John Stone Feed

British Medical Journal Fails On “First Do No Harm” Over HPV Vaccines

image from encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comby  John Stone

"If the contents of either of the papers became widely known it would surely have sounded the global death knell for the products and also called twelve years of government policy into question. When balancing the welfare of British children against the interests of industry and state it seems in the end the children barely weighed."

Serious ethical questions arise over the role of British Medical Journal and the promotion of Human Papillomavirus vaccines. Back in May BMJ published a news report of the Cochrane Review of HPV vaccines by former London Times journalist Nigel Hawkes “HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds”. It has come to light in the blog of Prof David Healy (author Pharmageddon and Let Them Eat Prozac ) that the BMJ knew the reasons for this confidence were at best extremely controversial, and that the journal itself had turned down an earlier paper by members of Nordic Cochrane (including leading scientists Peter Gøtzsche and Tom Jefferson) highlighting major flaws in the science surrounding the products. Healy states:

“ Some months back, the Nordic Cochrane Center, one of the centres in the Cochrane Collaboration, sent a review of studies done on the HPV vaccine to the BMJ.  Much to their surprise, BMJ turned down this article which contained all studies done on HPV and a serious attempt to flag up the limitations of the trials and accordingly the limitations of what we could confidently say.”

This paper is still unpublished but two weeks ago BMJ Evidenced Based Medicine published a second paper by the Nordic Cochrane group, Lars Jørgensen, Peter Gøtzsche and Tom Jefferson attacking the foundations of the Cochrane Review, as reported on Age of Autism last week and now available in full from Prof Healy’s site. Despite the BMJ Group publication the main journal chose not to publicise this extraordinarily newsworthy event. (It might be said that news is not what it was and this is one of the most blatant suppressions of  the news in modern medicine - the "Fake" comes in not reporting.)

While there is no doubt that the BMJ Group is commercially conflicted, not only accepting advertising from all the manufacturers – GSK, Merck and Sanofi - but also being in historic partnership with Merck, perhaps the real reasons are even more disturbing and relate BMJ’s peculiar relationship as the journal of the British Medical Association (the doctors’ trade union) with the British medical profession. If the contents of either of the papers became widely known it would surely have sounded the global death knell for the products and also called twelve years of government policy into question. When balancing the welfare of British children against the interests of industry and state it seems in the end the children barely weighed.

Last week the present writer tried to challenge a senior BMA member - Dr Peter English, Chair of its Public Health Medicines Committee - in the on-line columns of BMJ:

“As a “Public Health Physician” Peter English seems to express a breath-taking disdain for the public, while also apparently eliding any critical view of vaccines at all with being “anti-science”… I wonder what he thinks the public, particularly prospective vaccinees and their families, should be allowed to know about the recent paper by Jørgensen regarding the inadequacies in the trialing of HPV vaccines?”.

Naturally, it was not published.

 PostScript: In a 2008 letter to BMJ regarding HPV vaccine, co-signed by Prof Keith Neal, Peter English discloses:

"Competing interests: Between them the authors have given occasional lectures for, received expenses for professional conferences from, and participated in advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and others."


John Stone is UK and European editor of Age of Autism



Breaking News: Attack By Nordic Cochrane Calls Cochrane Review Of HPV Vaccines Into Question But Has Wider Implications

image from upload.wikimedia.orgby John Stone

An astonishing attack by three members of the Nordic Cochrane group in BMJ Evidenced Based Medicine on the recent Cochrane review of HPV vaccines, Arbyn et al Prophylactactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors  calls not only the integrity and competence of the review into question, but poses by implication the most serious questions about how the products themselves were designed, trialed, licensed and marketed. The authors of the present of review of the review have been associated with a series of complaints against the European Medicines Agency concerning the vaccines and their safety. The Arbyn paper concludes:

There is high-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and young women aged 15 to 26. The effect is higher for lesions associated with HPV16/18 than for lesions irrespective of HPV type. The effect is greater in those who are negative for hrHPV or HPV16/18 DNA at enrolment than those unselected for HPV DNA status. There is moderate-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines reduce CIN2+ in older women who are HPV16/18 negative, but not when they are unselected by HPV DNA status.

We did not find an increased risk of serious adverse effects. Although the number of deaths is low overall, there were more deaths among women older than 25 years who received the vaccine. The deaths reported in the studies have been judged not to be related to the vaccine. Increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes after HPV vaccination cannot be excluded, although the risk of miscarriage and termination are similar between trial arms. Long-term of follow-up is needed to monitor the impact on cervical cancer, occurrence of rare harms and pregnancy outcomes.

The key findings new paper by Jørgensen, Gøtzsche and Jefferson are:

-The Cochrane human papillomavirus (HPV)
vaccine review missed nearly half of the eligible
-The review was influenced by reporting bias
and biased trial designs.
-Authors of Cochrane reviews should make
every effort to identify all trials and the trials’

They found that the authors had included in the review only 26 of 46 eligible trials and state for this reason alone the conclusion "'that the risk of reporting bias may be small' was inappropriate" and they warn that none of the trials included were anyway for the new product Gardasil 9 which many countries are switching to. They further castigate the Cochrane review for using misleading language, referring to trials against placebo when all those included in the review were against "active comparators: adjuvants (aluminium hydroxide (Al[OH]3) or amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate [AAHS]) or hepatitis vaccines". They identify this as a bias in the original design of the trials masking the harm of the vaccines, and they note that women were excluded from trials if they had received adjuvants before or a history of immunological or nervous disorders. They say that this lowered the validity of trials and suggested that the manufacturers were concerned about the harms of the product in these groups, although no packet warnings are included.

They further complain that Arbyn failed to mention cases of cervical cancer in the trial groups but also that the relationship CIN2 lesions and cancer was uncertain since they regressed spontaneously in women under 30 who were mostly the subjects of the trial. They also say that the review misreported trials. In the so called PATRICIA trial where Cochrane reported 701 vs 699 from the trial publication, and 835 vs 829 in its "Clinical" entry the Nordic Cochrane group found 1046 vs 982. Some trials recorded no adverse events at all and had very short follow up periods. While the original review could detect no pattern to the greater risk of death in the vaccinate vs comparator groups (51 vs 39) the Nordic Cochrane point out:

A death may be coded in a way that does not raise suspicion that the vaccine caused it; for example,a ‘traumatic head injury’ or ‘drowning’ could have been caused by a ‘syncope’, which is a recognised harm.

A meta-analysis which sought determine funding bias was flawed because the one trial which was deemed to be not funded by manufacturers was in fact funded by GSK by a circuitous route, and they failed to mention a report by the WHO Uppsala Monitoring Centre which found:

that found serious harms following HPV vaccination overlapping with two syndromes: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).

Instead they had relied on assurances from the European Medicines Agency handed down from the manufacturers. They note that in contravention of Cochrane guidelines 14 of the authors on the original protocol for the review had significant conflicts, as did three of the four authors of the final paper. While the main thrust of the paper is that Cochrane - to which the authors are affiliated -  needs to clean up its act, we all may wonder at how the governments of the world have allowed pharmaceutical companies to subject young women to these ill-tested and dangerous products for the last dozen years, and even at how the pre-marketing trials in the format described were ever allowed. We shudder over the fact that in the last week the recommendation for Gardasil 9 has extended to boys and young men in the United Kingdom, and that in France the vaccine is about to be made compulsory. We know we cannot trust the pharmaceutical industry but how can we ever trust our governments?

John Stone is UK and European Editor of Age of Autism




The Daily Telegraph's FAKE History of the Wakefield Story

Andy reports
The reports have always been upside down.

By John Stone

I am publishing my notes on the "at a glance" history of the MMR controversy from Charles Hymas article Facebook putting children's lives at risk by reviving spurious MMR claims, say UK healthchiefs (27 July).While Hymas is a former Sunday Times journalist, he possibly has a good record in investigating corruption but he is missing the mark here. For more detail reader's are referred to Vera Sharav's annotated account at AHRP L'affaire Wakefield.

"In 1998, respected medical journal The Lancet carried the results of a small-scale study (12 children) that claimed a link between the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) combined vaccine and autism and colitis in children."

This is untrue. The team carried out a review  of a series of cases seen and treated on the basis of clinical need. It did not claim a link between MMR, autism and colitis but recorded medical histories and parental concerns. This is easily checkable against the text of the paper. In listening to parents’ concerns about vaccine reactions, the Royal Free team were manifestly acting more ethically than doctors who ignore them.

"The leader of the research team, Andrew Wakefield promoted mass media coverage of the study. MMR became the biggest science story of 2002 and the public’s confidence in the vaccine was seriously shaken and vaccination rates fell."

 Is there any evidence that Wakefield promoted media coverage? No details given. By the end of 2001 Wakefield had already left for the United States, but a bad taste was left in the public's mind by the refusal of Prime Minister Tony Blair to say whether his son Leo had been vaccinated. Plainly health officials were out for revenge.

"Concerned over MMR safety, organisations such as the NHS, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Cochrane Library carried out large-scale epidemiological studies. These highlighted some adverse vaccine effects, such as rashes and joint pain, but could not replicate the findings of the original study."

Continue reading "The Daily Telegraph's FAKE History of the Wakefield Story" »

John Stone's Complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation Over Telegraph Article

By John Stone

Earlier this month, I was contacted by Rosa Silverman, feature writer of the Daily Telegraph, who wanted to discuss with me the anti-vaccine movement in America in the light of that great public issue of the moment, the friendship of Andrew Wakefield with Elle Macpherson. As far as could tell our discussions were respectful, and when the article was published the following day to my surprise she did me the honor of quoting me several times. Personally, I was not particularly unhappy or surprised but in the end I decided that the way she had reduced people to types while ultimately ignoring all the information and data I had made available to her both by word of mouth and by email was unacceptable. I think our valued correspondent Annie got the idea when she remarked under an earlier article: "I really wasn't sure if there was a causal relationship between vaccines and autism until Dr. Wakefield started dating Elle McPherson. Now it's for real! Thanks guys! My "celebrity obsessed" American brain can now rest assured!" So, I wrote to her and her newspaper, gave them time to reply and then filed a complaint with IPSO the Independent Press Standards Organization- which I now publish below.

1 Accuracy

The core charges (which had been made collectively) against all three doctors in the Wakefield case (ie Profs Walker-Smith and Murch as well) at the GMC were set aside when Prof Walker-Smith appealed in the High Court in 2012 and was completely exonerated, leaving Wakefield and Murch technically guilty of things which had never been shown to have happened, or even had been shown not to have happened. In particular, Sir John Mitting dismissed the claim that the doctors were executing a protocol for a Legal Aid Board funded study upon which lay may other discrepancies and subsidiary charges, none of which could be true once this was found to be false. I had drawn Ms Silverman's attention to this major anomaly and provided documentation, which she evidently ignored. 

Anyone seriously interested in the facts of the Wakefield case needs to address the High Court finding of 2012, otherwise they are just repeating malicious rumours. I put the issue to Ms Silverman in my email unresponded to (19 July): "I posed the question whether Wakefield had had fair treatment, and produced chapter and verse on why he did not - which you seem to have completely ignored. The central issue of the Legal Aid Board protocol at the GMC which Sir John Mitting dismissed was laid collectively against all three doctors, and was simple wrong. It was historically wrong, and Mitting's findings were unappealed, though very inconvenient to the official narrative. To write a proper article about Wakefield you need to address this, and you manifestly have not: re-cycling shibboleths and appeals to authority I am afraid fail the standard." 

Continue reading "John Stone's Complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation Over Telegraph Article" »

The Global Vaccine Crisis of 2018: Why Andrew Wakefield is Back in the News

image from www.rescuepost.comBy John Stone

"Perhaps the most fundamental point is that having established this uninterrupted global pipeline for the industry’s products to the world’s children they have failed to ensure manufacturing standards even according to their own criteria."

An experienced pharma watcher has said to me repeatedly in the past few days: "There is something going on". He is not looking directly at pharma he is watching the prolonged and hostile media coverage of the friendship of Andrew Wakefield and Elle Macpherson as revealed to the public by the Daily Mail: something which to most people - except those who might know them personally - might be of only momentary interest, if any: but also the source of a great swirling mist of unprincipled junk journalism which has now be going on for a week. I was drawn into this maelstrom  myself last week by a Daily Telegraph feature writer, Rosa Silverman, who wanted to interview me about this non-issue (certainly not a public one) and the "anti-vaccine movement in the US". Rosa quoted me a number of times, which I barely expected (that was the one thing which surprised me). Nevertheless, having thought about the article  "Whatever happened to Andrew Wakefield: the curious rehabilitation of the doctor behind the MMR scare" (18 July)" for a day I felt obliged to complain about both the stereo-typing and failure to address the information  I had passed to her (my letters to her and the Telegraph with information I emailed her are published below).

But the big question is “Why?”. The answer is surely with all bathetic baying and shrieking from the press about nothing in particular that the global vaccine government complex could not be in more trouble. What would happen if anyone outside our sphere started to put together the stories we have seen in recent days? Perhaps the most fundamental point is that having established this uninterrupted global pipeline for the industry’s products to the world’s children they have failed to ensure manufacturing standards even according to their own criteria. So, now we have had  in a matter of  days the China scandal, we have RFKjnr’s revelation that the HHS has shirked its responsibility to inspect and report on vaccine safety every two years for the last three decades, and we have the Italian CORVELVA group saying that 5 out 7 schedule vaccines  they had independently inspected failed to meet biological standards.

Also running are stories about MMR in Samoa and  oral polio vaccine in Kenya. We have the long running saga of Gatti and Montanari in Italy.  Even before you get to the issue of whether the products could be considered safe by design, we have the great unlikelihood in many parts of the world, or possibly any part of the world, that they are routinely manufactured and delivered correctly. And rather than admit that the products are faulty the powers that be just prefer that they go on being injected into everybody’s children without saying anything, because the only important thing for them is that everyone goes on believing in the infallibility of the program.

 I do not mention in this context other important stories like Dengvaxia in the Philippines , Christopher Exley's revelations about aluminium in autistic brains or Gayle DeLong’s about HPV vaccines and infertility - things beginning to impinge on the reputation of the vaccine complex.

