Dachel Media Review: Health Woes
Age of Autism Midweek Mashup: "You Sound Like A Group of Very Angry People."

The Question That Brian Deer and Dorit Reiss Cannot Answer

ReissBy John Stone

“Not a convincing job Prof Reiss. What you are ducking is that Deer crossed the central 172-96 allegation (made originally by Mr Deer) was a fabrication without a scrap of documentary evidence -if you really want to brandish it around as still valid please say so. I note, btw, many of the other findings against Wakefield hinge on this central one, not to mention the highly prejudicial nature of the hearing that could make such grotesque errors.”

The above paragraph at the time of writing – more than 24 hours after it was posted is the culmination of an exchange in the Forbes blog in which Andrew Wakefield’s principal accuser Brian Deer made a now rare appearance last week. It seems even prolific vaccine lobby polemicist and blogger Prof Dorit  Rubinstein Reiss was lost for words: Deer’s key allegation against Wakefield and his two Royal Free Hospital colleagues Profs John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch – the subject of his first hidden denunciation to the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council, three days after his first article in the Sunday Times in February 2004  - was proving indefensible. Pinned down – even with the perpetual game of innuendo that there was something in it despite Mr Justice Mittings High Court ruling two years ago – she disappeared into the ether.

The answer is that it is time for them to stop pretending: Deer can’t answer it (he disappeared when things got hot last week) and Reiss – the vaccine industry’s main apologist - can’t answer it. The GMC hearing against Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch was a fraud and a farrago. If anyone wants to defend those findings now they deserve to be laughing stocks. The investigation and hearing took more than six years and it is a heap of proven bureaucratic lies. That is the inescapable conclusion.

Below is the sequence of letters which began with an intervention from the excellent David Foster:

David Foster

Brian Deer I have to ask, did it ever occur to you that it might have been a good idea, indeed even ethically responsible, to announce the fact that it was in fact you that submitted the initial complaint about Wakefield to the GMC?

You submitted the complaint, and then proceeded to cover the story representing yourself as an objective, dispassionate journalist. None of those three words describe you sir. You propelled your own career while covering a story you helped to initiate, based on a series of lies and misrepresentations that you continue to pile on even today.

And while I am at it, how do you explain your unprecedented access to highly sensitive medical records? You have made several and various claims about this, and within these comments pages you claim that you worked with BMJ to obtain the records. Now why would it be ethical for either you OR another professional journal to have access to children’s medical records? And how do you explain the complaints from some of the parents of the children who were studied in Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper, who said that you misrepresented your identity when interviewing them?

You are very lucky for now, in that the medical establishment on both sides of the Pond have a vested interest in propping up your fantasies as fact, and supporting your conclusions. But history and truth both have a way of flushing out the rats, and you sir will be swimming soon enough.


One has to ask: what point are you trying to make here? If Brian Deer had announced that he had initally brought Wakefield’s unprofessional conduct to the attention of the GMC, would Wakefield be any less guilty of committing those offenses? Would the retracted 1998 Lancet paper somehow become something other than an instance of scientific fraud?

John Stone

jgc56: Simple answer is yes. The findings of the GMC were flawed and they were based on Deer’s allegations, reporting and conflicts (which were shared by the GMC). There are perfectly good reasons why certain basic journalistic ethics ought to be observed and the question why they were not is totally germane. To begin with was the allegation about the paper being the LAB project which was Deer’s first complaint (undisclosed), it was supported by the GMC prosecutors and panel but without citing any material evidence. The charge was against all three doctors and in 2012 it was dismissed by Mr Justice Mitting in the High Court. It should never have happened and the whole process was tainted and untrustworthy. Worth mentioning that the head of panels at the GMC, Dr Harvey Marcovitch, was also the alleged external peer reviewer of Deer’s 2011 BMJ articles against Wakefield although a BMJ editor as well. All roads lead to Rome, as it were.


Nonsense, John. it’s been explained to you multiple times now–including by a qualified attorney–that the John Walker Smith ruling does nothing to invalidate[sic] the GMC findings against Wakefield. In his opinion re: Walker-Smith’s appeat[sic] Justice Mitting dismissed absolutely no GMC findings against him and in fact concurred with the GMC’s ruling, stating that there is no doubt Andrew Wakefield’s intent was to conduct research.

