Statement: Isabella Thomas Mother of 2 Lancet Study Children
Mercury Exposure Increases Diabetes Risk

Andrew Wakefield Responds on Camera to Wales Measles Outbreak

Dr. Andrew Wakefield responds to UK public health officials call for censorship on MMR vaccine safety debate, measles vaccine failure, and issues a further challenge for open debate (full transcript beneath). While he has been booked to appear on several media programs, all have cancelled just prior to airtime.

Below is the transcript.

Good morning. The first thing that I want to say is that  I did not seek out this latest media maelstrom. It came about because of an outbreak of measles in South Wales in the United  Kingdom for which I have been blamed by her Majesty's government.  So I did not seek this out but now it seems I have been denied the  opportunity to redress the allegations that have been made against me by members of the government; by members of public health and that is clearly unacceptable.
So legitimate debate about the safety of MMR vaccine and the origin of the measles epidemic in Wales have now been effectively blocked by the government insisting that the British media do not give me air time; do not allow me to respond. And that is the purpose of this. So I did not start this current fight.

The important thing to say is that back in 1996 -- 1997 I was made  aware of children developing autism, regressive autism, following exposure in many cases to the measles mumps rubella vaccine. Such  was my concern about the safety of that vaccine that I went back and reviewed every safety study, every pre-licensing study of the MMR vaccine and other measles containing vaccines before they were  put into children and after. And I was appalled with the quality of that science. It really was totally below par and that has been reiterated by other authoritative sources since. I compiled my observations into a 200 page report which I am seeking to put online once I get permission from my lawyers. And that report was the basis of my impression that the MMR vaccine was inadequately tested for safety certainly compared with the single vaccines and therefore that was the basis of my recommendation in 1998 at the press conference that parents should have the option of  the single vaccines.

All I could do as a parent was to say what would I do for my child. That was the only honest answer I could give. My position on that has not changed.

So, what happened subsequently. At that time the single measles vaccine, the single vaccines were available freely on the National Health Service. Otherwise, I would not have suggested that option.  So parents, if they were legitimately concerned about the safety of MMR could go and get the single vaccines. Six months later the  British government unilaterally withdrew the importation licence for the single vaccines therefore depriving parents of having these on the NHS; depriving parents who had legitimate concerns  about the safety of MMR from a choice; denying them the      opportunity to protect their children in the way that they saw fit.

And I was astonished by this and I said to Dr Elizabeth Miller of the Health Protection Agency why would you do this, if your  principal concern is to protect children from serious infectious      disease. Why would you remove an option from parents who are legitimately concerned about the safety of MMR. And her answer was  extraordinary. She said to me if we allow parents the option of single vaccines it would destroy our MMR programme. In other words  her concern, her principal concern seemed to be for protection of the MMR programme and not for protection of children.

Now, were parents concerns about the safety of MMR legitimate? Did they have a reason to be concerned? The answer is unequivocably yes.

When the MMR was introduced in the UK in the late 1980s there were three brands that were introduced. Two of those three brands had to be withdrawn hurriedly four years later because they were causing meningitis in children at an unacceptable rate. In other words two thirds of the licensed vaccines in the UK had to be removed from circulation because they were dangerous.

And what is very disturbing about this and this was brought to my attention by a government whistleblower, Dr Alistair Thores, who was working at that time for the Joint Committee On Vaccination And Immunisation, the regulatory body in the UK. He made it clear to  the British government that they should not use those dangerous vaccines. He made it clear to the committee prior to the licensing of the MMR in 1987. Why? Because he was brought in from Canada where they were already having problems with this vaccine under the name Trivirix, the identical vaccine to the vaccine which was  introduced into the UK under the name Pluserix. And there they had noticed that there were cases of meningitis which were far in excess of those which they had previously seen. This meningitis was being caused by the mumps strain; Urabe AM-9.

And so he advised the Joint Committee not to touch this vaccine: it was dangerous. They ignored his pleas and they went ahead and introduced it anyway. Four years later it had to be hurriedly withdrawn because it was causing precisely the complication that he had warned them of. Moreover, they were asked, David Salisbury  specifically, was asked to allocate funds to active surveillance of adverse events. For the government to go out there and to look and ask doctors if they had seen cases of this meningitis. He  said no. That was denied and they relied on passive surveillance: in other words the spontaneous reports coming in from doctors and hospitals. That is known to pick up perhaps 1 to 2% of true adverse reactions. In other  words it was going to inevitably underestimate the true numbers of this reaction. Hence, the delay of four years for the removal of a vaccine that should never have been licensed in the first place.