The point at this juncture is that the global industry is in monumental trouble, acting in such a way as to strain the faith of  persons normally much less sceptical of the aims of the program than the traditional readers of this column, and it needs to create a distraction - and what we have from at least the  British media in Orwellian terms is this pathetic chant of “Four legs good, two legs bad”. They are attempting to drum out the very possibility of thought: all anyone needs to know now is that Andrew Wakefield - who once dared to question the vaccine project in some way - was/is a very bad man. But I would point out another possibility that most onlookers will be completely perplexed: they will just be saying like my pharma watcher as they get daily more fed up with the feeble-mindedness and illogical antics of the mainstream media: “There is something going on”.

You bet there is!

Complaint letter to the Telegraph: Case: 17796369 - Re: Daily Telegraph feature on anti-vaccination movement (anyone wishing to  support write to

Dear Sirs,

I wish to make a formal complaint against Rosa Silverman's article "Whatever happened to Andrew Wakefield: the curious rehabilitation of the doctor behind the MMR scare" (18 July). I wrote to her four days ago (below) making some of my concerns known and she has failed to reply. As will be seen from previous emails I had taken every trouble to point out the solid basis of the concerns of vaccine critics, the systematic misreporting of the Wakefield affair and although she quoted me extensively she made no attempt to report on the foundations of people's concerns rather than simply disparaging them as people. I note that in our interview (which took place on a pleasant and respectful basis) RS posed the intelligent question whether opposition to vaccines in the US was ideological or more commonly because the sceptics were parents whose children had been injured (then characterised as anti-vaccine), and I confirmed that I believed the latter (and coming from all over the political spectrum): but in the article everyone is reduced to a conspiracy believing post-Trump phenomenon. 
The reality at the present time is that the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Database has reported more than 650,000 events since 1990 and being a passive reporting database this is likely no more than 1% of cases, many of which may include irreparable harm. Additionally, in the last few days Robert F KennedyJnr has wrung an admission from the HHS that they failed to honour their obligation under the National Childhoood Vaccine Injury Act to report on the safety of vaccines every two years: in fact going back to 1986 they never did at all. In the UK and Europe further questions arise over the alertness and independence of bodies like the MHRA and the EMA which are largely funded by the industry. These are people's real concerns, not Andrew Wakefield's private life, which should have remained private. 
The continued scapegoating of Wakefield in the British media is not only deplorable, it looks as if it is a deliberate attempt to distract from the real issues, and we seem to have returned to the realms of Orwell's 5 minutes hate. I do wish RS had not gone off into this reprehensible territory as many other journalists who should know better have done in recent days. It is terrifying the extent to which mainstream journalism has abandoned the objective reporting of complex reality, and turned on many responsible communities across the world wide web, who are actually often well-informed and trying to do their best for their fellow citizens. What instead we have is FAKE NEWS, a story in itself without public significance being outrageously blown up,  and a distraction from the real reasons why all those American people (and may others around the globe) are distressed and angry.
Yours faithfully,
John Stone (UK and European Editor, Age of Autism)
Dear Rosa,
On reflection I decided that your article - which was very prejudicial - should not go without comment. After all I had gone to a lot of trouble to document the justified concerns of vaccine critics in the US or anywhere else. At the top of the list I would point to agency capture, so the public not only have to pay for the products they have to receive them often compulsorily (whatever happened to informed consent?): more and more of them every year. And, of course, if something goes wrong people are subject to bullying, opprobrium and denial (not least from media sources: intimidating citizens is a very effective way of influencing data). 
I also documented the catastrophic rise in autism (now minimally 4.7% in Belfast schools for example, nearly 300 new cases per year per borough in SW London)). Autism goes on rising year after year everywhere - if it is ever reported, it is a resource problem, not like the iceberg floating towards us for which there is no official explanation available. In many cases I have had to calculate the rates from other data because public bodies are shirking the issue. Meanwhile, the mainstream media just seems to cover up for failed government policies, instead of investigating them and calling them to account. The press has completely abandoned its historic role. I sent you a recent compilation of 150 Pubmed listed articles which implicate vaccines in the rise of autism: doctors and academics are laying their careers on the line to  publish publicly unpalatable facts but the mainstream media is silent, even denies this is happening.
Rather than all the allegedly bad people of Trump's America this is the sort of thing that real journalism should be about (it is what we used to call  sleaze). The de-restriction of pharmaceutical advertising in the USA is not something I dreamt up (and an issue which would concern Trump not at all) it means that the increasing beleaguered mainstream media is all too likely to represent only the interests of its advertisers. In the UK there are other means of corporate and government influence, not least PR agencies like SenseAboutScience and Science Media Centre. In particular, I wonder why David Robert Grimes, a physicist from SAS, is so often quoted on these issues? Not being a medical doctor he has no professional responsibility for what he says. On the other hand, as a responsible parent advocate I have to master the detail, make absolutely sure I know what I am talking about.
I posed the question whether Wakefield had had fair treatment, and produced chapter and verse on why he did not - which you seem to have completely ignored. The central  issue of the Legal Aid Board protocol at the GMC which Sir John Mitting dismissed was laid collectively against all three doctors, and was simple wrong. It was historically wrong, and Mitting's findings were unappealed, though very inconvenient to the official narrative. To write a proper article about Wakefield you need to address this, and you manifestly have not: re-cycling shibboleths and appeals to authority I am afraid fail the standard.One thing which will absolutely ensure the unsafety of health programmes, will be the public and professional hounding of anybody and everybody who criticises them.
John Stone

Below are links and material I provided by email, which were acknowledged.

Re: Autism spectrum disorder: advances in diagnosis and evaluation

Continue reading "The Global Vaccine Crisis of 2018: Why Andrew Wakefield is Back in the News" »

Best of AoA: The Sarah Boseley Problem Again

image from
[The line up in the photograph, left to right, is Jeremy Laurance (Independent), Jenny Hope (Daily Mail), Sarah Boseley, Gill Markham (Wyeth) Phil Hammond (MD of Private Eye and favorite pharma after dinner speaker)] EVERY GOOD BOY DESERVES FAVOUR

By John Stone

The British mainstream media are once again hopping up and down about Andrew Wakefield (all of us here wish him well) with a particularly egregious and unnecessary attack in the hollowed out Guardian newspaper by their long time health correspondent, Sarah Boseley. Age of Autism is today reviving UK editor John Stone's article from the time of the Walker-Smith appeal in February 2012 at which, of course, the senior clinician and author in the Wakefield 1998 paper was completely exonerated. The core charges against all three doctors at the GMC had been busted and no one reported. But two years before Boseley had hinted that all was not well with the GMC findings, while her Guardian colleague Dr Ben Goldacre had wobbled for months with uncertainty and embarrassment, and retired conveniently from his column before the hearing. Now, mysteriously, following  the publication of pictures of  Wakefield in company of Elle Macpherson in the Daily Mail a new frenzy has engulfed the British media, and fascinatingly the message is that somehow the establishment is under attack! To which we can only say what gives them the right to go on covering up year after year. Used health journalists for sale. Who wants them anymore?

The Walker-Smith Appeal, The British Media and the Boseley Problem

Sarah Boseley (centre in the photo) is the senior Guardian newspaper journalist who wrote on the occasion of the UK General Medical Council’s findings against Dr Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues Prof  John Walker-Smith and Prof Simon Murch in January 2010:

"Opinion is divided in the medical establishment on the wisdom of pursuing Wakefield – and particularly his colleagues who played a lesser role in the drama – at the GMC. Some say there was a clear case to answer and that the GMC had no other option but others believe that no good can come of it."

What Boseley omitted to do as a decent journalist and a competent reporter was to tell her readership what the medical establishment was worried about. And what they were worried about may be by now coming back round to haunt both the medical establishment itself and the media, although no doubt damage limitation measures are already being put in a state of readiness.  The spectre came in the form of a UK Press Association report of Prof Walker-Smith’s High Court appeal misleadingly entitled ‘MMR row doctor decision was “fair”’  . However, underneath the headline the story begins to hint at the real matter:

“The decision to strike off an eminent doctor over the MMR jab controversy has been defended at the High Court as "just and fair - not wrong".

“The General Medical Council (GMC) admitted to a judge that "inadequate reasons" may have been given by a disciplinary panel that found Professor John Walker-Smith guilty of serious professional misconduct. Those reasons related to conflicts over expert evidence.

“But Joanna Glynn QC, appearing for the GMC, said: "In spite of inadequate reasons it is quite clear on overwhelming evidence that the charges are made out."

“Professor Walker-Smith is asking Mr Justice Mitting at London's High Court to rule that he was denied a fair hearing. On the fourth day of his challenge, the judge said that the case had been "complex and difficult from the start - it greatly troubles me".”

At stake in the hearing are essentially two issues: whether Prof Walker-Smith acted beyond his brief as a clinician in the care of the 12 children in the much disputed Lancet paper, and whether the paper had anything to do – as alleged – with the protocol (identified with Royal Free Hospital ethical approval 172-96) for a Legal Aid Board funded paper, or was just as the paper itself stated an “early report” on 12 children seen and investigated on the basis of clinical need. This problem has been perpetually hinted at but never clearly explained in the British media – we will call it for convenience “the Boseley problem” though it is very much the problem of other journalists too.

Continue reading "Best of AoA: The Sarah Boseley Problem Again" »

Written Evidence on Vaccination from John Stone on Data.Parliament.UK

ParliamentBelow is a published "written evidence" from AofA's John Stone at

Data.parliament (DDP) is a platform that enables us to share our data both within and outside of Parliament. The aim of data.parliament is to ensure that our data is both accessible and useable. Most of the data is already public, but this project is about ensuring that it is exposed in a better and richer way. It’s a big project, and the service will continue to develop and grow after the platform has launched.  In time, we hope that all published Parliamentary information will be available on DDP.

Written evidence from John Stone (Age of Autism)

[1] Vaccines are mentioned as one strategy against antimicrobial resistance (1) and this submission seeks to caution against the idea of substituting one kind of over-medication with another (Age of Autism is an on-line newspaper concerned with the publicly unaccounted adverse effects of vaccination).

[2] In the United Kingdom, an infant already receives by 12 months on the routine schedule (2):-

DTaP, Polio, HiB, HepB+Rotavirus+13 Strain Pneumococcal+MenB (8 weeks)

DTaP, Polio, HiB, HepB+Rotavirus (12 weeks)

DTaP, Polio, HiB,HepB+13 Strain Preumococcal+MenB (16 weeks)

13 Strain Pneumococcal+MMR+HiB, MenC

[3] In 2011 Miller and Goldman reported (3):

“The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.”

Continue reading "Written Evidence on Vaccination from John Stone on Data.Parliament.UK " »

The Thoughts of Chairman Aaronovitch

AaronovitchBy John Stone

David Aaronovitch, recent chair of Index on Censorship, Orwell prize winner and Murdoch poodle (or possibly running dog) writing in the London Times wants to stop people saying things he does not like - so perhaps he will not like this article.

The problem with vaccines, is the more you are not allowed to talk about them the more dangerous they will certainly get. You can be fed lots of reassuring information by the surrogates of the people who manufacture them (the health agencies and mainstream journalists) but until ordinary citizens are listened to you will simply be engaged in an ugly strategy of social repression. It is not good enough to tell people when they have been hurt - or worse when their beloved children have been - that the agencies who did the hurting deny it. But for Aaronovitch the products are not mere fallible industrial products, they are simply beyond public criticism. 

If anybody is expressing unreasonable faith it is he. If he thinks they are safe, what body of science is he citing, and where are the independent agencies? In the UK the licensing agencies are funded by the industry (the MHRA 100%, the EMA 89%), the chair of the vaccine recommendation committee (the JCVI) is director Oxford Vaccine Group which is commercially involved in developing many of the vaccines the committee recommends. These are all perfectly acceptable arrangements to a mainstream media in advanced decline, and no doubt to our lion of free speech.

In his latest article ‘Conspiracy theorists make monkeys of us all’ (The Times 5 July 2018)  Aaronovitch employs all the old bad songs: people who doubt vaccine safety are unscientific and equivalent to those who doubt the theory of evolution; people who doubt vaccine safety are unpleasant right-wing types; people who opposed vaccine mandates in Italy (which incidentally we do not have in the United Kingdom) have caused measles to rise – when he might have focussed on government-pharmaceutical sleaze as the prime cause of their mistrust: the meeting at which Obama put Italian Health Minister Beatrice Lorenzin in charge of global vaccine strategy, the secret deals she signed with GlaxoSmithKline. They probably also knew that she had made up fairy stories about 270 measles deaths among children in London. This was what last year the tens of thousands of people who filled the streets in Italy knew about, unreported by the Italian and global mainstream media, unreported almost certainly in the London Times – just to make them look like idiots. In these circumstances conspiracy was scarcely a theory. Oh yes, and to cap it all they are all “conspiracy theorists”.

Continue reading "The Thoughts of Chairman Aaronovitch" »

Jackboots Back Across Europe: Closing Down The World Wide Web

image from

 By John Stone

Largely unreported in the mainstream media the European Parliament this week, under the guidance of the European Commission, are effectively moving to shut down the web using an extension of copyright law. While it is disguised as a protection of intellectual property if it eventuates clauses 11 and 13 will be a devastating blow to intellectual freedom, preventing the use of web links on sites, and shutting them down if they are used. The web as a tool of freedom from oligarchies and corporate behemoths will be completely crippled. European readers should complain urgently to their representatives at the Parliament before it is too late through this website:


I wrote individually to British members:

Dear ___,

I am writing ahead of the plenary session on 4 July to protest articles 11 and 13 of the EU's Copyright Reform Proposal. I am all in favour of artists receiving fair remuneration but these clauses are clearly intended to restrict sharing public interest data, making many sites that have always operated with due respect and caution for other people's rights virtually inoperable.

I fear MEPs are asleep or they are working on behalf of dark forces. They should remember that they were not elected by behemoth corporations, but ordinary citizens. 


John Stone

Celebrations were inevitably short lived over the exoneration of Prof Henri Joyeux, the popular medic who had dared to criticize France's sacred vaccination program on a principled and informed basis. The judicial decision was immediately appealed by France's 'Order of Physicians'. Now we find that  six bodies "the Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Agriculture of France, the National Academy of Dental Surgery, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Pharmacy and the Veterinary Academy of France" have chimed in to censure Prof Joyeux:

Continue reading "Jackboots Back Across Europe: Closing Down The World Wide Web" »

A Victory For Intellectual Freedom And Truth: National Body Exonerates French Vaccine Critic Prof Henri Joyeux

image from www.naturaforce.comBy John Stone

In a blow to the medical absolutism  of the government of President Macron France’s governing medical body "the National Disciplinary Chamber" have overturned  a decision by the Disciplinary Chamber Languedoc-Roussillon to expel Prof Joyeux from medical practice. The original finding had denounced him for his criticisms of vaccination and being the initiator of an online petition against the use of GSK's vaccine Infanrix Hexa, a hexavalent which includes a Hepatitis B component - also recently been introduced in the United Kingdom -  despite the fact that infants are rarely at risk from Hep B. Hep B vaccination had previously been excluded from the French infant schedule after having been found to be associated with multiple-sclerosis. The petition, which was widely relayed on social networks and still online, has been signed by more than 1.1 million people.