 John Stone


If you mean Dorit Reiss, she isn’t a qualified attorney (as she was pleased to confirm to me recently I think on this very blog): “I wrote an academic paper on it; as a non-lawyer, I am not going to – or able – to bring a lawsuit…Mr. Stone, I never presented myself as a lawyer. I’m an academic”. The allegation that the Lancet “early report” was actually commissioned by the Legal Aid Board and was project 172-96 is simply a proposition that cannot stand and for which there is no evidence – it was made up by Deer and rejected by a High Court judge. It simply was not true. Let us be clear that Deer made this allegation against all three doctors in his first complaint, not just Wakefield. The fact that John Walker-Smith had to endure eight years of misery because of this is also no feather in Deer’s cap. It was not true for John Walker-Smith – it was just not true at all. Those people who go on maintaining this falsehood by twisting the words of a High Court judge do themselves no good at all. The judge suggested that there might be some different professional motive on the part of Wakefield but that is not enough to refloat the ridiculous 172-96 allegation.

Dorit Reiss

As explained above in detail, and as highlighted multiple times, Judge Mitting’s ruling does nothing to exonerate Andrew Wakefield from the charges against him. Charges that include hiding conflicts of interests, inappropriately ordering invasive tests on children for research purposes, misrepresenting an ethics committee approval. Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of multiple serious ethics violation. Reading Judge Mitting’s decision shows that that verdict is left untouched.

John Stone

Not a convincing job Prof Reiss. What you are ducking is that the central 172-96 allegation (made originally by Mr Deer) was a fabrication without a scrap of documentary evidence -if you really want to brandish it around as still valid please say so. I note, btw, many of the other findings against Wakefield hinge on this central one, not to mention the highly prejudicial nature of the hearing that could make such grotesque errors.

It remains a fact that the paper was a review of data obtained in the first place for clinical reasons but published for scientific interest. Wakefield was a researcher and Walker-Smith and Murch were clinicians, but also researchers. You have made a meal of Mitting’s line that Wakefield’s interest was research but it is a red-herring and all three together with ten other medical researchers signed the paper. As it is, back to 172-96 – are you really still defending that claim, or not really?

 John  Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.


Jenny Allan

It is important to point out, Dr Wakefield's work at the Royal Free, was as a scientific researcher only. His contract precluded any clinical contact with patients. Only the Royal Free, clinicians, including Profs Walker-Smith and Murch, could carry out or arrange colonoscopies, and other invasive procedures.

My grandson was a Walker-Smith patient at the Royal Free, although not one of the Lancet 12. He was properly referred by his GP for bowel problems, and required a diagnostic colonoscopy. His parents were asked to provide permission for two extra biopsies to be taken for purely research purposes. They were happy to comply.

The following form was based on the ethical approval which Prof Walker-Smith already had, and was the protocol used for the 1998 Wakefield et al Lancet paper. In the UK, it is common procedure to request tissues removed during an operation, be retained for research purposes, with the permission of the patients. Bowel biopsies are tiny pieces of tissue.

The form was a standard form, issued 'To parents' This is what it says:-

"Your child has been referred for diagnostic colonoscopy and/or endoscopy. Several small pieces of tissue (biopsies) are taken during the procedure for diagnostic purposes. Clinic inflammatory bowel diseases are still little understood and their cause is unknown. It is therefore of great value for laboratory research to have such biopsies available to study how inflammation in the bowel develops and is influenced by treatment. Your permission is asked to agree for two extra biopsies to be taken for these purposes.

Whether or not you agree to this will in no way influence your assessment or treatment.
(My daughter agreed to this and signed the form; the date was 14-03-99, AFTER the Lancet article. )

The form is headed with the names:- Professor Walker-Smith (Head of Dept), Dr Simon Murch and Dr Alan Phillips (Sen Lecturers) and Dr Mike Thomson (consultant)"

John Stone

IMPORTANT Twyla answers jgc56:


“The judge found that the children were investigated for the purpose of treatment,”

No Twyla, he didn’t. Justice Mitting found that the GMC had failed to sufficiently explain how they arrived at a determination that john Walker Smith’s intent was to conduct research rather than to treat patients. He actually states in the opinion that Wakefield’s intent was clearly to conduct reseearch rather than treat.

“The judge did not rule on whether it was ethical for Dr. Wakefield to have blood samples taken from children at his son’s birthday party, I’ll grant you that.”

The judge did not rule on any of Wakefield’s actions at all.

Please take careful note that in the excerpts you provide from his opinion Mitting addresses only charges against John Walker-Smith, not any of the chrages against Wakefield.

I get that you and John want Mittings ruling against Walker-Smith to somehow apply to Wakefield by association. That simply is not the case, and this has been explained to the both of you pretty much to the extent it’s humanly possible to do so. Walker Smith appealed, and Justice Mitting ruled in his favor, voiding the GMC ruling. Wakefield elected NOT to appeal, and the GMC ruling against him stands.

It really isn’t any more complicated than that.