It was with that background and with that insight into the practices of the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation that I took the stand that I did on MMR. I was deeply and      justifiably concerned. So the next question is beyond the fact that MMR vaccine is not safe and has not been adequately tested;  not just my opinion but the opinion of many; is does MMR vaccine      cause autism?

Now this question has been answered not by me but by the courts,  by the vaccine courts in Italy and in the United States of America where it appears that many children over the last 30 years have  been awarded millions of dollars for the fact that they have been brain-damaged by MMR vaccine and other vaccines and that brain-damage has led to autism. That is a fact.

Now it has been argued by the government that some poor judge has been forced into making this decision that on balance the vaccine caused the autism in the face and in contradiction to the evidence that is available, the scientific evidence. No. That is grossly misleading. Three of these cases at least least; Poling, the Italian  case, and more recently the Mojabi case, have been conceded by the  government experts. In other words the government experts,  the government themselves have conceded that the vaccine cause the autism. They didn't fight the case. They conceded it based upon the evidence available to them - all of the evidence - that the MMR vaccine caused the child's autism.

So this isn't some poor judge being forced into a position in the absence of the evidence or in contradiction to the evidence. This is the government's own experts conceding that the MMR vaccine caused the autism, or caused brain damage in this case that led to be autism. And what we have are millions of dollars being paid out to these children to fund their autism treatment so when the  government says it is not settled cases of autism, please bear in  mind that what they're paying for the costs of the autism treatments. The government if it says that is speaking out of both      sides of its mouth.

So let me turn now specifically to the measles outbreak in South Wales. The outbreak that the government is alleging is my responsibility, which is clearly in the face of the evidence from Lord Howe in Parliament and for which originally I suggested protection against measles with a single vaccines.

Now it is very important for people to bear in mind that MMR   doesn't protect against measles. Measles vaccine protects against measles. The mumps and rubella components are irrelevant. So, if  single vaccines were available; if the government had not  withdrawn the availability of a vaccine, then there would be no  outbreak of measles in Wales, there would be no discussion of  measles cases and potential measles deaths. So, the blame for this must lie on the shoulders on those who withdrew the option of the  single vaccine from the parents who were legitimately concerned      about the safety of the MMR. Not because of me but what had  happened because of that vaccine long before I came on the scene.

But there is one problem. There is one contradiction. That is as Lord Howe has said in Parliament, MMR vaccine uptake is at an  all-time high. So why are we now seeing measles outbreaks in  highly vaccinated populations. It would be very interesting to find out how many of those children in the current outbreak have  actually been vaccinated. I suspect many. And this has been seen before.

One of the problems I think we are encountering is that of vaccine  failure; primary and secondary vaccine failure. Primary failure -  not enough children respond by developing immunity to the      vaccine in the first place and secondary vaccine failure - those that do develop immunity that immunity disappears very quickly  over time. And this has been seen with mumps vaccine. The mumps vaccine does not work and we are seeing similar outbreaks of measles (mumps) in vaccinated populations. And this is one of the long-term problems of using live viral vaccines over time, taking  seed stock virus and repeatedly using it and using it and using it over time that it seems for some reason to lose its potency. And  what we're seeing now is what I believe is unintended, unexpected consequence of long-term use of these live viral vaccines; and that is vaccine failure.

And that is something that is really really concerning. It is not theoretical. It has been seen unequivocally with the mumps vaccine. And I believe we are now seeing it with measles. If that   is the case then 1) blaming me for the outbreak of this measles case come measles cases in South Wales, is totally inappropriate. It is not addressing the core issue of what you do about live viral vaccine failure, because if the viruses is then infecting people at  an older age than the outcome may be more serious and there are no  therapeutic interventions for protecting those people from      measles.

So the government has in effect put all its eggs in one basket and  now we're seeing measles come back. That is my belief.

What we face unambiguously is an epidemic of autism; an environmentally driven epidemic of autism now alarmingly affecting  one in 31 boys in the United States of America and I saw data from Yale just the other day from South Korea showing that one in 36 children in South Korea are affected by this lifelong severe  neurodevelopmental disorder. There is the true epidemic. Do we see attention being paid to that in anything like the same way that the media are applying attention to the measles outbreak in South Wales. No we do not. That is the true epidemic. And that is the      one that we really have to deal with as a matter of urgency.