Dr. Joyeux, who is well known on French TV, criticised the presence in Infanrix Hexa of "aluminum and formaldehyde" as two "dangerous or very dangerous substances”. The President of the National Council of the Order of Physicians, Patrick Bouet  had previously censured Joyeux for  "dangerous talk", and for "statements not supported by scientific evidence which undermine the profession". The National Disciplinary Chamber, on the other hand, found that Joyeux's views belonged within the context of an existing and legitimate scientific debate.

In 2017 Prof Joyeux gave a presentation with Nobel prize winner Prof Luc Montagnier. On that occasion Montagnier stated:" We risk poisoning little by little all the population which succeeds us, the children, the babies" and Joyeux remarked: "We are entering into a kind of vaccine dictatorship". 


Prof Joyeux: The national disciplinary chamber cancels his expulsion on appeal



Article 1: "The decision of the Disciplinary Chamber of first instance of Languedoc-Roussillon of the Order of Doctors, dated July 8, 2016, imposing the sanction of the cancellation of the order of the order to Prof Joyeux, is canceled" .

Article 2: "The complaint filed by the National Council of the Order of Physicians against Prof Joyeux is rejected".

This is the decision that has just been rendered the decision that has just made the National Disciplinary Chamber after the hearing of Prof Henri Joyeux on May 24 to which the Order criticized two petitions on the dangers of vaccination, one against mandatory vaccination against HPV recommended by the High Council for Public Health (HCSP), the other for the return to market of trivalent vaccine DTP.

Continue reading "A Victory For Intellectual Freedom And Truth: National Body Exonerates French Vaccine Critic Prof Henri Joyeux" »

New Italian Government Set To Repeal Vaccine Mandates

image from www.rescuepost.comby John Stone

After months of negotiations Italian have finally managed to form a government based on the Five Star Movement and the Northern League both of whom were opposed to vaccine mandates piloted by Beatrice Lorenzin and the previous center left government -  the new Health Minister, Giulia Grillo, is "In favor of vaccines, but against Lorenzin's law". Protests in Italy against mandatory vaccination are set to take place in Italy in two days time (June 3) at at least five venues as part of the International Protest Against Mandatory Vaccination.

As we have seen in recent months elements within the vaccine lobby have indicated a willingness to back off pushing for  mandates and compulsion, trying to trade this in against allowing a serious public discussion about the safety of its products: that of course is the last thing they want. We rather imagine, though, at Age of Autism that the Italian public will have learned rather a lot about the lobby after five years of Lorenzin's machinations. It will also be interesting to see how Grillo, who has a medical degree, deals with the parliamentary commission report on the deaths and illnesses of Italian military personnel. Will this continue to be swept under the rug?

John Stone is British and European editor of Age of Autism.

1 in 21 Children in Belfast Now Have an Autism Diagnosis

image from upload.wikimedia.orgby John Stone

Below is the most recent of a series of letters I have written posted in on-line British Medical Journal responding to an article by Prof Russell M Viner, President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. While Prof Viner was trying to challenge the British government to focus on the health of children and young people, I have been trying to get them both to focus on the tragedy unfolding in our midst: this is the sixth letter since March assembling data from official sources (with much help from Anne Dachel), without a single response. The Northern Ireland Department of Health deserve special praise because all the previous data relating to current autism prevalence in schools comes from education sources. Here at least they recognise and expose the scope of the problem, which represents in greater detail the situation across the United Kingdom. One thing this does is to lay to rest completely the better recognition and diagnosis argument because we actually have here very large numbers of children with extreme levels of disability, not with marginal traits which might have been passed over in the past. In Belfast you are dealing with approaching 3% of the school population who are autistic and with Stage 5 support (the highest level).

Re: NHS must prioritise health of children and young people Russell M Viner. 360:doi 10.1136/bmj.k1116

The Northern Ireland Department of Health Information Analysis Directorate are to be commended for producing a detailed analysis of the prevalence of autism in schools in the province authored by Iain Waugh [1], the first from any United Kingdom health body I have seen since the middle of the last decade. The results of this survey are unfortunately in line with data I assembled in this column below [2,3,4,5,6].

Continue reading "1 in 21 Children in Belfast Now Have an Autism Diagnosis" »

Ozymandias: Population Meltdown in Scotland as Additional Support Needs Rise by 600% in a Decade

image from en.wikipedia.orgby John Stone

I have been looking at Scotland’s 2017 special educational needs data, published last month amid zero publicity – these days we do not even have to “bury the bad news”. It just gets published on a government website somewhere and almost no one notices...except me and Anne Dachel. On 26 March 2018 I wrote to the British Medical Journal (and they published):

The (British) government must face up to the autism pandemic, and so must the RCPCH

It is perturbing not to get a response from Prof Viner and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, after my Rapid Response last week [1]. Since I wrote I have tracked down the figures for Scottish schools for 2017 (the disability numbers were published earlier this month, though not reported in the media). The number of children with an autism diagnosis in Scottish schools rose by 11.5% in one year. Between September 2016 and 2017 one year in the fifteen year rolling cohort departed, another arrived, and the total number of children with diagnosed autism increased by 1,550: the incidence of autism in Scottish schools went up from 1 child in 51 (684,415/13,423) to 1 child in 46 (688, 959/14,973) [1,2]. But the rate among younger children will be far higher. In 2005 the Department of Health gave a figure of 1 child in 100 [1].

At what point does this catastrophic phenomenon even get to be acknowledged? People talk about pandemics of infectious disease, but what do they think this is?

[1] John Stone, 'NHS must prioritise health of children and young people -what about autism?', 19 March 2018

[2] Tables 1.1 and 1.8

Naturally, no one answered. A friend posed me the question whether there could be substitution involved? Well it does not look like this is the main explanation. Here is the data (table 1.5)  for pupils with additional support needs comparing 2017 with 2007:

2007 Primary School  4.4% (16, 478)

2017 Primary School 23.5% (94,125)

2007 Secondary         4.3%  (13, 355)

2017 Secondary         29.3% (82,712)

Averaged out this is a present rate of 26.6% for pupils with additional support needs: a rise of 534% for primary education, and 681% for secondary education in ten years. Since this is a table presumably the criteria should be consistent. And though the autism figures are catastrophic and getting worse they exist in a new sea of other additional support needs. Also, some terrible fate is overwhelming pupils in secondary education.

When I wrote about the last set of figures in Scotland my articles were taken off Google News, probably after the intervention of Scottish government, or some pharmaceutical PR agency in London like Science Media Centre or Sense About Science. And very soon after Age of Autism was taken off Google News altogether. But the bottom line is that this is the real news: this is the Scottish government’s own data – nothing to do with me – and they cower in silence.

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

John Stone is UK and European editor of Age of Autism

Our Brave New World: Pharma's Political Straw Men, Lies and Censorship

image from by John Stone

We are reaching a critical point (and historic moment) which resembles in some ways both WMD and the banking crisis of 2008: the burden of scientific evidence and personal testimony weighs heavily against the industry (everyone has been lied to and the products have been over-sold) and what we are seeing is a pre-emptive strike to stop people talking – to stop them  at all cost. The evidence is that the industry and governments are afraid of exposure and are going for broke. This was the message of the industry spokeswoman Heidi Larson on 1 January 2018 in her column ‘Let Freedom Ring’. It was a very odd kind of freedom – Larson who works closely with the World Health Organization and Bill and Melinda Gates, as well as Merck and GSK – seemed to be trying to trade vaccine compulsion (distancing herself and the Vaccine Confidence Project from moves around the world towards draconian mandates) for silence on vaccine safety.

“The growing challenge in the vaccine landscape is that it is no longer isolated individuals who are thinking twice or refusing vaccination, but that there are growing groups of people who are not only expressing their individual right to question and to choose, but are increasingly connected with others and demanding the right to choose as part of a larger movement.  These movements are about principles of freedom and rights, not about specific vaccines, or specific safety concerns.”

Larson is not wrong about rights but she is about people not having “specific safety concerns”: only a few months before she had declared on a Johnson and Johnson website:

 “Yes, there are potential risks—there will always be potential risks with any medical treatment. And we don’t talk enough about that.” 

Anybody might reasonably be worried about safety of something over which they are being threatened with censorship. And, of course, now there are many people writing and speaking on the web, who want to talk about the risks both from personal experience and published science who are not poorly informed, malicious or engaging in irresponsible talk. Of course, there are clickbait sites that put out deliberately false information but it does not seem likely that they are the ones that industry or government are really scared about.

When the European Parliament balances the bald assertion that vaccines are “safe” with condemning “ the spread of unreliable, misleading and unscientific information on vaccination aggravated by media controversies” and calling “on Member States and the Commission to take effective steps against the spread of such misinformation and to further develop awareness and information campaigns, especially for parents…” they are themselves being misleading, naive or worse – and they are trying to forestall public examination of what the industry and surrogate government bureaucracies are doing, and suppress the ever growing body of evidence that vaccines are not safe. They are declaring falsehoods, engaging in innuendo and calling for socially repressive measures. This sadly is all too likely to dovetail with French President Macron’s proposed legislation on Fake News, following on his extension vaccine mandates.

Simultaneously, we have the alarming spectacle of Senator Pan who having notoriously piloted the notorious SB277 school vaccine mandates bill through the Californian legislature has now filed SB1424 to censor social media with the appointment of state “fact checkers” to decide which facts are true.

This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

 (a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.

 (b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

 (1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.

 (2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

 (3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.

 (4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

 (c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

Not surprisingly there is already a fine article about this by John Rappoport. The bill does not of course specify vaccine related stories but obviously we can see where this going – of course it is altogether terrifying to envisage the scale and cost of this new bureaucracy, not to mention its potential for arbitrariness, incompetence and vindictiveness: perhaps above all to stop people talking about their own experiences. Is this so mad, grandiose, so Un-American that even California’s legislature might back off? In this brave new world no one could be confident.

These are not of course random events. Our new rulers are the pharmaceutical industry hiding behind men of straw.

John Stone is UK and European Editor of Age of Autism

My Letter to the 73 British Members of European Parliament on "Vaccine Hesitancy"

image from John Stone

Two weeks ago AoA published an unsigned letter to  European Parliamentarians about a proposed resolution on "vaccine hesitancy" to Members of the European Parliament which could lead to the extension of vaccine mandates across the Union and a clamp down on free speech. The resolution in its present form asserts vaccines to be "safe" without any qualification. I have now sent my own letter individually to all of the 73 British member of the Parliament. A final vote on this could happen as early as the beginning next week - so we are close to the last opportunity to lobby the Parliament. European citizens can find the details of their representatives here.


Dear ____,

I am writing to all British members of the European Parliament with the deepest concern about the proposed “vaccine hesitancy” resolution. The Parliament is poised to further protect an industry from scrutiny which in itself urgently requires investigation. In its present form it will not lead to confidence.

The resolution comes before the Parliament amid mounting evidence of vaccine harm in published scientific literature. For too long politicians around the globe have depended on bureaucracies to wage war against infectious diseases without taking adequate steps to ensure the independence of the advice, and contenting themselves with bland assurances that everything they collectively sanction is safe and effective. By now infants are met not long after birth with a barrage of vaccines for diseases which in many cases are either not so dangerous or not so common, without any wider evidence that this is a safe thing to do - meanwhile each of the products have acknowledged risks and side-effects in the small print, even before we consider the problems of cumulative exposure, bad synergies, contamination in manufacture, toxic excipients etc. The bureaucracies choose whatever “facts” suit them, and they have created a pipeline for their products to be administered to children at public expense.

Absurdly, the EP Health Committee have complained about the relative expense of vaccinating children compared with the beginning of the millennium without considering all the expensive new products governments have willingly added to the schedule in the interim - nor the expense of all the new products the industry connected bureaucracy are likely to sanction in future. In the UK the director of Oxford Vaccine Group which develops vaccines is also chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation which recommends them to the schedule.

The invidiousness of the process was recently demonstrated in successive complaints by Nordic Cochrane against the European Medical Agency, first to the agency itself and then to European Ombudsman over its handling of reports about HPV vaccines. The complaints involved conflicts of interest, exclusion of contrary expert evidence, bias in selection of data, lack of evidence for the safety of aluminium adjuvants (which are contained in the majority of other vaccines as well). The fact that both the EMA and the EO rejected these representations out of hand does nothing to enhance the reputation or trustworthiness of those institutions, or of the programme. By now there is a large bibliography on the harmfulness of aluminium in scientific literature but our governments march on regardless.  Most disturbingly we now have the Italian parliamentary commission into military deaths written by senior scientists declaring the risk of multiple vaccines. There is nothing open and shut about vaccine safety.

All this might count for little if our child population in the UK (where we have a long schedule and high compliance) was bursting with good health, but actually we are drowning in disability and chronic disease, particularly neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. While this escapes the main news (or is hidden in stories about lack of provision) the official schools data shows the problem to be completely out of control (not to mention completely unexplained). A BBC news report from SW London last year hinted at 300 new cases of autism per borough per year. Last year the number of diagnosed autism cases in Scottish schools leapt by 11.5% from 1 in 51 to 1 in 46 (but for younger children the rate will be much higher). In Northern Ireland the level was already reported at 1 in 40 in December 2016. Everywhere the trend is dynamically upwards. These are cases which will cost multiple millions each over a lifetime. Having scapegoated Dr Wakefield the Department of Health prefers to say nothing, but the situation is already catastrophic in population terms, and the costs increasingly unsustainable.

It is always possible to highlight this or that statistic which shows an infectious disease to be on the rise, nor is the death of any single child to be taken lightly, but we are getting into dangerous waters if we place the programme on a pedestal, unable to discuss its dangers while deliberately suppressing evidence of harm by waging hate campaigns against the people who report it. This is not privileging science, it is privileging the bureaucracy and pharmaceutical industry over ordinary citizens. Inevitably, such moves must lead to distortions of policy and harm to the community. Nor is it a proper way to conduct policy in a democratic, open society.