Yes, Dr. Wakefield was engaged in research. But the colonoscopies were done based on clinical need. Tissue samples taken during these medically necessary colonoscopies were used for research purposes. This was consistent with valid approvals which Walker Smith had. The court decision ruled on the medical treatment and found that it was intended to address the serious medical conditions of the children. Dr. Wakefield was part of a team of doctors. Walker Smith, Murch, and others supervised the medical treatment. Dr. Wakefield was not a lone rogue conducting colonoscopies purely for research purposes.


Another example of the judge’s ruling directly contradicting the GMC’s ruling against Wakefield:

The GMC ruling on Dr. Wakefield said, “the Panel found that Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated.”

Judge Mitting’s ruling on Walker-Smith said:
Regarding child #9 see 81 thru 92. Two excerpts:
“87. In the case of child 9, Professor Walker-Smith decided that he should have a lumbar puncture at his outpatient clinic. He did so because he suspected that he might have an organic basis for his neurological problems and that the analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid obtained at the lumbar puncture performed at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, to determine B12 absorption, did not deal with that. Dr. Rutter said that a lumbar puncture was not clinically indicated. Dr. Thomas said that it was, to exclude a metabolic disorder.”
90. “…Dr. Thomas’s opinion, expressed in evidence was firmly that a repeat lumbar puncture was justified.”
Regarding child #3:
71. “Professor Rutter expressed the opinion that the lumbar puncture carried out on child 3 was not clinically indicated. Dr. Thomas said that it was. In his opinion, there were strong similarities between child 3 and child 2 (in whose case it was accepted that a lumbar puncture was clinically indicated as explained above).”
73. “As Miss Glynn concedes, the reasons for the panel’s findings that colonoscopy, barium meal and follow through and lumbar puncture were not clinically indicated are wrong.”

Reading through the Judge Miiting’s decision, one can see that:
1) These children had serious GI issues, e.g. regarding Child 3: “Rectal bleeding and anaemia, of sufficient severity to require his general practitioner to give iron, was untypical of constipation” The child’s referring GP wrote, “Thank you for asking to see this young boy who developed behavioural problems of autistic nature, severe constipation and learning difficulties after MMR vaccination….His severe constipation is requiring frequent enemas and oral medication. The parents are very convinced that the difficulties in his behaviour etc. started only after vaccination. I am extremely grateful for you to have taken on (child 3) for case study.” When seen at the Royal Free at the age of 6, he was “not toilet trained”.
2) The medical decisions were made by several doctors, carefully considering medical need – not simply as part of a research protocol.


The GMC found that Dr. Wakefield did research on children without the proper approvals, and that he acted contrary to the children’s clinical interests. But Judge Mitting found that:

145. “The panel repeatedly laid emphasis upon the circumstances in which each child was admitted for the investigations and the terms of the contemporaneous letters, in particular those from Professor Walker-Smith, leading to admission. This was a legitimate approach and led the panel to discern a pattern in the admissions: that each child was admitted to undertake a standardised programme of investigations, which were, with some exceptions, carried out. What the panel’s stated reasons do not do, however, is to justify its conclusion that the investigations were for the purposes of Project 172-96 and not for the purpose of a developing clinical project. The panel had to decide whether, as the GMC contended, the admissions were to fulfil a research programme and began when the protocol for that programme was settled; or that Dr. Wakefield began his research when the clinical team had reached sufficient agreement on a clinical protocol for children with gastrointestinal and behavioural disorders to permit them to proceed…

146. “Both sides rightly focussed on the early admissions – children 1, 2, and 3. Careful analysis of their history does not support the panel’s finding. Child 1, the first to be admitted, was only admitted after Professor Walker-Smith had changed his provisional diagnosis as a result of an abnormal blood test result. Child 2 was only subjected to neurological tests after Dr. Thomson had checked with Dr. Surtees, at Great Ormond Street, that the tests were appropriate – and what they were intended to reveal or exclude, which included metabolic disorder. (Project 172-96 only proposed testing for measles virus)…

148. “The detailed findings of the panel in the cases of the individual children did not fill the obvious gaps in its general conclusions. In no case did it address the indications in the medical notes which supported the oral evidence of the clinicians that they were undertaking a programme of diagnostic and therapeutic investigations, not research; or give adequate reasons for rejecting that account in the case of each individual child.”

150. “It is in its findings on the clinical issues in the individual cases of the Lancet children that the most numerous and significant inadequacies and errors in the determination of the panel occur. In no individual case in which the panel made a finding adverse to Professor Walker-Smith did it address the expert evidence led for him, except to misstate it. The issues to which this evidence went were of fundamental importance to the case against him. Universal inadequacies and some errors in the panel’s determination accordingly go to the heart of the case. They are not curable.”


The GMC found that the Lancet paper had stated that the children had been consecutively referred, but that some of the children were not routine referrals, and thus that “the description of the referral process was irresponsible, misleading and in breach of Dr Wakefield’s duty as a senior author.”