Now what I would like to do, I have been, Dr David Elliman has said that this was my fault and I understand that this morning he went  on the news and he was saying that the media were responsible for  the latest sort of debate, the latest argument, by giving me some kind of voice. So he is able to make this very very serious  allegation against me and then deprive me of the opportunity of  responding in the media. That is an extraordinary situation in what is supposedly a free country.

What I'm suggesting is a formal scientific debate in public in  front of an audience that is televised. And specifically Dr David Salisbury I would like to debate you because I believe you are at  the heart of this matter. I believe the decisions taken by you and by your committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and  Immunisation, lie at the heart of this matter.

There are many things to debate with you.

 I'd like to debate with you specifically why you have denied repeatedly that there was any form of indemnity for the   manufacturer of the Urabe containing vaccine Pluserix when it was originally introduced; why you have denied that.

And I have here Dr Salisbury are the unredacted minutes of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation held on 7 May 1993  and here in these minutes it says "once SKB" that is SmithKline Beecham "continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without  liability". How Dr Salisbury do you explain the term "without liability" in that context. It seems to me that this was something that was disclosed to me by your whistleblower from the government, from your own committee, who said the deal was done  with the manufacturer to exempt them from liability for      introducing the vaccine that they had concerns about because they were already having problems with it in Canada where it was then withdrawn.

I would also like to put it to you, I would like to ask you why  you felt it necessary to contact the General Medical Council and  urge them in the strongest terms to prosecute me more      vigourously; indeed to admonish them for not prosecuting me more vigourously. Do you feel that was an abuse of your governmental  position introducing inevitable bias into the General Medical  Council. And since you are at the heart of this matter and have been according to your curriculum vitae from the very beginning, the introduction of MMR into this country, it would seem to me that you are the perfect person to debate this in public with me.  And if we can exonerate MMR vaccine from causing the problems which I believe and many parents believe it is causing them that      is all well and good. But that will only be resolved in an open scientific debate. And therefore I think that the time has come for you and I to have that discussion.



What would be the effect of injecting someone with a potent allergen like mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT)? MBT, used in the processing of natural rubber, can be present in varying amounts in rubber stoppers and other components of pharmaceutical packaging. When pharmaceutical solutions are in contact with rubber, MBT is leached in amounts dependent upon the contact area, the time in contact and the type of solution. Pluserix, it seems, used rubber stoppers in its vaccine and diluent vials. (MMR-II may have never used rubber/latex in its packaging, but disclosure is essentially voluntary.)

Gavin Hamilton, author of _The Nurses Are Innocent_, thinks that the many, many adverse reactions to MBT-contaminated pharmaceuticals are being covered up by governmental health agencies. Hamilton almost killed a couple of his radiology patients because of MBT-contaminated dyes so he speaks with some authority. His book is a surprisingly good read and it's available for kindle.


Truth is not a commodity it cannot be bought and sold as Dr Wakefield has shown us all ,truth and integrity shall win the day...Well done Dr Wakefield and family many thanks


Lucy Rob,

Don't believe what anyone says. Do your own research. You'll be surprised at what you find. The folks here have not ignored anything. On the contrary, they have taken the time to investigate and have learned the truth. My take? Dr. Wakefield is a brilliant, honest researcher who found something that powerful interests didn't want him to find. They tried to force him to back down. He didn't. He instead chose to put everything on the line to stand up for the truth and what is right. He couldn't be bought off or silenced. It is for the sake of the children and families that he has committed his life to, and to the science that those powerful interests have worked so hard to corrupt, that he and his family have taken a beating from those powerful interests and from people who haven't taken the time to learn what really happened and so follow the lies, the well-orchestrated campaign against him. But don't take my word for it, please. Read and listen to Dr. Wakefield on many youtube videos where he presents and also is interviewed. And be sure to look at the qualifications, connections and conflicts of interest of all your sources.


Remember when Scott Ritter was the lone voice telling us that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? But neocons like Bush, Cheney and Rice were telling us that we were going to be blown up and/or gassed by Saddam Hussein. It wasn't much of a contest: Ritter vs. all these eminent people.

Well, now we know the truth, don't we? Ritter was right and all those eminent people were lying.


