White paper polio – Evan Horner

I did a search on Google and found a article titled “Researcher Behind Debunked Autism-Vaccine Study Stood To Make Millions” By: Michelle Diament on a website called “disabilityscoop”. It talks about how the researcher the debunked the research that first suggested a link between autism and vaccines and how he stood to make over $43 million annually selling replacement vaccines and diagnostic products.

“The new information casts further doubt on the credibility of Wakefield who set off a worldwide vaccine scare with his 1998 study in the journal The Lancet which first suggested a link between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine.”

“Amid numerous questions about the study, The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s paper last year just months before his British medical license was stripped.

Deer reports this week that Wakefield was asked by his superiors at the University College London in 1999 to replicate his study using a larger sampling of 150 children after they expressed concerns about a “serious conflict of interest” given his business plans.”

“In the report published Tuesday, journalist Brian Deer reveals that Andrew Wakefield held a patent for “a ‘safer’ single measles shot.””


The Claim I feel set up by this article is that the researcher has his own agenda. He made a big deal about how Wakefield”s research was completely wrong, but seeing the facts brought up by the article about the amount of money he was about to make from the “safer” vaccines he developed. I’m not at liberty to just accuse him of lying but the article makes it seem like it should at least be looked into.

This entry was posted in White Paper Polio. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to White paper polio – Evan Horner

  1. davidbdale says:

    You may have found an extremely important source here, Evan. Try harder to make your claim about it clearly. You may want to argue that I get hung up on obvious typographical errors of lapses of concentration, but your grade will always reflect whether you took the time to eliminate those errors from your work. We all make typos. One or two might not create serious confusion. One or two might not make readers doubt our authority to say any reliable. But a pattern of errors wastes the most valuable source of our credibility.

    *a article

    “Talks about” is hopelessly vague. Read “Say Something” to remind yourself why.

    “Further doubt”? This is the first doubt you’ve mentioned.

    Punctuation: The Lancet, a periodical title.

    Does the first quote come from the article you cite as a source? Does the second quote?

    Who’s Deer?
    Who’s “he”? in “He made a big deal . . . .”?
    What’s “it” in: “it should be looked into”?

    Fails for Grammar Rule 7.
    Fails for Grammar Rule 11.
    Go to Grammar Basics (always available in the sidebar) for help finding the fatal errors. Fix them to reveal your true grade and this note disappears. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s