But Judge Mitting found that:

157. “On the premise that the panel was right to find that the Lancet paper was addressed to the general reader and that it was the interpretation of the general reader which mattered, I am as well qualified as the panel to construe its meaning. Further, I am entitled to and do, apply the familiar canon of construction used by judges in construing documents: to read and construe the whole document, not just selected words. Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the panel. The phrase ‘consecutively referred’ means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology. The words did not imply routine referral. The paragraph from which the words ‘a self-referred group’ was taken reads:

“‘We describe a pattern of colitis and ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia in children with developmental disorders. Intestinal and behavioural pathologies may have occurred together by chance, reflecting a selection bias in a self-referred group; however the uniformity of the intestinal pathological changes and the fact that previous studies have found intestinal dysfunction in children with autistic-spectrum disorders, suggests that the connection is real and reflects a unique disease process.’

“The general reader of that paragraph would note the author’s caution about the possibility of selection bias in the self-referred group. Taken together with the comments already cited made about the temporal coincidence of the onset of symptoms and MMR vaccination in the case of eight children, the author has made it clear that this was not a routine referral. It was a referral generated by the concerns of parents about a possible link. The statement made by the panel in paragraph 32c that it was Professor Walker-Smith who had described the referral process in the Lancet paper as ‘routine’ was wrong. It put its stretched meaning of the wording of part of the paper into his mouth and then found that it was irresponsible and misleading. This was not a legitimate finding.

158. “The findings in paragraphs 32a that the referrals of four children were not routine because the referring doctors did not mention intestinal symptoms in their referral letters was factually accurate as to the contents of the referral letters, but of no significance. In each case, Professor Walker-Smith elicited gastrointestinal symptoms at his outpatients clinic. The finding at paragraph 32a that all four children ‘lacked a history of gastrointestinal symptoms’ is wrong unless the panel intended only to refer to the contents of the referral letters. The finding in paragraph 32b(ii) was correct, but, on its own, of little significance. (The genesis of the referral is explained in paragraphs 81 and 82 of this judgment). The panel’s finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.”


Obviously, Judge Mitting’s decision is not legally binding on Dr. Wakefield and does not restore his medical license. And, people can argue about who is right, the GMC or Judge Mitting? (Hint: Judge Mitting is right, and the GMC wrong.) But it makes no sense to say that Judge Mitting’s ruling is irrelevant to Dr. Wakefield. It is very relevant. It totally contradicts most of what Dr. Wakefield was convicted of.

These are the children who were referred. Dr. Wakefield was not herding some other flock of children into the Royal Free Hospital. Dr. Mitting found that they were consecutively referred. He also points out that the paper says there could be “selection bias”. The Lancet paper never made any claims about what percentage of people with autism have IBD. Obviously those whose parents seek treatment for them from gastroenterologists are more likely to have GI issues. The Lancet simply described this group of children and called for further research.

Jenny Allan

From the recent Reiss Forbes Comment, posted by John:-

"the comment appears as an independent comment, at the end of the comments. My previous comment appears that way – as Mr. Stone could have found if he bothered looking through the comment section.

I would urge Mr. Stone to ask himself, if he attributes his inability to find comments that are there to a conspiracy, wrongly, what else is he wrongly attributing negative motives to in error."

OMG -is this woman now claiming our John Stone is incapable of correctly reading a comment thread? In the UK we have a saying -'If you are in a hole , stop digging.'

Give it a rest Dorit!!

John Stone


Good points. I was able to attend virtually the entire Walker-Smith appeal. It was scheduled for two weeks but was effectively over in four days because the GMC's counsel had to tear up her brief. She had prepared yards of material and she realised that Judge Mitting was not going to sit there and listen to it.

John Stone

It seems Prof Reiss got up in the middle of the night yesterday to answer me. Her answer, however, was amazing. Further exchange:-

John Stone

Mitting dismisses the five circumstantial “facts” from which the GMC drew inferences with seven of his own. Reiss is not entitled to take the view that these are balanced against each other: Mitting is saying that his set of “facts” negate the superficial case made by the first set (the GMC’s).

Dorit Reiss

A. Judge Mitting did not “rebut” the GMC’s arguments with his own. Using a very common judicial technique, Judge Mitting summarized the arguments on both sides at the opening of his decision. There is nothing in the decision that suggest he is taking a position for or against the arguments. In fact, he conclude both lists by saying: “These, and no doubt other factors, required to be considered by the panel. If the panel did consider them, some explanation of its decision upon them should have been given in its determination.” In other words, the panel was expected to consider both the facts against and the facts for, and explain it’s decision. Judge Mitting’s criticism was lack of explanation. Not result. Let me reiterate Judge Mitting’s conclusion, cited by Mr. Stone – “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. As it may also have been reached upon the basis of two fundamental errors – that Professor Walker-Smith’s intention was irrelevant and that it was not necessary to determine whether he had lied to the Ethics Committee, it is a determination which cannot stand unless it is justified by the detailed findings made in relation to the eleven relevant Lancet children.”