Lucky Rob;
I had long before Dr. Wakefield came along noticed that vaccines caused belly aches in my children and my mother.

As far as all the research -- I have read a great deal of it, and guess what ----- there is plenty that supports Dr. Wakefield.

You said:
"all the current research"

That is what I could not get over in this mess. He found novel inflammation in the gut and the wigglers did not zero in on that, but the fact that he used for controls - kids that came to his children's birthday party.

Really! Now I had a lot of trouble figureing out what the big deal was.
And still am.

In the end - his research and his results -- were not in question.

Except by a sleezy little reporter (no science guy at all) saying it was just constipation.

For lucy Rob


Too much cognitive dissonance? This may assist:

lucy Rob

all the current research. Including the discreditation of him in 2010 are ignored here ?


The damage that these vaccines caused is just so horrendous,it is impossible
to compensate all the victims.They do not know how to fix the problems and attack Dr.Wakefield and the parents who speak up.
I say enough of the lies,we want this debate and we want it NOW.
Million thanks and all support to Dr.Wakefield and his wife.
Stay strong,please stay strong for our children.

Maggie aitken

Thank you my son developed high functioning autism after the Mmr and this lead me to using my teaching qualification in this area. What do I see our ASD base is full and our waiting lists increase daily.......each child had MMR and resulting high fever! My grandchildren remain unvaccinated as my daughter saw the results in her brother!


Another comment about the Minn Post article where doctors claim that because of and only since Andrew Wakefield, “There’s not the kind of open discussion we used to have...You’re afraid you will lose your whole career if you say something bad."

That is a crock. Punishing doctors and scientists for unpopular work is nothing new. It has been the way that the "scientific" community has done business, although I suspect that the doctors quoted aren't old enough to know better. One example is Robert O. Becker, an orthopedic surgeon and electrophysiology/electromedicine researcher, who suffered similar treatment decades ago. From Devra Davis' book, _Disconnect_:

"Becker may have become a hero to parents of children whose schools would have fallen directly under proposed routes of power lines in New York State, but in the end he paid a heavy price. His laboratories, which had been in business for thirty years, lost all their funding. People who had collaborated with him for years suddenly stopped talking to him. Here's how he ended his memoir, recalling this 1985 calamity:

(Davis' quote from _The Body Electric_ by Becker):

"I want the general public to know that science isn't run the way they read about it in the newspapers and magazines. I want laypeople to understand that they cannot automatically accept scientists' pronouncements at face value, for too often they're self-serving and misleading. I want our citizens, nonscientists as well as investigators, to work to change the way research is administered. The way it's currently funded and evaluated, we're learning more and more and about less and less, and science is becoming our enemy instead of our friend."

Mark Struthers

Andrew Wakefield said,

"I am offering to debate any serious challenger on MMR vaccine safety and the role of MMR in autism, live, in public and televised".

Why would Andrew Wakefield debate Dr Fitzpatrick? Did Mike Fitzpatrick sit on the JCVI in 1987 when Pluserix and Immravax were approved? Was it he who granted SKB/GSK freedom from liability for Pluserix? Did Fitzpatrick lobby the GMC to prosecute the case more vigorously? Is the retired GP from Hackney really a "serious challenger” ... any more serious than Matt Carey (aka Sullivan), a backwoodsman from California?

No! The man in the hot seat is Professor (Sir) David Salisbury CB FRCP FRCPCH FFPH, Director of Immunisation at the Department of Health, the man responsible for the national immunisation programme and all that has entailed ... for far too many years.

PS. Another "serious challenger" of course ... would be the CEO of the pharmaceutical corporation that was fined $3 billion in 2011 for multiple misdemeanours that put patient safety in jeopardy. Of course, Sir Andrew Witty was honoured in the New Year of 2012 ... “for services to the economy and the UK pharmaceutical industry”.

Sir Andrew has many serious questions to answer … not least over the role GSK played in that long campaign of vilification mounted against Dr Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues. Is Witty up to the challenge? I doubt it!

Mark Struthers

Andrew Wakefield said,

"I am offering to debate any serious challenger on MMR vaccine safety and the role of MMR in autism, live, in public and televised".