John Stone (UK and European Editor,

Letter on Vaccination to Members of the European Parliament with Damning Official Report on the Deaths and Illnesses of Italian Military Personnel

image from Age of Autism reproduces a letter to be circulated to members of the European Parliament in advance of a resolution about “vaccine hesitancy” aimed at creating a false emergency and putting pressure on member states to maximise vaccine uptake. John Stone made a response on behalf of AoA to the European Commission at the beginning of the year in regard to this initiative, which argued that it was an egregious attempt to hi-jack policy on behalf of a greedy and rapacious industry. It was one of hundreds of negative responses to the consultation, with almost none favourable. The reality is that though popular opinion can no doubt be manipulated the drive for this comes from the institutions and their industrial cronies: the cry is not coming from below. Although the resolution proposes no specific actions it is evidently intended to support anti-democratic, inegalitarian and illiberal measures in member states, disregarding for example the major political upheavals in Italy with mass demonstrations, and a collapse in the vote of the responsible parties, much reported in AoA in recent months. Moreover, it looks as if much of this came through the agency of the Obama administration in the US.

Notable are clauses 3 and 12:

3. Points out that Vaccines are safe according to the WHO, as a licensed vaccine is rigorously tested across multiple phases of trials before its use is approved, and regularly reassessed once it is on the market...12. Condemns the spread of unreliable, misleading and unscientific information on vaccination aggravated by media controversies; calls on Member States and the Commission to take effective steps against the spread of such misinformation and to further develop awareness and information campaigns, especially for parents, including the creation of a European platform aimed at increasing vaccination coverage...

Particularly absurd is the appeal to authority, as if the World Health Organization is inherently trustworthy, free of conflicts etc., meanwhile by inference suggesting that contrary information is necessarily unreliable – a view which the document tackles head on, making available for the first time the utterly damning report of the  “Parliamentary commission of inquiry into case of deaths and severe illnesses affecting Italian military personnel assigned to military missions abroad...” a document officially published amid an international mainstream media blackout earlier this year

An obvious interpretation of all this is that we have institutions which while behaving in an ultra-aggressive manner, are terrified at ever being held to account, and are moving in pre-emptive way.


 To our members of the European Institutions

Please consider this recent information before voting the resolution on ‘vaccine hesitancy and drop in vaccination rates in Europe’ as proposed by the Commission on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament (2017/2951. For Mid-March 2018)

(Scroll down for full text of resolution)

- On Feb. 7th 2018, an Italian Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry has issued a report that finds higher risks of death and illnesses such as cancer, autoimmune disorders and hypersensitivity associated to the administration of combined vaccines (1). A copy of this report has been addressed to the European Parliament.

Continue reading "Letter on Vaccination to Members of the European Parliament with Damning Official Report on the Deaths and Illnesses of Italian Military Personnel" »

Listen to Patrick Colbeck’s Speech to the Michigan State Senate on the Risks of Wi-Fi

WifiBy John  Stone

Age of Autism has traditionally focused on the issues vaccination and autism, but we ignore the expansion of Wi-Fi at our peril. Senator Colbeck criticizes the Michigan Senate’s indifference to the safety of citizens and particularly children with the rolling out of 5th Generation WiFi transmitters (soon to be hitting us on the streets of London too).

Video courtesy of Environmental Health Trust

Sen Colbeck comments:

"Article 4 section 51 of the Michigan Constitution States: 'the public health and the general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be a matter of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of public health.' Despite the convenience and the enormous economic growth potential associated with the Internet of Things our primary concern as legislator is not convenience, noe economic growth. As much as I love technology as per our Michigan constitution the public health and general welfare of the people of our state are supposed our primary concern...This convenience comes at a price and it comes at the price to the health of many of our citizens most notably children babies in the womb and even adults who suffer from hyper sensitivity to wireless transitions".

"A few weeks ago I distributed sample data to each of you from scientific studies...complied by bioinitiative,org. ..the adverse health effects are very serious."

"Many of us are rightly concerned about the hazards of cigarattes, lead levels..and other harmful substances...but I regreat to inform you that we need to add electromagnetic radiaiton from wireless technology to this list."

The literature about the dangers of Wi-Fi radiation is voluminous and convincing, and yet here - as in so  many other fields - we are rushing to our doom helped on our way by a zombie class of politicians and journalists.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

CONTAGION: The Great Swine Flu scare of 2009

image from
Sir Liam Donaldson

As BBC4 prepares to televise its new scare documentary Contagion AoA re-posts a sequence of articles by UK editor, John Stone, from 2009-10 highlighting an  earlier shadowy attempt to hi-jack global health agenda by the vaccine industry. While AoA does not take the view that a deadly infectious pandemic is an impossibility there is major problem of distorting health policy, and promoting ineffective and dangerous solutions, warned about once again recently by infectious disease expert Tom Jefferson.

A Lethal Mixture: Swine and Bird Flu. Can We Trust Baxter, GSK and the WHO?

By John Stone (May 17, 2009)



The most recent paroxysm in the swine flu saga begs some interesting questions  which scarcely ought to be swept aside. Last week veteran Australian  scientist,  Adrian Gibbs, author of 250 peer review studies raised the issue whether H1N1 virus could have been created in a lab error. Of course, denials were rapid. ABC News reported (HERE.)

"Technically it's plausible but not likely," (said) Christopher Ohl, an associate professor of medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, and a specialist in infectious diseases.

"In this case I'm not concerned that this virus represents anything other than a naturally occurring mixture of viruses happening in nature," concluded Dr. Julie Gerberding, an infectious disease expert and the former director of the CDC...

Regardless of the validity of Gibb's claims, he and several experts say that just bringing the idea of laboratory security to the public's attention is important.

 "There are lives at risk," Gibbs said. "The sooner this idea gets out, the better."

In 2001, foot-and-mouth disease led to the slaughter of more than 6 million animals, all after a vial went missing from a research laboratory in the United Kingdom.

Since then, however, experts said lab security and regulations have been getting tighter and better.

"Laboratories have a lot of security from having this happen, and it's very unlikely," Ohl said of the new theory about swine flu's origin.

But have things improved since 2001? Probably the scariest story this year has so far been overlooked by the media at large. On  February 27 an article appeared in the Toronto Sun  by Helen Branwell, ‘Baxter: Product contained live bird flu virus’ (link no longer available, but confirmation in the record of the British parliament):

The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses. 
And an official of the World Health Organization’s European operation said the body is closely monitoring the investigation into the events that took place at Baxter International’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria.

“At this juncture we are confident in saying that public health and occupational risk is minimal at present,” medical officer Roberta Andraghetti said from Copenhagen, Denmark.

But what remains unanswered are the circumstances surrounding the incident in the Baxter facility in Orth-Donau.

The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.

The contamination incident, which is being investigated by the four European countries, came to light when the subcontractor in the Czech Republic inoculated ferrets with the product and they died. Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses...” 

According to science columnist Mark Henderson writing in the London Times on May 4, the real danger from the new swine flu virus H1N1 would be if it combined with the previous big viral scare, avian flu H5N1:

The biggest worry would be if a person or a pig became infected with both swine flu and H5N1 avian flu at the same time. As the former is highly transmissible but does not appear to be particularly lethal, while the latter is highly virulent but does not spread easily, a reassortment between the two could generate a very dangerous strain.

Of course, it would not be wise on its own to take anything Henderson says too seriously, bearing in mind his boss is a director of pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline and he is associated with the pharmaceutical lobby organisation Sense About Science .  However, bearing in mind  the Toronto Sun story of February it is not exactly encouraging that WHO and the CDC have chosen Baxter as well as GlaxoSmithKline to develop a vaccine against H1N1.

Continue reading "CONTAGION: The Great Swine Flu scare of 2009" »

Beatrice Lorenzin Put at the Head of Global Vaccine Strategy at White House in 2014


By John Stone

According to an Italian government press release Italy and its recent health minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, were placed at the head of global vaccine strategy at a meeting at the White House in September 2014. Lorenzin has figured prominently these columns for some months for having struck a deal with GSK for inward investment, including a likely agreement about vaccine mandates, for dirty tactics against proponents of choice, and for having made up a completely fictitious story about 270 child deaths from measles in London in pursuit of her vaccine strategy. Presently she is at the center of allegations of electoral fraud. The text of the release reads:

Italy leader for vaccination strategies worldwide Press release 387


Washington, 29 September 2014 - Italy will lead vaccination strategies and campaigns in the world over the next five years. This was decided by the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) held last Friday at the White House. Our country, represented by the Minister of Health Beatrice Lorenzin, accompanied by the President of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) prof. Sergio Pecorelli, has been commissioned by the Summit of 40 Countries, at which also spoke US President Barack Obama.

Continue reading "Beatrice Lorenzin Put at the Head of Global Vaccine Strategy at White House in 2014" »

Mysteries Behind the Gatti and Montanari Affair

Italy mandatesBy John Stone

Age of Autism has been reporting on two scientists, Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari, who had their research seized (including their computer) by Italy’s “financial police” in a raid two weeks ago, just as Prof Gatti was preparing to testify in a military court case in Sardinia. On the face of the events followed a dispute between a non-profit organization and the scientists over their electron microscope. According  to a report in the Gazzeta di Modena by Miriam Figluola (24 February):

The non-profit organization accuses the professor of having used the tool for profit and not for scientific research, but there is a court ruling that authorizes Gatti and Montanari to be able to use the instrument and to be compensated for travel expenses. "Money that they never gave us," explains the doctor, claiming she is not an anti-vaccinationist and claims the abnormality of the times. The story has become a political case in Sardinia, because Gatti should conclude her evidence in court on February 28, but data on the analysis of samples taken at Quirra are in the PCs seized in the mysterious operation.

But it is also an unhappy coincidence that the former Italian health minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, put herself forward in the recent Italian election as a candidate for Alternativa Popolare party  in Gatti and Montanari’s home city of Modena, and has now been elected there. Lorenzin will be familiar to Age of Autism readers as the instigator under the Gentiloni government of Italy’s vaccine mandates following a deal with GSK. Notoriously, she also told Italian television that 270 children had died in a recent measles outbreak in London, in which claim there was not a single word of truth.

Of course, Gatti and Montanari’s findings are troubling for the mandates project because all the human vaccines they tested for micro and nano-particles turned out to be contaminated. Indeed, their results were confirmed, as reported here, by a European Medical Agency official, Melanie Carr, in the British Medical Journal last year.  Given the type of contamination (which will cause harm in the smallest quantities since the body has no means to process the particles), and the number of vaccines routinely administered to an infant, Carr’s claim that this was within acceptable limits looks slender indeed. Short of recalling all the products and admitting decades of negligence, it was probably all the EMA could do  - situation management. Last month Lorenzin was complaining that the Dutch had cheated in their bid to host the EMA when it leaves London following Brexit.

John Stone is UK/Europe Editor for Age of Autism.

Documentary Film 'Sacrificial Virgins' Wins Major Australian Award But Is Ignorantly Attacked in London Times

Sacrificial Virgins
By John Stone

Joan Shenton's film 'Sacrificial Virgins' about the victims of HPV vaccination which received a major Australian  film accolade at weekend as been the subject of biased and ignorant attack in the London Times by journalist Kat Lay.  A once great newspaper is again engaged in hate journalism and the aggressive suppression  of dissent. Age of Autism reproduces  some of the responses:

From Prof Chris Exley:

Regarding the reference to ‘hard science’ made by a fellow scientist. I sent the below message to the journalist who wrote this piece, she chose to ignore it.

 I am informed by Joan Shenton that you will be writing in The Times tomorrow about the HPV vaccination programme and that you will not be very complimentary about her films.

 I agreed to be interviewed by Joan because we have an established research programme funded by many supporters including the Medical Research Council that is investigating aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines. I am attaching some of our recent papers on this subject to this email.

We are learning a great deal about the biological activity of aluminium adjuvants and some of this research makes it very clear to us that many of the serious adverse events which occur following vaccinations which include an aluminium adjuvant are directly due to the aluminium adjuvant.

We do not work on vaccines per se and we are well aware that many find it unpalatable to suggest that vaccines which include aluminium adjuvants are not safe for everyone. However, this is the case and we have known this since the 1960s (see;

HPV vaccines include aluminium adjuvants and Gardasil includes an aluminium adjuvant which is propriety to Merck and which they have flatly refused to send us samples of so that we can test it as we have tested other aluminium adjuvants used in human vaccines.

Continue reading "Documentary Film 'Sacrificial Virgins' Wins Major Australian Award But Is Ignorantly Attacked in London Times" »

European Medicines Agency Confirmed Gatti and Montanari Findings Last Year in BMJ Attack

European medicines agencyBy John Stone

As speculation continues about who initiated the seizure of the computers and records of Antonietta Gatti  and Stefano Montanari  it is interesting to revisit the attack in the electronic pages of BMJ last February by Melanie Carr of the European Medicines Agency. Carr accuses BMJ of undermining the vaccine program but oddly enough confirms their findings:

The presence of minuscule trace amounts of certain inorganic particles in vaccines is not unexpected and the manufacturing process for all parenteral preparations is designed to ensure that any such traces are kept within safe limits. Following similar previous claims by Montanari the French medicines regulatory authority (ANSM) has published their experts’ analysis of metal particles in certain vaccines using, as well as a method similar to Gatti and Montanari, inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry which allows quantification of inorganic elements.

The ANSM concluded that the amounts of any particles found were exceedingly low. This indicates that the controls during manufacturing are keeping impurities within accepted limits. French experts further concluded that their findings are due to the presence of these types of particles everywhere in the environment and should not be considered a health risk.

The defence echoes earlier attempts to defend the presence of mercury in pediatric vaccines, on the basis that the amount was miniscule  (ie only 250 times the Hazchem level). It is of course once again a major problem that the dust particles are not ordinary environmental exposures, but injected. Antonietta Gatti replied:

It is a fact, also confirmed by EMA (“The presence of minuscule trace amounts of certain inorganic particles in vaccines is not unexpected”), that vaccines contain inorganic particles not listed in the ingredients. It is also a fact that those particles, foreign bodies in all respects, are not supposed to be there and, in fact, they are not declared among the components of vaccines. And it is a further fact that, as far as nanopathology is concerned, quantity has a meaning quite different from that of classical toxicology, more complex and, in a way, definitely less important. On the other hand, indications on quantitative data can be obtained from the last table (no. of particles/20 microliters). We published the main concepts of nanopathology more than once (e. g., A.M. Gatti & S. Montanari – Nanopathology: the Health Impact of Nanoparticles – Pan Stanford Publishing 2008; and A.M. Gatti & S. Montanari – Case Studies in Nanotoxicology and Particle Toxicology – Academic Press Elsevier 2015) and reading what we published could have prevented some clumsiness and misunderstanding.