In other words, the problem was lack of explanation. And also lack of determination about intent – where Judge Mitting concluded that Walker-Smith’s intent may have been medical, while Andrew Wakefield’s intent was clearly research, and whether Walker-Smith lied about ethics approval – where Judge Mitting detrained that Wakefield was responsible for the misrepresentation there. Basically, Walker-Smith, as explained to you multiple times, was exonerated for lack of explanation; not because Judge Mitting made an affirmative finding that protocol 172-96 did not apply. He did not.

"It is a common judicial technic to open a decision by setting out the arguments on both side. Especially here, when the criticism was lack of explanation, it is a natural thing to do. I hope that clarifies it.

B. Mr. Stone is not blocked from seeing comments; at least, I doubt there is any way to do that. Reply comments on Forbes do not always work, and in that case, the comment appears as an independent comment, at the end of the comments. My previous comment appears that way – as Mr. Stone could have found if he bothered looking through the comment section.
I would urge Mr. Stone to ask himself, if he attributes his inability to find comments that are there to a conspiracy, wrongly, what else is he wrongly attributing negative motives to in error.

John Stone

Dorit Reiss: The problem here is there is no explanation – the five points cited by Mitting by which the GMC came to their inference was the best that could be done. At the High Court hearing the GMC were defending their decision appealed by Prof Walker-Smith and it will not surprise any one to know that Judge Mitting challenged the GMC’s counsel Joanna Glynn to come up with the missing explanation – a last minute opportunity to rectify the omission – and no arguments that Mitting could accept were offered. So after three and half years of investigation and two and a half years of hearing the GMC panel could not come up with an explanation, and after a further two years to think about it they were still embarrassed: fully eight years of wasted time and persecution based on Mr Deer’s denunciation.

There is nothing technical about failing to provide an explanation (or reasoning): it is nothing short of legal mischief and harassment.

As to the other matter it was certainly reasonable for to me to remark upon it because whether by accident or design it put me at a disadvantage in replying in these columns.

John Stone

It was not that the GMC Panel, despite all the resources at put at their disposal, could not find valid reasons for finding the doctors guilty, as Judge Mitting’s decision shows, the GMC Panel could not find any reasons for finding the doctors guilty.

They just found them guilty.

The case was unprecedented in its length and cost – several millions of pounds taking 216 days over three years when most GMC cases are 2-3 days.

It was presented using the entire resources of the GMC prosecution team and was fronted by a senior trial lawyer – a Queen’s Counsel Sally Smith whose job it was to set out the case and in summing up how and why the GMC should find the doctors guilty.

The GMC also had another senior trial lawyer Nigel Seed – another Queens Counsel – to advise them on the law and how they should conduct themselves and the proceedings.

And yet between them they failed to meet the most basic requirement of providing an explanation for their decision, and even Joanna Glynn, yet a third Queen’s Counsel was defeated in the attempt by Judge Mitting. Prof Reiss, the non-lawyer professor of law, does not see anything wrong. What does she teach her students?

Jenny Allan

Yes John, you are quite correct about Reiss & Co's semantic skullduggery. Mitting DID lay out the GMC's so called facts in support of their allegations about ethical approval, but as you pointed out, Mitting dismissed the lot of them!!

The GMC's case against the two clinicians, almost totally revolved around the Lancet paper being part of Project 172-96. Their QC, Advocate Sallie Smith, used some very underhand tactics, involving the unfortunate Professor Booth, expert witness for the GMC. Advocates are not supposed to 'lead' witnesses by virtually putting words into their mouths, particularly expert witnesses, but Prof Booth was more or less forced to agree the terms of Project 172-96, were the same as the ones Smith read out, and so they were, but the protocol was actually for a different project altogether. In fact, Project 172-96, was a complete red herring. Prof Walker-Smith did not need any additional ethical approval for the Lancet 1998 paper research, since he already had this in his former hospital position. Prof Walker-Smith was perfectly entitled to transfer this ethical approval to his subsequent research at the Royal Free.