Why would Andrew Wakefield debate Dr Fitzpatrick? Did Mike Fitzpatrick sit on the JCVI in 1987 when Pluserix and Immravax were approved? Was it he who granted SKB/GSK freedom from liability for Pluserix? Did Fitzpatrick lobby the GMC to prosecute the case more vigorously? Is the retired GP from Hackney really a "serious challenger ... any more serious than Matt Carey (aka Sullivan), a dullard from the backwoods in California?

No! The man in the hot seat is Professor (Sir) David Salisbury CB FRCP FRCPCH FFPH, Director of Immunisation at the Department of Health, the man responsible for the national immunisation programme and all that has entailed ... for far too many years.

PS. Another "serious challenger" of course ... would be the CEO of the pharmaceutical corporation that was fined $3 billion in 2011 for multiple criminal misdemeanours that put patient safety seriously in jeopardy. Sir Andrew Witty was honoured in the New Year of 2012 ... for services to the economy and the UK pharmaceutical industry.

Sir Andrew has many serious questions to answer … not least about the GSK sponsorship of that long campaign of vilification mounted against Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues. Is Witty up to the challenge? I doubt it!

Teresa Mather

I am in awe of him I met him and can't thank him enough for taking me serious about my daughter

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you once again, Dr. Wakefield and your family!

Laura Barry

Thank you Dr. Wakefield for standing up for the innocent children that are being harmed !


It seems that Mike Fitzpatrick, the author of "Defeating Autism: A Damaging Delusion" has offered to debate Dr. Wakefield. I look forward to seeing this debate!


Dr. Wakefield expressed in a recent interview that the course is already running. He doesn't care what happens to him. He will gladly fight the good fight, target on his back, and provide the truth parents so desperately need. He will stand up for what is right. I pray that you will have the tenacity and fervor to continue, and I hope you know, Dr. Wakefield, you are a precious commodity and advocate for all parents! Bravo!

Angus Files

I have tried to phone in on various live shows in the UK giving my story on MMR family and son this week since it all started ..My son is nonverbal etc. Aged late teens, mental school assessed age of around 24 months on a good day.

Do they want to broadcast us ..not a chance..

Korea looks good for getting your point out..



“You’re afraid you will lose your whole career if you say something bad. When you’re dealing with vaccine it suddenly becomes like working in politics, or religion.”


How stupid could these people be? They admitted that in the current political climate, that vaccine safety research won't be done, that scientists are more afraid of backlash than they are concerned about patient well-being and that the public can't trust scientists to either ask the right questions or to honestly report findings. They've admitted that the quality of research doesn't matter. If vaccines are questioned rightly or wrongly, scientists will suffer the consequences. They've admitted that vaccine policy is corrupted by fanaticism and politics and that science is being deliberately closed out of the discussion. And then these selfish gutless wonders blame the one honest doctor who stood and continues to stand up to the corruption for their predicament, which in their minds is that their careers are threatened. Never mind about the patients suffering from lack of scientific integrity.

The icing on the cake is Offit's statement:

“Vaccines are medical products,” Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician and infectious disease expert at the University of Pennsylvania (and a leading critic of the anti-vaccine movement), told Kelland. “They have a benefit and — like any product that has a benefit — they could also have a risk. But from the public’s standpoint it’s difficult. For them, any risk is a bad thing.”

Offit used to strongly assert that vaccines were completely safe. Now he's acknowledging that there are risks, but implying that the public shouldn't consider those risks. I would love to hear him elaborate on what those risks are, especially in light of his colleagues admission that vaccine safety research is inadequate and flawed.

Jill Fenech

Thank you Andrew and Carmel Wakefield. You are the "man in the arena." Thank you.

Debbie Moran

Thank you for the truth - a rare commodity these days. We are all behind you.


We want a debate and we want it know

Incredible, the stupid it burns!

@Zed, the article you linked to in the Minn Post is absolutely, mind blowingly self- serving and ridiculous! So now we have doctors, such as Dr. Partinen,blaming Dr. Wakefield for their fear in reporting any problems with vaccines (such as the narcolepsy associated with H1N1shot). How self- serving!!! It is obviously more a reflection on those doctors' lack of integrity to report problems and the system that they work within being biased. Obviously Dr. Wakefield is a symptom of this problem, not the cause! Stay proud, spineless docs! How Kelland can stand by this 'smoke and mirrors' is beyond me.


Baroness Margaret Thatcher was buried today. In her vision of government she included the words ' have the State as servant and not as master...'