Or as Dr Noel Thomas commented:

Continue reading "European Medicines Agency Confirmed Gatti and Montanari Findings Last Year in BMJ Attack" »

Stefano Montanari and Antonietta Gatti answer Questions about Their Research into Nanoparticle Contamination of Vaccines

Italian GestureNote: The temps are heating up in Italy as vaccine mandates have created havoc and agita for families. And most recently,  two scientists had their offices raided and data, computers, etc. confiscated. Here they are below talking about their research. Remember, ""To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." (Voltaire)  In 2018, pharmaceutical companies have strong control over governments. And here in America, they cower and hide behind the NRA while our bambini die - a double insult. Kim

English language interview with Senta Depuydt in Brussels, 9 February 2017



Computers and Records Seized of Dr Gatti and Dr Montanari

By John Stone

The computers, records and data of Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari have been seized by the Italian "Guardia di Finanza". Sanevax comment:

BREAKING NEWS: This morning two scientists from Italy lost their computers, records, and data - all confiscated. Dr. Gatti and Dr. Montanari have been studying the potential effects of micro- and nanoparticles used in vaccines on the human body for years. One of them was scheduled to testify in court regarding an alleged vaccine injury. Several conference presentations were also scheduled over the next few months. Now, there is no data to present. Coincidence? Or, suppression of inconvenient scientific findings?

The website of reproduces the facebook page of Dr Montanari with the comment "FINANCIAL GUARD VISIT THE LABORATORY OF DRS GATTI AND MONTANARI, MEDICINE IS OBSTRUCTED AS USUAL".

No one, of course, challenges the pharmaceutical industry in order to make money but the cozy relationship of the industry to the Italian government is well documented, and this will be a contentious event in the forthcoming Italian national election. 

A groundbreaking study "New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro and Nanocontamination"  by Gatti and Montenari was published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination early last year:

Vaccines are being under investigation for the possible side effects they can
cause. In order to supply new information, an electron-microscopy investigation
method was applied to the study of vaccines, aimed at verifying the presence of
solid contaminants by means of an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope
equipped with an X-ray microprobe. The results of this new investigation show
the presence of micro- and nanosized particulate matter composed of inorganic
elements in vaccines’ samples which is not declared among the components and
whose unduly presence is, for the time being, inexplicable. A considerable part
of those particulate contaminants have already been verified in other matrices
and reported in literature as non biodegradable and non biocompatible. The
evidence collected is suggestive of some hypotheses correlated to diseases that
are mentioned and briefly discussed.

John Stone is UK (and European) editor of Age of Autism.

A Valuable Concession On Mandates: “Let Freedom Ring”

Vaccine-Confidence-ProjectBy John Stone

I have been meaning to write about the New Year message of Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project, a  “group” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organization. Dr Larson is remarkably calling for an end to vaccine mandates, and is openly critical of recent events across Europe but in California, India and Australia. It is just possible that she was responding to an article by myself addressed to her early in December pointing out the paradoxical nature of her position: the draconian drive against citizen’s rights which we have been seeing across the globe was incompatible with her mission to create confidence: they were indeed contradictory projects.

She writes:

Somehow the assumption that populations would accept – and continue to accept – more and more vaccines, just because they are good for personal and public health, needs a reality check. The ever-changing political, cultural and emotional lives of people have different notions of what is good for them, and we need to listen.

Well and good. Dr Larson goes on:

This does not mean agreeing with misinformation about vaccines that is circulating on the internet and social media, but listening to the deeper, underlying sentiments – the feelings of alienation, the loss of personal contact and people’s sense of feeling “counted” rather than cared for.

And here, of course, we part company (we were bound to). It is not only “alienation” it is that the primary source of misinformation about vaccines are government and global bodies like the WHO, GAVI  and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Members of the public want to discuss the small print. If Dr Larson is herself confident she ought to welcome dialogue: it may be an improvement being nice but of course it is not only uneducated people that are critical of vaccine program (the complaint very often is that they are educated), there are many doctors and scientists who often face a professional persecution for voicing their doubts. And it is also necessary to listen to the people - and their families - who have been hurt. Another problem Larson ought to consider, beside the iron fist of mandates is the hate campaigns against vaccine critics that rage through the mainstream media and in comment columns. The CEO of GAVI, Seth Berkley, has called for vaccine dissent to be removed from the web in the crudest terms. This, also, is the route away from trust. Worse, we are being deprived of the most basic intellectual freedoms.

There is no core body of evidence for the safety of the expanding vaccine schedule. In the last decade Paul Offit floated the idea of 10,000 vaccines being safe: it was taken up particularly by British health officials (Prof David Salisbury, Sir Liam Donaldson, Prof Elizabeth Miller) but now even Offit himself seems to be claiming he never said it via the website of Every Child By Two and it has not been replaced by any other theory. What we have are multiple products with different levels of effectiveness in suppressing disease by sparking inflammation, different safety profiles, and ever more of them which the infant body particularly then has to tolerate at any one time. It is a mighty assumption that “more and more vaccines” are the path to health heaven. The most vaccinated nation in the history of the earth, the USA, is drowning in child neuro-developmental disability, chronic ill-heath, and poor child mortality figures. It is becoming an economically unsustainable society.

Continue reading "A Valuable Concession On Mandates: “Let Freedom Ring”" »

John Stone: AoA's Supplementary Evidence to the UK Parliament on Fake News

ParliamentNOTE: This is supplementary evidence from Age of Autism accepted and published by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the United Kingdom House of Commons as part of the inquiry into Fake News. It follows on evidence submitted and published by the committee in November.By John Stone

The following observations are occasioned by events too late to be considered in the original submission to the inquiry [1].In the original submission I remarked on the 2005 report by the House of Commons Health Committee which criticised the Department of Health for being too close to the pharmaceutical industry. To quote briefly from the report [2]:

The Department of Health has for too long optimistically assumed that the interests of health and of the industry are as one. This may reflect the fact that the Department sponsors the industry as well as looking after health....

The consequences of lax oversight is that the industry’s influence has expanded and a number of practices have developed which act against the public interest. The industry affects every level of healthcare provision, from the drugs that are initially discovered and developed through clinical trials, to the promotion of drugs to the prescriber and the patient groups, to the prescription of medicines and the compilation of clinical guidelines...

But even as I was writing it looks like the final boundaries between the state and the industry were being demolished with the creation of the Accelerated Access Partnership (AAP) with Sir Andrew Witty, lately CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, in charge. Of course, it is very easy to project this in the mainstream media – if it is mentioned at all - as good news. On the other hand we might wonder why having at least putative independence for pharmaceutical licensing and surveillance was thought to be good thing in the past. The mainstream media would be asking serious questions if it was alert, competent and independent. If…

About this departure two LSE professors have warned [3]:

Continue reading "John Stone: AoA's Supplementary Evidence to the UK Parliament on Fake News" »

Roadmap to Hell

image from en.wikipedia.orgBy John Stone

These are my comments as UK and European Editor of Age of Autism on the European Commission document 'Roadmap: Strengthened cooperation against vaccine preventable diseases'.  This is one of 368 comments, which are overwhelmingly negative to the project:

 This project is misconceived in several dimensions. While it latches on to the issue of measles and flu mortality the number of diseases which could be defined as “vaccine preventable” is open ended, as is the number of vaccine products that the vaccine industry hopes to be licensed, and recommended for use or mandated – at the present time hundreds of different products are in development [1] purely on the principle that there will be a captive, or quasi-captive market available when they are ready to be marketed. The drive for more compliance and more products is not coming from citizens but from the industry and bureaucrats. At a simplistic level anyone could agree that preventing disease is a good thing (though some may have long term health benefits) but it could not be true at any cost to the population. There is no scientific or historical model for subjecting a population to an ever-expanding schedule of vaccine products. This is simply becoming the biggest human experiment in history.

As the schedule expands it would be rational to consider that perhaps some diseases are not so dangerous, or not so common, and that some of the products may not be so effective or safe – and by now there are already a great many. It may also be by now that the population is not so well from the proliferation of chronic diseases, mental ill-health and neuro developmental disorders. The possible relationship between these manifestations and the expanding schedule have been flippantly dismissed and attempts to research it have been persecuted. We do not presently have institutions which are as capable of protecting the public interest as that of the industry. But the pioneering recent paper by Mawson et al which attempted to address the problem reported [2]:

A convenience sample of 666 children was obtained, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. The vaccinated were less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDD. After adjustment, vaccination, male gender, and preterm birth remained significantly associated with NDD. However, in a final adjusted model with interaction, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with NDD, while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5). In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples and stronger research designs is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.

Leslie et al reported [3]:

Results...Subjects with newly diagnosed AN (anorexia nervosa) were more likely than controls to have had any vaccination in the previous 3 months [hazard ratio (HR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.21–2.68]. Influenza vaccinations during the prior 3, 6, and 12 months were also associated with incident diagnoses of AN, OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder), and an anxiety disorder. Several other associations were also significant with HRs greater than 1.40 (hepatitis A with OCD and AN; hepatitis B with AN; and meningitis with AN and chronic tic disorder).

Continue reading "Roadmap to Hell" »

John Stone Presents Written Evidence to UK Parliament

Palace_of_Westminster _London_-_Feb_2007
By John Stone, UK Editor Age of Autism

This morning AoA posts its evidence, prepared by John Stone, to the House of Commons Select Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into “fake news” which has been published by the committee. The evidence was published by the committee two weeks ago contemporaneously with farcical reports in the Daily Mirror that Vladimir Putin was using  the web to undermine the United Kingdom vaccine program. It was also submitted before it came to our attention that Andrew Witty, until earlier this year CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, had been appointed to head a new state body to fast track the approval of pharmaceutical products, one of a row of appointments effectively demolishing all remaining boundaries between the British state and the pharmaceutical industry (and GSK in particular).

Age of Autism [1] is a United States based web journal founded in 2007 dealing with issues such as autism and vaccine injury, but also with wider issues to do with health and potential environmental harm – and ultimately of civil rights. Since 2008 I have published hundreds of carefully researched, fact based articles on the site [2], only two of which I have ever taken down -  and even in those cases not because of legal challenges. I write as a well-informed citizen and parent, not as a professional. The sources of my information come in the main from government websites, peer reviewed publications, industry websites and mainstream media - only often viewed from a different critical angle or simply just highlighted in a different context.

The view of Age of Autism is that having great bureaucracies working on behalf of governments and corporate interests deciding what is true – or even machines operating algorithms to decide it -  is a prospect little different from the world of George Orwell’s 1984. It is troubling in an era when the mainstream media cannot be relied upon to provide reliable information that attention and suspicion is being diverted to other sources on the internet.  The internet is presently a chaotic place, but that is infinitely better than the alternative which would be information controlled on behalf of governments and global corporations, which could never be held to account.

The present author remembers visiting a bookshop in East Berlin across Unter den Linden from the gigantic Soviet Embassy in the early 1980s: there were perhaps no more than ten different titles for sale. There were quite a lot of copies of each, although I do not know that anyone wanted to buy them. The East German population was then controlled by the notorious Stasi. Of course, we can have a pseudo pluralistic situation in which hundreds of different websites report from the same agencies but this kind of controlled reality is equally bogus and shallow. Unfortunately, no historical lesson seems to be learnt for very long.

It is, for example, not at all obvious that discussion of the effects of medical interventions should be controlled through government departments or industry public relations agencies such as Science Media Centre and Sense About Science. In 2005 a House of Commons Health Committee report on the influence of the pharmaceutical industry heavily criticised the Department of Health and the MHRA (the medicines licensing authority) for failing to keep any distance from industry [3], and twelve years later the situation has dramatically deteriorated, not least because the kind of over-sight provided by the 2005 Health Committee has never since been replicated.  Perhaps this present committee would do better to inquire into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the media, which would at least be lot easier to define than “fake news”.

At issue in this instance is not only freedom of information, but things like informed medical consent, or even consent at all. The possibility of becoming a pharmaceutical dictatorship, is not far off – in some respects already with us. And along with forced medication comes the removal from the public domain of open debate, suppression of information about harms, and a captive market for an indefinitely expanding group of products which citizens then have to pay for through their taxes.

Continue reading "John Stone Presents Written Evidence to UK Parliament" »

Paradoxes for Heidi Larson: The Vaccine Confidence Lady

By John Stone

In an interview for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine website, Heidi Larson, founder of the Vaccine Confidence Project housed at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:

Yes, there are potential risks—there will always be potential risks with any medical treatment. And we don’t talk enough about that.

Heidi, it is funny you should say that, because no one is stopping you from talking about it. For the rest of us there are people like you trying to stop us. For instance, Seth Berkley – director of GAVI – back in June was calling for so-called anti-vaxxers to be banned from social media. Now, I am sure you would not dissent from viewpoint that an anti-vaxxer is a blanket label for anyone at all who questions the vaccine program, its safety, the wider project of the vaccine lobby. Meanwhile, the program just expands – vaccines for diseases which may either not be mostly very serious, diseases which may be more serious but which you are relatively unlikely to get. But administered in gigantic clumps to infants who are increasingly diagnosed with developmental disabilities.

And people like us – who are often people who have experienced the harms of vaccines – are really just the people you should be keen to listen to, instead of treating us like scientific specimens, or the objects of loathing to be wiped out as voices on the web. You cannot have a conversation without having a conversation, you cannot put yourself up as some kind of honest broker when what you are really doing is just trying to annihilate dissent.

Continue reading "Paradoxes for Heidi Larson: The Vaccine Confidence Lady" »

“The Problem is the Problem”, Not Vladimir Putin

Ministry of truthBy John Stone

The United Kingdom House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee have now published John Stone's submission on behalf of Age of Autism to its inquiry on the topic of "Fake News". It can be read here.

So, yesterday it finally happened. A bottom grade journalist from a UK national newspaper, Russell Myers of the Daily Mirror, alleged – briefed by two government officials – that criticisms of the vaccine program on web are inspired by Vladimir Putin trying to undermine the British government: 'Russian cyber-units 'spreading false information about flu and measles jabs in the UK''. Well, in my case British government officials know that I have been in touch with them since the beginning of the millennium, so it is an odd time to start bringing it up. If I am a Russian agent they have been watching me a long time without cottoning on.

