曾焯文:名醫踢爆疫苗,遭誣陷,身敗名裂終平反 Chapman Chen: A Vaccine-critical Doctor, Framed up, Defamed & Vindicated

Share This:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

(Pls scroll down for Eng. summary)
而今撐疫苗人士及傳媒經常提到英國腸胃科名醫韋格非 (Andrew Wakefield) 批評疫苗的論文造假,以證明所有反疫苗論述皆為偽科學,殊不知英國高等法院早已判定韋格非的論文並無造假,只係絕大部份傳媒不肯報導而已。為了一篇質疑疫苗的論文,韋格非遭到主流西醫、西醫學刊、傳媒、政府、舖天蓋地圍攻,不單論文被學刊撤回,而且行醫執照吊銷,身敗名裂,即使法庭明確判定韋格非論文方式合格,學刊仍拒絕平反;醫學總會仍不恢復韋格非醫生牌。原來,醫學期刊、主流西醫、政府要員,大眾傳媒,同生產疫苗的大藥廠有千絲萬縷的共生關係,誓要撲滅任何反對聲音。然而,面對種種惡勢力,韋格非勢不低頭,時至今日,仍然堅持講出真相。如今,在全球多地,疫苗已成神聖不可侵犯的圖騰,香港亦如是,最近歌星謝安琪小姐只不過私下質疑疫苗,就受到傳媒同西醫全方位譴責。
In 1998, British gastroenterologist, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and others published on Lancet a research paper, suggesting that MMR vaccine is correlated to bowel disease and autism. At once, the research came under overwhelming attack by mainstream doctors, British Medical Journal, mass media and the authorities. In 2010, The UK General Medical Council (GMC) concluded that the research was fraudulent; the article was retracted by Lancet, and Dr. Wakefield’s and Prof. Walker Smith’s (another co-author) lost their medical licenses. In 2012, Smith appealed against GMC’s decision and the British High Court quashed the GMC finding of professional misconduct. GMC, however, has not restated Wakefield’s license and Lancet has refused to reverse the retraction of his paper. It turns out that Lancet and British Medical Council had secret financial ties to the big pharm Merck during publication of articles attacking Wakefield. Wakefield resiliently continues to defend his paper and has directed the documentary, VAXXED, to debunk the vaccine myth. Indeed, nowadays, in many countries, probably because of the immense influence of big pharmacies, vaccine has become a “sacred” totem that cannot be questioned. Hong Kong is no exception. Recently, Kay Tse, a HK singer, came under extensive attack by mass media, mainstream doctors and the Government, for just privately criticizing vaccination.

查一九九八年韋格非與另外十幾位醫學家,在醫學期刊刺針(Lancet),發表研究論文,顯示MMR疫苗(麻疹、腮腺炎和德國麻疹混合疫苗)關乎胃腸功能障礙、發育延誤及自閉症(http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/abstract),結果引起軒然大波,英國疫苗注射率大幅下滑,傳媒和英國醫學期刊(British Medical Journal)博命攻擊韋克非的論文造假,本來刋登該篇論文的刺針學刋撤回論文,十位論文作者聯署撤消聲稱MMR疫苗導致自閉症(其實篇文無講此結論),其餘三位作者,韋格非,史密夫教授(Prof. Smith),梅爾克醫生(Murch),拒絕簽名。三人被控行為不當,英國醫學總會(GMC)傳召三人,二零一零年宣佈有關論文罪犯欺詐,結果韋格非和史密夫雙雙被吊銷醫生執照,韋格非從此身敗名裂。卻原來刺針學刋、英國醫學期刋都同大藥厰有千絲萬縷的利益關係(http://ahrp.org/bmj-lancet-wedded-to-merck-cme-partnership/)。 

二零一二年,史密夫上訴英國醫學總會得直,高等法院法官表示,英國醫學總會專家組未能處理史密夫教授當年是否正在進行研究,抑或僅僅調查症狀,以幫助治療兒童。 法官認為英國醫學總會「推理膚淺,不夠嚴謹,許多方面,錯誤結論」,不過法庭不處理MMR疫苗與自閉症是否有關的問題(http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17283751)。史密夫雖然業已退休,但其行醫執照仍得恢復。可惜韋格非的保險異於史密夫,史密夫的包昂貴上訴費,韋格非的不包,所以無力上訴。儘管如此,英國高等法庭判詞(http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html)經清楚裁定:有關論文及研究合乎標準,而醫學總會早前的裁決錯誤。但醫學總會一直無恢復韋格非的醫生牌,亦無恢復其名譽。同樣,雖然法庭明確判定韋格非的論文並無造假,但到了二零一六年,剌針學刋調查專員Dr. Malcolm Molyneux仍然不肯平反該論文,只承認英國醫學會對韋格非行為不當的裁決經已推翻。(http://www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/)

韋格非現仍繼續為其論文辯護,堅持MMR疫苗應該停止注射。

一五年美國總統競選,特朗普也曾指出疫苗與自閉症的關連,並與韋格非會面。據韋氏所言,特朗普同佢講: 關於此事,我會有所行動,事關我知道真有其事,見過不少屬下及其子女中招。(https://www.politico.eu/article/disgraced-doctor-who-questioned-vaccine-safety-looks-to-trump-with-hope/)

一三年美國疾病控制及預防中心(CDC)高級科學主任湯臣博士Dr. William Thompson踢爆CDC隱瞞疫苗與自閉症的關連,其後湯臣友人何嘉醫生(Dr. Brian Hooker)請韋格非導演紀錄片VAXXED,訪問藥厰中人、醫生、政客、疫苗受害兒童父母,揭露醫療當局與大藥厰官商勾結,隱藏真相,導致自閉症逐漸成為世紀大疫症(https://vimeo.com/159566038)。VAXXED原定於一六年三月在紐約Tribeca電影節放映,但主辦人羅拔迪尼路受了多方壓力,臨時被迫撤回。

在全球大部份國家,疫苗已變成神聖不可侵犯的圖騰。在英美,醫生一批評疫苗,就會好似韋格非一樣,備受迫害,動轍身敗名裂,甚至死於非命(自一五年起,美國已有近百位反疫苗自然療法醫生暴斃,死因極之可疑,參:  https://www.localpresshk.com/2018/02/99-anti-vaccine-holistic-doctors/)
香港大部份傳媒,包括主流傳媒及網媒,同西方傳媒一樣,一貫報導偏頗,專門污蔑反疫苗言論及人士,極少畀批評疫苗人士機會出聲登文,譬如最近歌星謝安琪小姐只不過私底下質疑疫苗成效,指出其危險,就遭受傳媒、西醫同政府舖天蓋地,聯手圍攻。至今唯一敢高調質疑疫苗成效的香港西醫,就只有已故良心西醫勞永樂醫生(http://paper.wenweipo.com/2015/06/03/CF1506030007.htm)。

疫苗無疑係萬億美元大生意,但據美國骨科名醫Dr. Sheri Tenpenny指出,藥厰真正賺大錢之處尚非單靠賣疫苗,而係靠賣藥畀人,醫疫苗副作用所造成的病。只要能令班兒童由細開始病,這些兒童就會成為藥厰同西醫的終身顧客(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2xn9Svp6g)。
Photo: Dr.Wakefield and his wife/via Getty Images


Share This:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Comments