And yet today we hear that the UK Government Health Service has now invaded schools in south Wales with clinics 'offering' the MMR, I suggest that 'coercion' would be a more truthful description of their disgusting behaviour.

I am truly appalled by and ashamed of our National Health Service. They call themselves servants of the state but they are behaving like Dictators, full of rage and propelled by fear.


It gets more incredible by the day. Now, not only is Dr. Wakefield blamed for the "countless deaths" of unvaccinated children, he's also now responsible for researchers being "afraid to question" vaccine safety. The manufacturers, distributors and government agencies who push the oh-so-safe-and-studied vaccine schedule are simply 'victims' of Dr. Wakefield's irrational/criminal/profiteering proclamation. No blame must go to anyone except Andy. Forever.
This quote,“His story underscores an increasingly tough challenge for scientists balancing compelling data with public concern over vaccines and their side effects,” writes Kelland. “Treatments which stimulate immunity to disease are highly controversial. In the past couple of decades — especially after [Wakefield], … the field has become even more charged. After the false alarm sounded by [Wakefield], some scientists say they are more hesitant to credit reports of potential side effects from vaccines.”

“Wakefield has done so much damage,” Partinen told Kelland. “We’ve see it with all these anti-vaccine people, and now we also see the damage he has done to science.”

“There’s not the kind of open discussion we used to have,” another vaccine researcher told Kelland. “You’re afraid you will lose your whole career if you say something bad. When you’re dealing with vaccine it suddenly becomes like working in politics, or religion.”

is reported here:

(I suspect this spin has been planned for the day that has now arrived.)

Jeannette Adair

Unlike the USA, England does not have a policy where the drug companies must contribute to a fund in order to cover costs related to litigation as a result of the so called side-effects of drugs.

Given the almost epidemic increase in autism, one can imagine why there is a need to ensure that the evidence-based views from individuals such as Dr. Wakefield be silenced. Should it come to light that certain vaccines are related to the increase in cases of autism, litigation would ensue with enormous financial consequences coupled with a breakdown in trust on the part of those who use the health services.

I believe that preventing debate (and further research) on issues such as this is based on fear of litigation. Are those in decision-making positions really ready to protect the status quo (and big pharma) regardless of the consequences? It seems so!


By no means do I mean to ignore the tragedy of the rare situation where measles leads to the death of a child. That said, based on the "greater good" argument that seems to underlie the aggressive vaccination programs of many first world countries, I am curious as to how the bean counters in government made the risk assessment in deciding to remove the single shot measles option or to keep mercury in certain vaccines. In other words, how many children with autism is acceptable to prevent one death from measles? In a true greater good analysis, isn't the risk of contracting measles less than the costs associated of losing entire generations to autism?


And still the man came out fighting because there is nothing easier to fight for than the truth. I eagerly await an open debate.

Delighted to hear that folk are calling for single measles vaccines ...anything which show people are having doubts about MMR is very very good.

So pleased to see the Independent pick up Dr Wakefield's piece on AOA and was on the comment thread for while. I presume it got pulled because parent after parent told their story it was becoming hard to refute.

So much for freedom of speech in the UK.
UK Media is a disgrace, as is Salisbury.


Please keep the faith Andrew. I personally hope for a 'people's revolt' against the government's insistence upon the MMR. If you keep speaking out online where the populist and mainstream media cannot silence you, you WILL be heard!!

Pauline Cory

Thank God for people like Andrew Wakefield who have the courage to pursue the truth. We are supposed to live in a democracy, so why is he repeatedly denied the opportunity to debate this? We are living in a time of the whistleblower with lies and cover-ups being exposed daily. This feels like a massive cover-up with very far reaching effects that no-one wants to look at. It challenges one of the sacred cows of the medical establishment and quite rightly so, for our children have been like sacrificial lambs to big pharma and profit over safety for far too long. Let's stop scapegoating the wrong person and get to the bottom of a rotten system that needs to change.

Mark Struthers

A brilliant, articulate, courageous presentation of the truth about MMR, measles and Professor (Sir) David Salisbury. Thank you, Andrew Wakefield!

But beware the cornered rat ... whose behaviour is predictably aggressive ... save the certain prediction that rats of any sort ... do not do debate.

Ivan Ingrillì

Dr Wakefield, a modern hero. thank you Doc.