In those early days things were somewhat more gentlemanly than they are now, but I could not escape the problem - in British civil service jargon – that they were being “economical with the truth”. “The problem” as Jim Carrey stated a few years ago in a rather Shakespearian way “is the problem”: it is that their story is internally inconsistent, it does not add up. In my very earliest encounters with the British civil service I did not even mention vaccines, I was expressing concern about the rising tide of autism: it was they who were apparently backed into a corner about MMR and Andrew Wakefield. If they had not given the game away, I suppose I might have found some more rewarding trade. As it was I was appalled that these people were locked into something they did not know how to escape.

Seventeen years later, of course, it is all so much worse. In retrospect Wakefield had interfered with policy in two crucial ways: he and his colleagues had broken the already established taboo in British medicine of considering vaccine events as a possible contributory history towards sickness and disability. The other was that he had placed a question over the safety of a multivalent vaccine, MMR, when the development of an industry depended on their acceptance. While Wakefield had to be witch-hunted and made an example of, the British and American governments particularly were caught up into a set of policies: an expanding program, forceful denial of harms, ever close connections between government and industry. Like Macbeth they had to go on compounding the original sin, and like Macbeth the fall out gets ever greater. To sustain the great project all harms have to be dismissed.

Continue reading "“The Problem is the Problem”, Not Vladimir Putin" »

The European Health Parliament: Bogus Institution Is Industry Front

image from www.healthparliament.euBy John Stone

Our elected politicians may not be a class I collectively respect, but at least they bother to get themselves elected. Recently our friends at the British based journal and group The Informed Parent received a letter announcing:

“My name is Alice Pignacca, Member of the European Vaccine Committee of the European Health Parliament, a platform of 55 young professionals and students with the goal of shaping the future of healthcare in Europe. We work in 5 committees around various topics. Specifically, our committee intends to provide recommendations on vaccination plans, taking into account the reasons for not trusting vaccines.”

What Ms Pignacca – who is requesting information -  does not mention is that the European Health Parliament (which no one had heard of before) but which sounds vaguely plausible, is no more a parliament than you or I are a parliament. It does not have representatives elected by citizens, and it is not an institution of the European Union: it is an unelected body affiliated to Johnson and Johnson, Google, POLITICO, the College of Europe, the European Patients Forum (a group which receives significant funding from most of the major pharmaceutical manufacturers)and Euro40 (a group of Euro MPs under the age of 40). The letter is copied to Matteo Pedralli, who like Pignacca seems to be a student at the 'the College of Europe', an independent educational institution situated in Brussels (one of the two homes of the real European Parliament) and to Chiara Danelli, who works for Johnson and Johnson .

Johnson and Johnson may not be a name much associated with vaccines but they make Quinvaxem (DTPHibHep)  and Hepavax  (a single Hepatitis B vaccine), and are trying to expand into the sector:

“Johnson & Johnson currently has relatively low vaccine revenues, reflecting its small portfolio size, volume of doses sold and geographic scope. However, its pipeline and R&D investments indicate a growing focus on vaccines.”

So, in order to add their new products to an already obscenely crowded schedule they are going to have to lobby hard.

Among the questions that Pignacca asks:

“For which reason don’t you trust scientists, doctors, and institutions on this?..”

I am not speaking for the Informed Parent but of course if you write from an industry sponsored lobby organization pretending to be a legitimate public body it scarcely helps your case.

‘Would you agree that the scientific method has helped human progress?”

Well, yes but that does not mean that every industrial product manufactured is an example of progress or necessarily safe. I do not know why Ms Pignacca would expect anyone to respect such naive or twisted logic.

The European Health Parliament seems have been launched as a project in 2015 with the motto echoing the 'Occupy Wall Street' campaign 'Occupy Health Street' but the pretence of being a citizens’ body is ridiculous, another Trojan horse.

Or perhaps European Health Parliament is just a rather up-market youth employment scheme: the door-to-door sales-people of the cyber age.

The government pharmaceutical complex cannot play it straight to save their lives.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

The Fox Guarding the Hen House: Outgoing GSK Chief to Head New UK Government Agency Fast Tracking the Licensing of Pharma Products

image from www.rescuepost.comby John Stone

The really scary news is the news you do not see reported. If eyebrows were raised last week that GSK’s head of Research and Development, Patrick Vallance, was to leave his highly paid position to become Chief Scientist to the British government, it was barely reported the same day that the British government has also appointed his former boss, Sir Andrew Witty, to head a new agency to fast track the licensing of pharmaceutical products. Witty left his post as CEO of GSK earlier this year and has already taken up a role with North Carolina biotech company, G1 Therapeutics. Witty became CEO of GSK in 2008, having joined Glaxo in 1985, while GSK was formed in a merger with SmithKline Beecham in 2001.

As reported in Wikipedia:

On 2 July 2012, GSK pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement of the largest health-care fraud case in the U.S. and the largest payment by a drug company.[12] The settlement is related to the company's illegal promotion of prescription drugs, its failure to report safety data, bribing doctors, and promoting medicines for uses for which they were not licensed. The drugs involved were Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Lamictal, and Zofran for off-label, non-covered uses. Those and the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent, and Valtrex were involved in the kickback scheme….

In July 2013, the People's Republic of China announced that they were investigating allegations of fraud perpetrated by GSK going back to 2007 and involving thousands of millions of renminbi… Four GSK executives have already been arrested in China. It is alleged that the money was used, inter alia, to bribe around 25 travel agencies that organize conferences for doctors, in order to encourage the agencies to host GSK events. Witty later claimed that he knew nothing about the China fraud and tried to pass the blame onto subordinates…

In November 2015 Witty's leadership of GSK was criticised by Neil Woodford, who said that "he’s not doing a very good job". Woodford called for GSK to be split into four companies… In March 2016 Witty announced that he was to stand down as chief executive

In April 2017 GSK lost a $3m action when Wendy Dolin sued them for her husband’s suicide after taking the anti-depressant Paxil (which is the same as Seroxat), after presenting a technical defence. Among GSK’s other products are the controversial vaccines Cervarix, Infanrix Hexa and Pandemrix. The Cervarix vaccine was marketed without any certainty that it could prevent cervical cancer and is associated with a high level of injury. Infanrix Hexa has been implicated by Jacob Puliyel in excess infant deaths, and the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine has caused narcolepsy. An early trial for Pandemrix left a trail of unexplained deaths. The pre-cursor to GSK, SKB also manufactured the Pluserix MMR vaccine which was withdrawn in Canada and later the UK because of cases of mumps meningitis.

Witty has for a long time enjoyed close relations with the British government: he was lead non-executive board member of the Department of Trade  (BIS) between 2011 and 14, and is a “business ambassador” for the present Prime Minister.

Slow or fast, licensing is already over deferential to the industry, but even if GSK had had an unimpeachable record - instead of a nightmare one - the appointment would still be outrageous.

With acknowledgments to Truthman's blog.

Is there Mercury in the Present UK Flu Vaccine?

Calvin-harris-press-gavin-bond-2015-billboard-650by John Stone

"However, another authoritative source British National Formulary/National Institutes for Healthcare Excellence (BNF NICE) listing this season's products states that all the suspensions "may contain" thiomersal. The position is ambiguous to say the least."  

A row has apparently blown up in the media between a mega star that I have never heard of, Calvin Harris, with 12.7 million twitter followers and British health officials. Harris has apparently claimed that there is mercury in the 2017 UK flu shot. No such claim I would like to make clear has ever been made on this website. While it is difficult to find out exactly which products are being given I have just checked through the ingredients of ten products I was able to identify and none had mercury, thiomersal or thimerosal listed.

Perhaps Mr Harris was basing his claim on the situation in the US where officials seem more inclined to brazen it out. It may be pointed out as well that the same health officials who are out now trying to re-assure people that there is no mercury in the shot are very likely the same ones who were previously trying assure them it was perfectly safe.

Post Script: This appears to be the bottom line. There is a letter 20 March 2017 signed by representatives of the UK Department of Health, Public Health England, NHS England (Dame Sally C Davies, Prof Paul Cosford and Prof Sir Bruce Keogh). On pages 24-6 there is a list of products with one or two additions to those I linked to. Underneath is the statement p. 26:"None of the influenza vaccines for the 2017/18 season contain thiomersal as an added preservative"

The odd wording suggests the possibility that thiomersal may have been used in the preparation of some of the products, perhaps as a sterilising agent, and therefore could be present at trace levels.

 Post Post Script: However, another authoritative source British National Formulary/National Institutes for Healthcare Excellence (BNF NICE) listing this season's products states that all the suspensions "may contain" thiomersal. The position is ambiguous to say the least.  

Suspension for injection All products


May contain

Gentamicin, kanamycin, neomycin penicillins, polymyxin b, thiomersal

Has the HHS Capped Reports on VAERS?

image from upload.wikimedia.orgBy John Stone

Earlier this year I happened to note in a letter (dated 26 May 2017) to British Medical Journal Rapid Responses that 599,972 reports had accumulated on US Vaccine Adverse Events System since it started back in 1990 and out of curiosity decided to see how it had advanced (using the Medalerts website  rather than the CDC’s) and found on 17 October 2017 that it had progressed to 607,223. On this basis I made the calculation that almost exactly 50 cases a day had been added in the interim. My first thought was that this was rather a lot, when actually it was rather a little. This would yield a rate of 18,250 cases a year whereas in the previous two years the rate had been close to 50,000 or around 130 reports a day.

I do not know whether the problem is that the database is just incomplete for later reports, but then you would have expected more cases to have accumulated from earlier in the year as well. It maybe if we look back in six months a further 80 cases per day will have accumulated for the period, or about 11,500 cases. What does not seem likely is that there was a dramatic spontaneous decline in case reporting.

Either way it is a daunting proposition. The database has in recent year been accumulating at more than 100 reports a day and as I pointed out back in May 2015  and as Del Bigtree pointed out in his new TV program last week because VAERS is a passive reporting system it may only represent 1% of cases.

Of course, health officials and web trolls will always point out that these are not confirmed cases, but the truth is that within the official system there are never any confirmed cases, even cases where awards have been made for damage. The fundamental flaw is that unless there is an independent system of active monitoring “they” will be left playing the game of hit and run – of automatic denial – till Kingdom Come. Meanwhile, we can assume that 130 cases a day is a very small percentage of the true figure. And not to have an independent active monitoring system - so long as we have a program, or even allow products to be marketed - is a fraud on the public.

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

Autism and the Mark of Thimerosal – a Hypothesis

ThimerosalBy John Stone

This is a simple observation, which may help to explain where we have been and where we are going with autism epidemic. I have made the comment privately a few times recently and posted it on-line to “Barry” the other day. But in the absence of properly conducted studies it may be that just posting it for comment is the way to go. I take as a starting point the history described by Mark Blaxill and Dan Olmsted in their recently published book Denial, that autism was vanishingly rare when Leo Kanner first described it in the early 1940s and even more vanishingly rare (but perhaps not absolutely non-existent) before that. Mark and Dan specifically associated the arrival of the condition with the introduction of mercury compound products in agriculture and particularly in vaccines (containing the ethyl mercury compound thimerosal). In this history autism remains a relatively rare condition until the 1980s and what might be called the international consequences of the US Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which enabled the US government-pharmaceutical complex to load the vaccine schedule with ever more mandated products, with other governments across the globe finding parallel strategies for expanding their schedules. What we then see is that autistic spectrum type brain injuries go on increasing to the present time though thimerosal itself was removed in the first half of the last decade in the United States and the United Kingdom.This is my comment to “Barry”:

My thought on this - as the vaccine program expands it continues to cause encephalopathies and random neurological damage on ever larger scale. What I am not seeing which seems to go back about a decade in the UK, following the removal of thimerosal (c. October 2004) is the toddlers who used to spin and flap, and walk on their toes, and it was like you used to see them every time you went to the shops, and now I haven't seen this for a very long time, and I am guessing this was the specific indicator. I don't know whether I am out on limb in making this observation. I would be quite interested to know what others think.

I do not know whether this is an original observation, but all I can say is that many readers will be familiar with symptoms which have accompanied autism but which are not part of its definition, and which seem to have the character of neurological symptoms. It may also be recalled how William Thompson in his telephone conversations with Brian Hooker was particularly troubled about the association of thimerosal with tics: spinning, flapping and tip-toeing goes beyond tics but was highly specific symptom of ASD which seems to have disappeared in the part of the world in which I live about a decade ago was highly characteristic before that, at least in the early stages of the condition. I wonder what our governments knew about this?

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

The Rest is Silence - My Letter to Ian Birrell

Ian BirrellBy John Stone

Ian Birrell is not a minor journalist and he has experience with the disability scene. Years ago I used to see his wife and daughter at my son’s music therapy sessions and I know the family had to cope with difficulties of a special order. But he is also well connected, and was David Cameron’s speech writer during the 2010 election.

This weekend I was dismayed to see a journalist – in this case Birrell -  once again smear Andrew Wakefield. Birrell is capable of doing research but instead he just repeats the old whispers. I noticed that back in May he had written an excellent piece on the contaminated blood scandal with which the United Kingdom Department of Health in the early 1980s wiped out a generation of haemophiliacs, and went on to try and pull the wool for more than three decades. Quite rightly he is outraged, but what he does not seem to understand is the flawed culture that leads to such things. Another example was the Camelford water disaster, in which at exactly moment that DH was arranging to import a known to be faulty version of the MMR vaccine, they began a twenty-five year cover up of the poisoning of residents by aluminium sulphate in a Cornish village – they may not in this instance have got the media to believe them, but from the legal point of view it was perfectly executed exercise in time wasting.

One thing that Birrell could learn from the contaminated blood incident is that things that are supposed to be good for you are not always. Preventing disease is a fine idea, but what happens if the products are neither as  safer or effective as claimed in the propaganda, and what happens when there ever more of them?

Birrell can state that Wakefield was disgraced (I suppose Jan Hus was disgraced when the Papal inquisition put a dunce's cap on his head and set light to him) and that the General Medical Council erased him from the register, but that is superficial stuff. History asks intelligent people to ask serious questions. The reality is that the proceedings against Wakefield and colleagues were based substantially on false allegations and these were shown in detail to be false allegations when they were reviewed by a High Court judge, Sir John Mitting, in the case of Wakefield’s senior colleague Prof Walker-Smith. Though neither Wakefield or Prof Murch was in a position to appeal it does not mean that claims which were inherently false were somehow true about them. If the products are so wonderful, why this incredible litany of lies which has to be endlessly repeated?

