Sykes, President of CoMeD, expects the recent charges against Thorsen to serve as a turning point in the debate over Thimerosal: "In addition to the charges against Dr. Thorsen, the United Nations is drafting a treaty to reduce mercury exposure, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reconsidering the use of mercury in dental fillings. I'd say its past time to reevaluate the legality, as well as the soundness, of injecting a Thimerosal-preserved vaccine into anyone."


SOURCE Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD)

They've finally indicted him! I was sure they would do everything they could to sweep this one under the carpet. They better review his work, otherwise it reeks of a terrible double standard in scientific investigation (oxymoron really - double standard and scientific investigation).

1. Wakefield didn't steal 1 million dollars from his own funding - Thorsen did. Which begs the question, what then was used to fund these non-link studies?

2. Have you even looked into Wakefield yourself, or are you just believing what you've been told to believe in popular media? Do you even know what was so called "fraudulent" about Wakefield's correlation or case series study. In other words it was simply a trend report of things seen in patients they were treating, which then asks a hypothesis at the end as to possible reasons for the trend - it doesn't actually test that hypothesis (so basically Wakefield has been called a fraud for asking a question). I thought you said there was nothing wrong with asking questions...

Why is there so much fear about asking this question that it would provoke people to claiming he is a fraud for asking it?

I know that Wakefield was paid off by the lawyers and that he was set to make a ton of money from the separate vaccines. Sounds like fraud to me.

As I understand it the study in question wasn't as much the issue as the way he whipped up the media in the press release, more than enough to turn public opinion from the MMR to the separate vaccine...

I don't know what this guy did and he deserves to be hung out to dry if he's falsifying public safety studies but I'm not sure I trust the CoMeD to be unbiased and 1mil doesn't go very far in medical research. I hope that you're wrong in this case!

It was only forwarded on from CoMeD. Perhaps Reuters will be more to your satisfaction.

Denmark scientist accused of stealing autism research money | Reuters

As for the paying off, do you realise how many scientists go on to work for pharma companies within months of releasing their vaccine safety studies? I remember looking at 8 separate studies and when I looked up those heading them, 6 now worked for one of the big two earning 6 figure salaries, 1 was developing their own vaccine and the other had retired!

Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, is now a president of Merck - pot calling the kettle black indeed...

:

---

As for the paying off, do you realise how many scientists go on to work for pharma companies within months of releasing their vaccine safety studies? I remember looking at 8 separate studies and when I looked up those heading them, 6 now worked for one of the big two earning 6 figure salaries, 1 was developing their own vaccine and the other had retired!

Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, is now a president of Merck - pot calling the kettle black indeed...

---

They deserve to be under scrutiny for conflict of interest but if you were running a pharma company who would you want to hire? I know I would be hiring someone who's an expert and there are your experts right there.

Thanks for the Reuters link, it was a lot more palatable.

:

---

They deserve to be under scrutiny for conflict of interest but if you were running a pharma company who would you want to hire? I know I would be hiring someone who's an expert and there are your experts right there.

---

:rolleyes: Yes, and I wonder how many decisions were made in the preceding years in the name of networking - feathering their future nest...

Also, Wakefield wasn't "paid off" - the lawyers were providing funding for a cohort study. While this is a conflict of interest, if we had to rule out any study that was funded by a stakeholder with a vested interest in the outcome of the study, you would have to write off at least 90% of ALL research as fraudulent. It is a sad fact in scientific research. It has to be funded by someone to get done, and it's usually those who have something to either gain or lose by the outcome who fund it.

There's a big difference between that, and stealing a million dollars to buy yourself a house and a motorbike, all the while forging receipts for research like Thorsen did. If he was forging receipts that means the research wasn't actually being done - so why haven't these studies full of phantom research been pulled?

:

---

There's a big difference between that, and stealing a million dollars to buy yourself a house and a motorbike, all the while forging receipts for research like Thorsen did. If he was forging receipts that means the research wasn't actually being done - so why haven't these studies full of phantom research been pulled?

---

I assume that they were using the other tens of millions of dollars to fund the research. Did you read the Reuterts report? That's part of the reason I was skeptical of the original report, it was pretty biased! (by pretty biased I mean shocking)

:

---

:rolleyes: Yes, and I wonder how many decisions were made in the preceding years in the name of networking - feathering their future nest...

Also, Wakefield wasn't "paid off" - the lawyers were providing funding for a cohort study. While this is a conflict of interest, if we had to rule out any study that was funded by a stakeholder with a vested interest in the outcome of the study, you would have to write off at least 90% of ALL research as fraudulent. It is a sad fact in scientific research. It has to be funded by someone to get done, and it's usually those who have something to either gain or lose by the outcome who fund it.

---

Networking is a fact of life but thats why these studies go into journals to be peer reviewed. Wakefields study was picked apart as part of that process, I don't need to remind you.

The theory with pharma research is that the company funding the study is set to either make money or save money. If the study has a positive finding and the actual product in the community doesn't perform or actually injures people then the company is set to lose billions in some cases. That does happen by the way.

Lawyers funding a study is complicated because they were only set to get a return on their investment if the finding of the study is in favor of the client. If it doesn't then the money is completely written off and they look like fools.

:

---

I assume that they were using the other tens of millions of dollars to fund the research. Did you read the Reuterts report? That's part of the reason I was skeptical of the original report, it was pretty biased! (by pretty biased I mean shocking)

---

Sorry, but you can't be serious? Can you honestly still be trying to defend this study where 10% of the funds were syphoned off and say there's nothing wrong with it... Everything about this studies must be questioned and re-evaluated.

They should be re-evaluated and I'm sure they will be but in turn your assuming that tens of millions of dollars in studies were falsified because someone siphoned off some of the money. Surely that is a much much bigger issue?

As a parent of a child with ASD this makes my blood boil. What a low life piece of scum. We live with these children every f**ing day and if there are answers out there to help them then they damn well deserve them. He stole money and bought a house and harley???? WTF??? Scum. Funding is already so desperately short. This is a growing concern as more and more children are being diagnosed and THIS is how he treats the research. I feel really, really upset actually. As my darling little boy sleeps upstairs and his desperate, exhausted mumma tries to find more answers this is what someone we trust with the answers does with $10million? :cry:

It really bothers me when valuble research hours and funding are used improperly!
They need to focus on finding real solutions and causes for problems, and providing quality information so parents can make thier choices

More focus on people and health outcomes than business and $$$. A lot of the time things start with good intentions which are lost to the temptation and the dollar. What is it they say? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."