Sallie Smith's tactics were shameful, and would never have gone unchallenged in a REAL UK court of law. Mitting’s scathing comments about the GMC’s ‘superficial and inadequate’ examining of the evidence, was largely aimed at Smith. Apparently the GMC had a 'stable' of QCs dedicated for their purposes. It took Judge Mitting less than 4 days to demolish a GMC case which dragged on for 3 years. Fortunately, such 'show trials', or as Prof Walker-Smith states, 'inquisitions' are a thing of the past in GMC disciplinary cases.
Brian Deer is making some outrageous claims in some recent comment threads, on Forbes and elsewhere. He is trying to make out Judge Mitting was somehow unfit to have adjudicated the Walker-Smith appeal, because he also deals with 'immigration cases'. Deer also claims Prof Walker-Smith was 'let off' on a technicality; the GMC did not appeal the High Court verdict because the Prof is an old man. In fact, the GMC’s QC Advocate at the High Court appeal, Joanna Glynn, still kept insisting the GMC’s verdict against Prof Walker-Smith was ‘fair’, in spite of all the GMC’s arguments looking increasingly threadbare under Mitting’s steely-eyed scrutiny,:-

"In spite of inadequate reasons it is quite clear on overwhelming evidence that the charges are made out."
Laughably, Glynn’s comments about the Walker-Smith GMC guilty verdict being ‘fair’, were taken up by the press and media in America, where it was initially assumed Prof Walker-Smith had apparently lost his appeal. This was a perfect example of the GMCs ‘semantics’ confusing THEIR OWN supporters. After the appeal verdict, the GMC advised Judge Mitting they did not intend to appeal his decisions. In this, the GMC seems to have finally showed some rare sense; any such appeal would have been doomed to failure, along with all the adverse publicity and loss of public confidence. Most of the misinformation reiterated by Reiss originates from Deer, and it’s a disgrace the way she and her cohorts are continuing to peddle Deer’s, now proven false, lies.

One other piece of 'Deer cheek'? In one comment Deer claims he wrote a letter to University College London, telling them to drop their investigation into Godlee's alleged scientific fraud on the part of the Wakefield co-authors. According to the gospel of St Deer, UCL's abandoning their investigation was nothing to do with the letters sent by David Lewis.

John Stone


It is quite true about the non-exact equivalence of the legal systems but it is a simple semantic issue which defeats Reiss here. Mitting dismisses the five circumstantial "facts" from which the GMC drew inferences with seven of his own. She is not entitled to take the view that these are balanced against each other: Mitting is saying that his set of "facts" negate the superficial case made by the first set (the GMC's).


Jenny Allan

Twyla's latest comments in response to Reiss and jgc56 (Excellent stuff Twyla):-

"After analyzing the various charges against Dr. Wakefield, Mary Holland eloquently summarized the truth about this case:

The Meaning of The Wakefield Prosecution

What, then, was this high-profile prosecution really about? If there was no scientific fraud, no undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, no ethical breaches in performing tests on sick children, and no complaints from patients or their families, then what was the big deal? Did the international scandal and multi-million dollar prosecution proceed merely to chastise a doctor for drawing blood from children at a birthday party, with their consent and their parents’ consent? Of course not.

Dr. Wakefield was, and remains, a dissident from medical orthodoxy. The medical establishment subjected him to a modern-day medical show trial for his dissent.30 Dr. Wakefield’s research raised fundamental doubts about the safety of vaccines and the eti- ology of autism. Dr. Wakefield was punished for his temerity to caution the public about vaccine risks and to urge them to use their own judgment. Dr. Wakefield was punished for upholding vaccination choice.

The purpose of the proceeding, as in any show trial, was to communicate to other doctors and scientists, and to the public, the error of the perpetrator’s ways. A show trial offers a veneer of due process but, at its core, displays naked power. The apparent intent of the prosecution was to intimidate others from following Dr. Wakefield’s footsteps and to teach the lesson that anyone in the medical or scientific community who dares to publicly question the safety and efficacy of vaccines will be punished with utmost severity. The GMC appears to have decided that if the price of such a lesson was scientific
 ignorance about vaccine-autism links and the suffering of severely ill children, then so be it. Dr. Wakefield was made an example.

The GMC destroyed Dr. Wakefield’s professional reputation and livelihood, and The Lancet and other publications confiscated his professional accomplishment through retraction. The GMC colluded with The Lancet, the media, the British Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, and even with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice, to discredit Dr. Wakefield.

The Center for Personal Rights is confident that the world will look back at the prosecution of Drs. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch with shame and remorse.

Dr. Wakefield has joined in a long, honorable tradition of dissidents in science and human rights. […Galileo, Semmelweis, Needleman and McBride...] As Thomas Kuhn explained, changing scientific paradigms is a revolutionary process, with the wrenching upheaval that revolution brings… Before long, the world will likely recognize that it was Dr. Wakefield, not his detractors, who stood up for the practice of medicine and the pursuit of science. Dr. Wakefield remains an unbowed dissident in the face of a repressive medical and scientific establishment.