Continue reading "The Rest is Silence - My Letter to Ian Birrell" »

Revisiting the Swine Flu Fiasco of 2009

Child pigBy John Stone

AoA re-posts a sequence of articles by UK editor, John Stone, from 2009-10 highlighting an  earlier shadowy attempt to hi-jack global health agenda by the vaccine industry. Republication coincides with his recent letter to the British Medical Journal.

A Lethal Mixture: Swine and Bird Flu. Can We Trust Baxter, GSK and the WHO?

By John Stone (May 17, 2009)

The most recent paroxysm in the swine flu saga begs some interesting questions  which scarcely ought to be swept aside. Last week veteran Australian  scientist,  Adrian Gibbs, author of 250 peer review studies raised the issue whether H1N1 virus could have been created in a lab error. Of course, denials were rapid. ABC News reported (HERE.)

"Technically it's plausible but not likely," (said) Christopher Ohl, an associate professor of medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, and a specialist in infectious diseases.

"In this case I'm not concerned that this virus represents anything other than a naturally occurring mixture of viruses happening in nature," concluded Dr. Julie Gerberding, an infectious disease expert and the former director of the CDC...

Regardless of the validity of Gibb's claims, he and several experts say that just bringing the idea of laboratory security to the public's attention is important.

 "There are lives at risk," Gibbs said. "The sooner this idea gets out, the better."

In 2001, foot-and-mouth disease led to the slaughter of more than 6 million animals, all after a vial went missing from a research laboratory in the United Kingdom.

Since then, however, experts said lab security and regulations have been getting tighter and better.

"Laboratories have a lot of security from having this happen, and it's very unlikely," Ohl said of the new theory about swine flu's origin.

But have things improved since 2001? Probably the scariest story this year has so far been overlooked by the media at large. On  February 27 an article appeared in the Toronto Sun  by Helen Branwell, ‘Baxter: Product contained live bird flu virus’ (link no longer available, but confirmation in the record of the British parliament):

The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses. 
And an official of the World Health Organization’s European operation said the body is closely monitoring the investigation into the events that took place at Baxter International’s research facility in Orth-Donau, Austria.

“At this juncture we are confident in saying that public health and occupational risk is minimal at present,” medical officer Roberta Andraghetti said from Copenhagen, Denmark.

But what remains unanswered are the circumstances surrounding the incident in the Baxter facility in Orth-Donau.

The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.

The contamination incident, which is being investigated by the four European countries, came to light when the subcontractor in the Czech Republic inoculated ferrets with the product and they died. Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses...” 

According to science columnist Mark Henderson writing in the London Times on May 4, the real danger from the new swine flu virus H1N1 would be if it combined with the previous big viral scare, avian flu H5N1:

The biggest worry would be if a person or a pig became infected with both swine flu and H5N1 avian flu at the same time. As the former is highly transmissible but does not appear to be particularly lethal, while the latter is highly virulent but does not spread easily, a reassortment between the two could generate a very dangerous strain.

Of course, it would not be wise on its own to take anything Henderson says too seriously, bearing in mind his boss is a director of pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline and he is associated with the pharmaceutical lobby organisation Sense About Science .  However, bearing in mind  the Toronto Sun story of February it is not exactly encouraging that WHO and the CDC have chosen Baxter as well as GlaxoSmithKline to develop a vaccine against H1N1.

Continue reading "Revisiting the Swine Flu Fiasco of 2009" »

Pollard Tyrannos: Another Power Bid from the Vaccine Lobby – Some Real News  

PollardBy John Stone

An Oxford University website features an appeal by Prof Andrew Pollard – who has often appeared in our columns – calling for compulsory vaccination, quoting from a report in the Guardian newspaper which followed three weeks after the newspaper’s egregious and deceitful editorial on the subject. However, both web-feature and newspaper report failed to mention a rather important detail: Prof Pollard heads the United Kingdom body, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which recommends vaccines for the schedule, and a 2009 act of Parliament (though itself of dubious legality) already places a responsibility on the Secretary of State for Health (ie an elected parliamentarian and member of the government) to follow the advice of the committee. This means that if the UK Parliament did legislate to make vaccines compulsory, Prof Pollard himself would have effective dictatorial powers over citizens telling them which vaccines they and their children must have.

Prof Pollard was appointed chair of the JCVI in 2013 and at his second meeting in February 2014 chaired a discussion which led to the recommendation of Bexsero Meningitis B vaccine to the schedule, a product of which he was also lead developer as director of Oxford Vaccine Group: previously the committee had refused to recommend the vaccine despite political pressure. This event was followed within weeks by the transfer of the Novartis vaccine division – which manufactured Bexsero -  to GlaxoSmithKline and a huge up-swing in the product’s sale potential.

Pollard was appointed to the JCVI by a panel chaired the government’s head of immunisation, Dr David Salisbury. Shortly afterwards Dr Salisbury retired and became chair of the Jenner Vaccine Foundation, a funding body for Oxford Vaccine Group, on which he sits with Prof Polllard and Dr Norman Begg, Vice-President and Chief Medical Officer of GSK Biologicals. Dr Norman Begg was formerly attached to the Public Health Service Laboratory and was the co-author with Dr Salisbury of the Department of Health guide to vaccination, the Green Book 1996, prior to departing to join one of the fore-runner companies to GSK (not clear whether Glaxo Wellcome or SmithKline Beecham) at the beginning of 2000 as “Director of Medical Affairs”, without there apparently being any gap between appointments.  Among the funders of the Jenner Vaccine Foundation are the Wellcome Trust (which sold its pharmaceutical interests to Glaxo in 1995), the UK Medical Research Council, the UK Department of Health, the European Commission, the US National Institutes of Health, The Foundation for National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Continue reading "Pollard Tyrannos: Another Power Bid from the Vaccine Lobby – Some Real News  " »

An Open Letter to the Editor of the Guardian, Katharine Viner

Guardian vaccines editorial
By John Stone

Dear Ms Viner,

I am writing to you somewhat retrospectively to ask for some explanation of the Guardian’s unsigned editorial last month The Guardian view on vaccinations: a matter of public health [1] which was both an attempt to jockey opinion and a blatant attempt to mislead. The issue as presented was that compulsory vaccination was a necessary step, because certain bad people labelled collectively “anti-vaxxers” were gaining too much influence. This in effect bundled together all critics of the programme and the vaccine lobby as bad people (frequently apparently wealthy people like Gwyneth Paltrow) and allegedly all free-loaders on the system, rather than as many are people who vaccinated their children and rue the day. Moreover, the cited authority on this was not scientific literature but the comedian TV presenter, John Oliver. This is scarcely the material of respectable argument.

Even the illustration of protesters in Italy demonstrates the distortion of the issue. In Italy – unreported by your newspaper as far as I know – tens of thousands of citizens have been turning out weekly on the streets not to demand the banning of vaccines, which you might suppose would be what an “anti-vaxxer” wanted, but the right to have some choice over what their children were vaccinated with and when. This had been provoked by legislation following an agreement between the Italian government and GlaxoSmithKline in which investment in Italy was made contingent on the government creating a captive market. The CEO of GSK Italy, Daniel Finnochiaro, is reported on an industry website as saying [2]:

“Among the aspects, I also met with Minister Lorenzin and other members of the government who reiterated the sensitivity of the government towards those who invest, create jobs and opportunities for young people. In short, we started on the right foot.

“Such sensitivity in the Roman palaces is not to be dismissed. As for us, Andrew Witty has asked for a few things: clear rules and stability in return for strong investment in advanced research and production equipment. We were of one intent.”

It may be remarked that without the prospect of forced vaccination there would have been no demonstrators at all, and what actually seems to be happening is that the vaccine industry is picking fights with citizens using such proxies as the Italian government and the Guardian newspaper. It is evident that whatever the arguments are for compulsory vaccination that a competent newspaper, informing its readership, should report that it is actually the industry - the people selling the products - making the running.

Although we should not take the events surrounding the career eclipse of Andrew Wakefield at face value [3], it is a shoddy argument that if one line of research about one product has been discredited that all the products can be supposed safe. That such an argument could be deployed by a “serious” newspaper again beggars belief (although it has become a cynical and lazy resort of the vaccine lobby). It should also be noted that British health officials have repeatedly deployed false arguments about the safety of the expanded schedule citing the flawed and fraudulent ‘spare capacity’ arguments of Paul Offit [4].

Continue reading "An Open Letter to the Editor of the Guardian, Katharine Viner" »

Hit and Run Vaccine Policy of the British Government Revealed: Damage Settlements Go from Hundreds to Zero in Four Decades.

Broken-britain-finalBy John Stone

Bad faith through and through: we have reached a point with the vaccination program where it is impossible to draw attention to or discuss openly even government published data. Information which has recently to come to light concerns the way the British parliament moved to recognise vaccine damage nearly forty years ago, making many – if modest – settlements, but then the government machine massaged the problem out of existence by silently changing the criteria.

In the first two complete years of the scheme in 1979-81 – when the program itself was much less ambitious -  the United Kingdom Vaccine Damage Payment Unit recognised 573 cases. Settlements had reduced to a trickle by the end of the 1980s, and by the beginning the present decade (the years 2011-14) there were none at all. Indeed, earlier this year even the Court of Appeal was forced to reject the absurdly flawed and contradictory criteria of the United Kingdom Department of Works and Pensions.

Sad to report that once again the British Medical Journal has so far failed to publish a letter drawing attention to this issue. I submitted a letter twice adjusting the language the second time to make sure it could be no obstruction to publication, while the information I cite is in government documents. This is the second submitted letter:-

Request for an open discussion

If we look at the table of damage settlements from the Vaccine Damage Payment Unit provided under Freedom of Information in December 2014 it tells a pitiful and disturbing story [1]. In the first full year of the scheme, 1979/80, there were 317 settlements, and in the second 256. It is not to be supposed the Department of Health and Social Security, as it was then, paid out frivolously. But it must also be reflected that in those day there were only 5 or 6 infant vaccines on the schedule, with relatively low compliance.

It is evident that the VDPU then began to play by different rules or use different criteria for assessment. By 1988/9 -  the year Social Security was split from Health - they had got it down to just three settlements, and after 2010 until the end of 2014 there were none at all, even though the schedule just kept on expanding and compliance was generally over 90%. Bureaucratically speaking there was indeed no vaccine damage at all during this period, though even on the basis of manufacturers' data you would expect some. We also, of course, know from the Court of Appeal earlier this year that the Department of Works and Pensions was subverting the spirit and letter of the act by employing logically contradictory rules [2], and unfortunately what we fear is that they will seek out new pretexts to deny compensation, because this means has failed. It can only be said that this is a profoundly opaque culture, and one which could lead to untold damage, because major checks have been removed from the system.

Does anyone want to answer for this?



John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

The British Establishment In Ethical Collapse Over Vaccine Damage

House of CommonsBy John Stone

This is the text of my third submission on behalf of Age of Autism to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Research Integrity last April, which has gained extra urgency because of the debate about compulsory vaccination. Though two earlier submissions could have been excluded because of submission criteria, there were no obvious grounds for excluding this one, except that like the others it tackled the core claims of their discussion document head on - that the 1998 Wakefield Lancet paper was an example of research fraud, or that it should be considered inherently reprehensible on the grounds that it subverted policy. The one thing that became apparent in my brief discussions with the secretary to the committee, Mr Fiander, was that the committee would stand by its claim of fraud simply because the claim had been made in a British Medical Journal editorial in January 2011 which had never been retracted (despite overwhelming evidence against it claims). The committee itself was dissolved without the inquiry proceeding at the time of the General Election and has not yet been re-formed.

This evidence has been shaped by statements made in the Committee’s prior publication POSTnote 544 singling out the Wakefield “Lancet paper” as an example of fraud, and particularly in relation to the defence of a public health programme and policy [1]. It becomes particularly relevant in the light the latest campaign in February 2017, led by Times Newspapers, to further discredit Andrew Wakefield [2,3].

This submission is not motivated by indifference to the control of infectious disease. While the control of disease is important it is not a good enough reason to stand the rules of research integrity or public discussion on their head. This is not only about the Wakefield paper but the problematic nature of vaccine science, and also the general exclusion of the subject from contemporary mainstream public debate. Even the reasons for going to war at times of national peril are debated, but here it is as if everything has been conceded in advance to an industry and its public advocates. In these circumstances reasonable comment is driven to the margins with unreasonable, even to the extent of being buried by search engines such as google.

It is also problematic that virtually every public defence of the vaccine programme begins with an attack on the integrity of Dr Andrew Wakefield, as if the public humiliation of one man could provide scientific justification in perpetuity for an entire class of products. Wakefield has been globally transformed into the Emmanuel Goldstein of public health (to reference Orwell’s 1984) but we should not mistake that this is actually occurring at the level of propaganda and not of scientific (or historic) fact: indeed when people cite Wakefield as an example few have the remotest idea what body of facts they are citing, and this has reduced to zero the quality of informed public discussion.

Continue reading "The British Establishment In Ethical Collapse Over Vaccine Damage " »

Not Published In The British Medical Journal: 'Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics'

British-Medical-Journal_0By Jackie Fletcher
In the controversy over compulsory vaccination this letter by Jackie Fletcher, director of JABS, remains unpublished. Given the British mainstream media's craven failure to report any of the issues over the vaccine lobby's moves to make vaccination compulsory in the UK, the BMJ must be given some credit for allowing comments in their Rapid Responses, but they do not allow all. In 2010 her son Robert's vaccine injury was finally acknowledged, after a  legal appeal. It should be noted further in response to the outrageous, conscienceless lies of the Italian Health Minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, that according to official sources - and irrespective of any alleged influence of Andrew Wakefield - only three people have died in the United Kingdom from contracting measles since 1992 (out of about 13m deaths all told). Even the official record admits that the main cause for the last of these deaths was medical negligence.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Further to Dr Anand's earlier post about accurate information I would like to add that Public Health (PH) spokespersons, even after almost 28 years of the MMR controversy, still refer to MMR vaccines as 'perfectly safe'.