Jenny Allan
"Call for single measles vaccine
CAMPAIGNERS last night called for the reintroduction of single measles vaccines as 693 cases of the disease were reported in Swansea."

Carter's Daddy

What's so bad about getting measles if you are healthy and your community is clean and modern? Now they have a natural immunity. One that works. A measles "outbreak" isn't even newsworthy, unless you want to have another fear campaign and have another excuse to slam Andrew Wakefield.

no vac

Excellent, Dr Wakefield.
We are with you all the way.
The health authorities and the prestitutes from corpo-media are afraid the truth.


This will never be played in Australia!

Please keep fighting Dr Wakefield!

Elizabeth Gillespie


Hey you big, tough major media reporters- Matt Lauer, Anderson Cooper, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, are you watching this? Why are you afraid to interview Dr. Wakefield?


None of these health expert/science/media/slugs can stand the light of day. It's absolutely disgraceful and telling.

Jenny Allan

The BBC have been making a meal out of the Swansea measles epidemic in Wales, and they are not averse to openly blaming Dr Wakefield, and those newspapers which fairly reported his concerns about the MMR vaccine. Of course Brian Deer's fanciful and embellished Sunday Times and BMJ articles are 'sacrosanct'.

The BBC is not above some 'fanciful embellishment' themselves in all this 'doom and gloom' scaremongering about, what in my day was just another of those 'pesky' childhood illnesses we all got -and recovered from- with enhanced immune systems. Children today are plagued by a whole catalogue of autoimmune diseases which were almost unheard of in the 1950's when I was growing up.

Sara Hayes, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board's director of public health, said:
"Before the introduction of the MMR in 1988, about half a million children caught measles and about 100 died from it each year in the UK."

Dr Hayes, MUST have known these figures were 'pulled out of thin air'. The single measles vaccine was part of the UK child immunisation schedule for twenty years BEFORE the introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988, and was in use for thirty years before the Wakefield et al 1998 Lancet paper.

Here's the REAL UK Measles deaths figures including for the seven years before the MMR vaccine was introduced, just over 100 deaths IN TOTAL and many of them were adults who would have been too old to receive this vaccine. In 'those days' vaccines were not 'pushed' by doctors and many GPs disliked the measles vaccine:-
Measles deaths - England and Wales, By Age Group, 1980 – 2008

I have attempted, no less than THREE TIMES to correct Dr Hayes' statement on various comment threads. The Independent comments, powered by DISQUS, were pulled from three different online articles. The BBC does not include a section for general comments on its online transcripts, but after my comment appeared on the Independent thread, the BBC edited Dr Hayes' false statement out. However, Sky News and the Independent have repeated this misinformation.

Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at Bristol University, is another of those 'establishment' purveyers of misinformation, loudly condemning some little Welsh local newspaper for its reporting of the Lancet paper and parental MMR vaccine concerns 15 years ago. He described Dr Wakefield's recent statement as 'balderdash' and condemned the Independent for publishing it.

Keep strong Dr Wakefield. We are all behind you 100% and we will keep reiterating the truth, however much suppression we encounter. A groundswell of parents are beginning to demand single measles vaccinations during this and other measles epidemics. It makes no sense to give THREE live viruses in order to prevent only ONE.

Joan Campbell

Marvellous to hear his side without interuption or corruption.

Isabella Thomas

It has drawn Brian Deer out on the attack.

See link:

How the media in the UK can be controlled by the Department of Health is beyond me. Surely the media are not that stupid? They must smell a rat? Do they think that vaccine damaged children do not exist? Are they not worried by the alarming rise in Autism? The bubble has to burst soon. Come on Professor David Salisbury don't you think it is about time you had a debate with Dr. Wakefield instead of hiding behind Brian Deer's lies.

Angus Files

Superb ..why dont they give you air time here in the UK?

...possibly you just might prove your case for Deer Salisbury et-al lay off!! we have had enough ! of your lies ..leave the Man alone..

Rock on Dr Wakefield..

Jenny Allan

Statement in support of Dr Wakefield by Isabella Thomas, mother of two of the Lancet children. Note the nasty comment by Brian Deer, but he cannot expect Salisbury & Co to defend him here:-

John Stone

Courageous performance - so different from the shameful, dissimulating behaviour we have seen in the UK these last ten days from our media and health officials, culminating with the removal of all comments in the Independent ("independent" about the most foolish word in the English language). They have brought everything down to the lowest level.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)