How ironic, and utterly backwards, that writers such as Emily Willingham and Peter Lipson blame Dr. Wakefield for the chilling effects of his unjust persecution."

"This paper is a detailed history of the events at the Royal Free hospital leading up to the 1998 Lancet paper, including a discussion of which approvals had been obtained for research:
On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield
By William R. long , mDiv, PhD, JD

Jenny Allan

Just an aside-re John Stone being blocked from reading the recent Reiss et all comments on the Lipson comment thread.

This was daft!! Unless Forbes is prepared to 'block' everyone except the trolls, John was going to access this anyway, via another computer, or sent from someone else. Even dafter, Forbes sent John a 'prompt' when new comments were added!!

Also- John has pointed out re Reiss:-

"Her whimsical interpretation of Mr Justice Mitting's ruling must still be a matter of professional concern."

Absolutely!! For more than 10 years, Prof Reiss has been involved with teaching law to US students. I am not sure what if any specialist knowledge, Reiss has on UK laws, which differ in many ways from US laws. In Scotland we also have regional differences. Court procedures are also very different in the UK.

Reiss is skating on 'thin ice' with her comments about Justice Mitting, which seem to echo the outrageous smears and innuendos of Brian Deer. Judge Mitting is not one to take kindly to internet statements which appear to question his competence or criticise his judgements. Deer has no reputation left to lose, but Reiss cannot afford any official complaints made about her internet behaviour and comments.

John Stone

A comment I made this morning on Forbes:

"I am still blocked from viewing directly Dorit Reiss's recent comments, even using a different browser, so it seems to be computer specific.

"Although Reiss has assured us that she is not a lawyer she is a professor of law, so her whimsical interpretation of Mr Justice Mitting's ruling must still be a matter of professional concern. I would like to point out that in attempting to explain his reasoning he lists at the beginning of paragraph 19:

""The following is a non-exhaustive list of the principal facts from which the panel might have inferred that Professor Walker-Smith did intend to test a hypothesis and so misled the Ethics Committee or did not do so"

"So, they are only "facts" from which they might have inferred things.

"He then lists seven facts of his own "negating the proposition". So, the second list is intended as a rebuttal by Mitting of the inadequate circumstantial arguments of the GMC in the first list. In paragraph 20 he writes:

""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. As it may also have been reached upon the basis of two fundamental errors – that Professor Walker-Smith 's intention was irrelevant and that it was not necessary to determine whether he had lied to the Ethics Committee, it is a determination which cannot stand unless it is justified by the detailed findings made in relation to the eleven relevant Lancet children."

"And of course this is actually central to the GMC's reasoning in the case of all three doctors - Mitting quotes from a passage in the findings which refers to all three.

"“The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.”

"Reiss is citing superficial arguments that Mitting explicity rejected."

Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Marketwatch.com, which is part of the Wall Street Journal, ran the following item from a press-release service (PR Wire) that is referring to an article by Classen.

“BALTIMORE, May 13, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- A new peer reviewed paper was published in a recent issue of Molecular and Genetic Medicine (s1:025)(s1:2014) that presents convincing evidence that the rapid increase in the number of vaccines given to US children has now created a state of immune overload in the majority, or close to the majority, of young US children and that this is being manifested by related health issues including epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and autism. The new paper is authored by immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD.”

I’d like to discuss that with interested persons at AutismOne in Chicago this week. By the way I attended a festival in New Zealand last week and saw, among thousands of people, hardly any who are obese!!

Jenny Allan

On the same subject here are some troll tactics employed by Reiss & Co against John and others:-

These Trolls use 'hyena' tactics and hunt in packs, generally backing each other up. Many of their assertions are complete fabrications, often invented by Brian Deer. Their 'evidence' often refers readers to Deer's website.

From the recent Forbes comment thread, posted by 'Science is Pure':-
"As pointed out by jgc56, Mitting did not conclude the project was not done under 172-96: he in fact lays out evidence supporting the proposition that it was done under the project."

This is complete utter nonsense. Judge Mitting was very thorough in his examination of the evidence against Prof Walker-Smith. He asked the GMC's advocate to explain the reasoning and evidence behind their verdict, being the 1998 Lancet paper research was carried out without proper ethical approval. The GMC were unable to produce any evidence at all. The Lancet paper did not need any more ethical approval, from 176-92, or anywhere else, since Prof Walker-Smith already had the necessary approval.

Replies to challenges:-

You are wrong.

You have misunderstood the paper/evidence/science

You are obviously not a scientist. (This very unscientific comment appeared on a recent AoA comment thread!)

Prof Reiss's Comment "I’ve been staying away from this discussion because it’s a real waste of time at this point. It’s been explained to Mr. Stone multiple times that he is wrong, and he simply keeps repeating the same things. I applaud jgc56′s patience (and thoroughness and accuracy, but frankly, I have other things to do."