Continue reading "Not Published In The British Medical Journal: 'Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics'" »

Responses To The British Medical Association Opening A Debate About Vaccine Mandates

British-Medical-Journal_0By John Stone & Jackie Fletcher

Letters published in British Medical Journal Rapid Responses:

UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination

I read with concern Tom Moberly's report that the British Medical Association is trying to open a debate about mandating vaccines in the United Kingdom [1] having already made a number of relevant observations under an earlier article [2]. Most fundamentally, I would urge the medical establishment to exercise a little humility when today's scientific orthodoxy could so easily in retrospect become tomorrow's horrific misjudgement. It does not help when we see all vaccine critics dismissed by the Guardian newspaper or, by CEO of Gavi, in the Spectator in abusive terms as "anti-vaxxers" [3, 4], when it is far from clear that every issue in vaccine safety has been resolved - or that we can even begin to assess the risks while denying a respectful hearing to patients or their families, which pre-empts both evidence and argument in an inappropriate way. In my experience the most vociferous vaccine critics hitherto have not so much been people with an ideological objection to vaccination as people who had had their children vaccinated and regretted it. Such indiscriminate (scorched earth) strategies scarcely command the moral high ground.

Moreover, disregarding the highly intolerant atmosphere which is being generated in some quarters it is not evident that even if the science involved could approach the level of being definitive that it is anywhere near that at present. For example, three successive reports by Cochrane on the safety of MMR have declared [5,6,7]:

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate."

Continue reading "Responses To The British Medical Association Opening A Debate About Vaccine Mandates" »

Not published in the British Medical Journal: the dangers and conflicts of Infanrix Hexa

InfarixBy John Stone

The British government have announced the addition to the infant vaccine schedule of a Hepatitis B vaccine from August 1, as one component of GSK’s controversial hexavalent vaccine Infanrix Hexa which also includes DTaP, polio and HiB. Additional to this a two month old infant will receive rotavirus vaccine, 13 strain pneumococcal, and Meningitis B vaccines. So far, the British Medical Journal have not allowed my electronic response to its news story:

I read with concern the report by Torjesen that the United Kingdom government plan to add a Hepatitis  B vaccine to the infant schedule as part of hexavalent vaccine product Infanrix Hexa, manufactured by GSK [1].

Irrespective of considerations such as the policy of the World Health Organisation, or the financial viability of the intervention, eyebrows may be raised at the ethics of  the vaccination of many children against a disease from which they are little at risk (as Torjesen's article admits).

In 2015 Puliyel calculated  a potential excess of 69 sudden infant deaths from Infanrix Hexa over a two year period based on a confidential pharmacovigilance report submitted by GSK to the regulatory authorities which had been released to the public domain by the Italian Ministry of Justice. His observations are published on PubMed Commons [2].

The recommendation to include this vaccine on the infant schedule was made at the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation meeting of October 2014, chaired then [3] and now by Prof Andrew Pollard [4]. Prof Pollard is Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group which develops vaccines and conducts trials on behalf of industry [5]. Prof Pollard is also a Trustee of the Jenner Vaccine Foundation with Dr Norman Begg, Vice-President and Chief Medical Officer of GSK Biologicals [6] which manufactures Infanrix Hexa. The Jenner Vaccine Foundation is chaired by Dr David Salisbury [6] who as Director of Immunisation, Department of Health, chaired the panel that appointed Prof Pollard as Chair of the JCVI in 2013 [7].

[1] Ingrid Torjesen, 'UK adds hepatitis B to infant vaccination schedule', BMJ 2017; 358 doi:  (Published 10 July 2017)

[2] Response to Baldo et al, 'Combined hexavalent diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-hepatitis B-inactivated poliovirus-Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine; Infanrix™ hexa: twelve years of experience in Italy', PumMed Commons 2015, January 13, 06.40am

Continue reading "Not published in the British Medical Journal: the dangers and conflicts of Infanrix Hexa" »

La Scalata della Glaxo (Glaxo's Rapid Rise in Italy)

Northern ItalyBy John Stone (Traduzione di GM)

John Stone wrote about the ascent (la scalata) of Glaxo on June 21st of this year. Below is an Italian translation that we hope will find its way across the pond to our friends in Italy. We support Italy's health choice and parent community as they fight against the tough new mandates and financial penalties now in place.

(English version here)

Mentre il parlamento italiano si accinge a votare nuove drastiche leggi per aumentare il numero dei vaccini obbligatori rivolti alla fascia pediatrica, sarebbe forse utile ripercorrere le origini dell'accordo che ha portato alla conquista della Divisione Vaccini della Novartis da parte della Glaxo.

La scalata inizia ad Aprile 2014 poco dopo la controversa decisione da parte della Commissione per le Vaccinazioni e l'Immunizzazione del Regno Unito (JCVI) di raccomandare l'uso in età pediatrica del vaccino Bexsero della Novartis per la Meningite B (una delle vaccinazioni obbligatorie sul nuovo calendario vaccinale italiano), decisione presa dal neo presidente Andrew Pollard che, caso vuole, sia anche lo sviluppatore principale del prodotto. Meno di un anno prima il Ministro della Sanità Jeremy Hunt aveva fatto pressione sulla JCVI per raccomandare il Bexsero, ma l'accordo non c'era stato.

La decisione viene presa durante il secondo incontro presieduto dal Prof. Pollard senza che nessuno dei presenti abbia pensato di sollevarsi dell'incarico per conflitto di interessi e senza necessità di votare. Questa decisione ha dato un grande impulso commerciale al prodotto che fino a quel momento stentava ad affermarsi sul mercato.

Continue reading "La Scalata della Glaxo (Glaxo's Rapid Rise in Italy)" »

July 4th Best Of: The American Revolution and Health Tyranny

British-american_flagBy John Stone

This article was originally written by John for in 2014. It's more relevant than ever.

I have always been drawn to United States history so I hope it will not be taken amiss if I offer an Independence Day  perspective of a British citizen: we are, of course, all heirs of that revolution one way or another across the globe: more so today than ever perhaps. Immediately speaking there are two striking facets (I just had to correct the typographic error “strifing”): the incredible historic dynamism of the nation created by this event but also the great amount of thought that the founding fathers went into trying to prevent the re-emergence of the tyranny which they had just escaped. Perhaps never has so much thought gone into avoiding “oppressive government” even if many of the leading participants in the new republic still regarded it as their right to own slaves.

Nearly two and a half centuries on it is possible to see that powerful interests can buy their way into every aspect of a nation’s life defying almost every measure that was ever laid out against oppressive government. Just over half a century ago, as he left office, President Eisenhower famously warned about the military industrial complex and the domination of intellectual enquiry by commercial interest:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/ technological elite.

As a commentary on this whistleblowing scientist David L Lewis recently bluntly wrote in  the “prologue” to his book Science for Sale: How the US govern uses powerful corporations and leading universities to support government policies, silence top scientists, jeopardize our health, and protect corporate profits:

During my thirty-plus years as a research microbiologist in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the University of Georgia, I experienced the far-reaching influence of corrupt special interests firsthand. As this book will describe, my dealings with civil servants, corporate manager, elected officials, and other scientists expose the ease – and disturbing regularity – with which a small group , motivated by profit or personal advancement can completely hijack important areas of research science at even our most trusted institutions. 

Continue reading "July 4th Best Of: The American Revolution and Health Tyranny" »

The British Government, the Murdochs, Prof Pollard and the GSK Takeover in Italy

JS 6 20By John Stone

As Italy’s parliament votes in draconian new laws to expand and enforce vaccine mandates over its children it may be helpful to look at some of the origins of the deal which led to the takeover over the Novartis vaccine division by GSK (Glaxo SmithKline). The takeover move began in April 2014 shortly after the United Kingdom’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) made a controversial decision to recommend Novartis’s Bexsero Meningitis B vaccine for infant use – one of the items on Italy’s compulsory schedule. The decision was presided over by the JCVI’s recently appointed chairman, Andrew Pollard, who also happened to be the product’s lead developer . Less than a year earlier the JCVI had been put under pressure to recommend Bexsero by the UK’s Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt (see picture), but failed to agree. The decision was taken at the second meeting presided over by Prof Pollard, without anybody recusing themselves and without a vote being taken. This greatly enhanced the commercial prospect of the vaccine which hitherto had been having difficulty establishing itself in the market.

As Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport during the early years of the Cameron coalition government Hunt was shown to have colluded with the interests of the Murdoch media empire and made inappropriate communications with James Murdoch, despite which he was promoted to the role of Secretary of State for Health in 2012 and is the only British cabinet minister to remain in position since that time (despite great unpopularity and mistrust). The Murdoch news empire has notably been at root of relentless fraudulent claims against Andrew Wakefield who questioned the safety of MMR vaccine in 1998 and subsequently, while in February 2009 James Murdoch was appointed to the board of GSK with a brief to help defend the group’s reputation. Within days a further string of attacks on Wakefield followed. Murdoch retired from the board of GSK in January 2012 with his own name surrounded in controversy. GSK or its precursor SKB, was the manufacturer of an MMR type vaccine which had to be withdrawn in Canada in 1987/8 and the United Kingdom in 1992, and was subject of a legal suit in which Wakefield was a witness.

However the appointment of Prof Pollard came about it is apparent that it furthered the policy request of the Health Secretary Hunt (and the new Men B vaccine was also used as political window dressing in the in 2015 British General Election). While the Secretariat of the JCVI has continued to defend the appointment of Prof Pollard, hiding behind a maze of complex rules, it is hard to see on the basis of any normal public standards a scientist can sit in judgment on the future of a product of which he was lead developer, any more than an architect could head a planning committee considering his own design. Blatantly, Pollard later addressed a GSK sponsored meeting in September 2015 at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health under the title:

Evening of Evidence

Vaccination Science to Policy

Introduction of new vaccines to the UK vaccine schedule with limited evidence of efficacy [sic]: Meningococcal group B and maternal pertussis vaccination

Another departure in standards took place when in February 2016 the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation enjoyed the hospitality of Prof Pollard’s institutions in Oxford. As well as having limited efficacy the Bexsero vaccine which is now being mandated and made compulsory for infants in Italy was recorded as having serious side effects in above 1 in 50 cases in a group of 10 to 25 year-olds, according to the FDA package insert.

Continue reading "The British Government, the Murdochs, Prof Pollard and the GSK Takeover in Italy" »

10,000 New Cases of Autism in London a Year as Bureaucrats Plan to Dump Children

British autism invasionBy John Stone

The BBC reported on Saturday that autistic children are appearing so fast in five South-West London boroughs that facilities presently only exist to diagnose half of them. This follows on very similar reports at the end of last year from Scotland and Northern Ireland. The proposed solution by health managers  -  protested by the National Autistic Society – is to only give a diagnosis in the most serious cases, which begs the question how do you even know which are the most serious cases if you do not assess the children? At the same time it should be said the NAS only have themselves to blame because they have for the last two decades covered up for the government over the autism epidemic.

Since this is based on referrals rather than diagnosis it seems to be supply led – the children will not even qualify as autistic or get support services if they do not get a diagnosis, but now we are looking at each of these boroughs having to potentially cater for 300 new cases a year. There are 32 London boroughs so this is in the order of 10,000 new cases a year for the city. No mainstream source asks why this is happening or how it is sustainable. Anyone who mentions this unfortunate matter will no doubt slip down the google rankings into oblivion.

The present increase may follow additions to the maternal (influenza and DTaP) and infant vaccine schedules (Prevenar 13, Rotarix).

John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.

More Fantasies and Falsehoods from Brian Deer

Deer Black and WhiteBy John Stone

A comment posted by Brian Deer earlier this month on the Orac blog about the 2012 appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith – Andrew Wakefield’s senior colleague - against the GMC findings two years earlier has been forwarded to me and can be read beneath my comments.

The most fundamental flaw in the General Medical Council  (GMC) case – thrown out in the instance of Prof Walker-Smith who unlike Wakefield received funding to appeal – originated with the incompetence or malice of Deer himself. It was the claim that the Wakefield Lancet 1998 paper rather than being an early report of cases seen and investigated of the basis of clinical need as it stated, was conducted under a protocol for a study to be funded by the United Kingdom Legal Aid Board (sometimes referred to as Project 172-96). Once the GMC accepted this false and absurd claim – which originated in Deer’s hidden complaints to the body - it was destined to unravel under any careful judicial scrutiny, and what was untrue for Walker-Smith was also untrue Wakefield, not to mention the Prof Simon Murch, the third doctor to fall under this GMC prosecution. The crux lies with Mr Justice Mitting’s observation:

Its conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to the Lancet children was in part founded upon its conclusion that the investigations into them were carried out pursuant to Project 172-96. The only explanation given for that conclusion is that it was reached “in the light of all the available evidence”. On any view, that was an inadequate explanation of the finding.

At the Walker-Smith hearing the GMC counsel, Joanna Glynn QC, came under pressure from the judge to provide an explanation, and she was unable to do so. After two and half years of the hearing the GMC were unable to offer an explanation, and two years further on they were unable to do so again before a High Court judge. The GMC would have had ample warning of the substance of the Walker-Smith appeal and yet they could not, when the chips were down, provide arguments to counter it.

Continue reading "More Fantasies and Falsehoods from Brian Deer" »

Show-down in Ireland over Gardasil

Irish break your heartBy John Stone

A video from the VaXxed team highlights the controversy involving two of the Republic of Ireland’s most prominent citizens, the veteran philanthropist Jonathan Irwin  and the country’s most ambitious young politician, Simon Harris – who at the age of 30 is not only the youngest member of the Dáil (Ireland’s parliament) but also Minister of Health.

British in origin and an old-boy of Eton, Irwin built a fortune in the Republic trading in horses, and in the 1990s – following a succession of personal tragedies – set up a charity which presently supports two and half thousand families with sick children, whose needs the Irish state would otherwise disregard. He has finally become disaffected following injury to his teenage daughter from Gardasil vaccine. Formally an outstanding athlete and horsewoman, she presently suffers from all the side-effects listed in the products package insert, which he points out was not made available at the time of administration and routinely is not.

Horrified by the denial of the problem by the medical profession and government and the hate campaigns waged in the media against the several hundred families in Ireland blighted by Gardasil injury, Irwin decided to speak to Polly Tommey of the VaXxed team on their recent visit. A small country – population 4.6 million – in which most of the leading citizens are likely to know each other, Ireland is an interesting theatre to watch this drama played out. If Irwin is appalled by the treatment of himself and the families, he also evidently believes he will see the scandal exposed, just another in a succession of scandal that have engulfed Irish public life over the decades. Irwin understands the misbehaviour partly in the light of Irish public life, but he also sees the criminal behaviour underpinning compliance strategies in the vaccine program on a global footing.

This a riveting interview.