This would be a joke in less serious circumstances. Reiss has also been busy posting on the Forbes Willingham article, and God knows where else. She is so busy 'wasting her time' posting comments, she must scarcely take time to sleep, far less do an honest day's work!! Like Hitler, she has lost the argument. I hope she takes some time out to reflect on the harm she is doing.

Jenny Allan

Hitler always insisted lies, if repeated often enough, would be accepted as truth. It seems Dorit Rubenstein Reiss and her cohorts are resorting to Nazi tactics. Apart from being extremely unseemly, these tactics simply won't work. The public are at last waking up to the truth.

Science is pure.  People are corrupt.

The recent comments are below. It is no loss to be restricted from further contributions since the article is only showing a little over 3500 views, and no more than a tiny handful will have continued through the comments.

Dorit Reiss 1 day ago

“You are just trying pull the wool. The GMC were unable to cite any evidence for the 172-96 case and Mitting could find no evidence of it either. It was a concoction of Deer and the GMC. Walker-Smith had generic permission to retain biopsies (162-95) . ”

I’ve been staying away from this discussion because it’s a real waste of time at this point. It’s been explained to Mr. Stone multiple times that he is wrong, and he simply keeps repeating the same things. I applaud jgc56′s patience (and thoroughness and accuracy, but frankly, I have other things to do. But a few points about this last discussion, though:

A. As pointed out by jgc56, Mitting did not conclude the project was not done under 172-96: he in fact lays out evidence supporting the proposition that it was done under the project, and as Mr. Deer points out, his criticism was simply that the GMC did not thoroughly explain why it rejected the evidence. The focus was lack of explanation. Mr. Deer explained it above – an era of cursory explanations was being overturned. A good thing, but it does not say much about the substance.

B. Due process does not mean “
I don’t like the conclusions the court reached”. It means there was a procedural problem. You mentioned conflicts of interests on behalf of one judge – but really, your examples were incredibly weak as conflicts of interests – and nothing stopped Andrew Wakefield from appealing on those grounds. You pointed to no other procedural problems. Andrew Wakefield chose not to appeal. The decision stands.

C. As pointed by jgc56, the Mitting decision also only focused on a few of the allegations against Andrew Wakefield, which are not touched by this.
Dorit Reiss Dorit Reiss 1 day ago

At the end of the day, I don’t see a point in engaging further. Mr. Stone’s claims were wrong the first three times he made them. He was patiently explained that. He simply repeated them. They are still wrong.
jgc56 jgc56 1 day ago

I think I agree, dorit: clearly it’s not enough to explain things to John: one would also have to understand them for him to make any progress.


Have you all watched SELECTIVE HEARING please do


"… A Deer in the Headlights! Please read Autism One interview with Dr. David Lewis below. It looks like even main stream scientists are now questioning Deer and the way the scientific studies were manipulated to screw over Dr. Wakefield….

What the heck took so long??? Non scientists have known this for years.

But hey, why rush? I mean, other than the health of innocent, defenceless children…. its not like anything has been hanging in the balance.

John Stone

My most recent comment:

"Notifications were sent to my email box yesterday evening (UK time) that there were new and disparaging comments about me by Dorit Reiss and jgc56 (replying to her) but it seems I am being blocked from viewing them - the opening lines appear in the emails but the rest are invisible on the page. Pressumably, some people can see them and some cannot. But clearly some people have been troubled by my comments if they are reduced to these tactics."

Birgit Calhoun

The sad part in all this is really the fact that all this injustice perpetrated against Wakefield will leave the questions regarding bowel disease due to MMR under-researched, and who suffers? The children.


I wonder if the statin reporting was inaccurate or if Pharma got a hold of her and explained to her that it was inaccurate (or else). Statins are one of the most lucrative drugs which Pharma (with the help of Medicine) is trying to get most adults to take.


Yes, John, I'll second what Angus said; well done! Dealing with those people is rough- they're lower than rattlesnakes in a gully, as they say.

Angus Files

great work John ...like drawing an old skelf/splinter from your finger you get the puss first and last..you've drawn all the pharma skelfs out for everyone to see..the game is over and done .. and no answer coming forth.


Jenny Allan

Just as an aside. BMJ Editor, Fiona Godlee was on BBC news last night attempting to justify the biased BMJ's latest gaffe, over some very inaccurate skewed stuff published about statins, (a cholestoral lowering medication).

The BMJ has admitted publishing inaccurate figures from an earlier publication, grossly overstating the incidence of adverse effects. The author of the misquoted paper, attempted in vain to get this corrected before publication of the later articles, but was ignored. It makes you wonder about so called 'peer reviews, and what vested interests were involved?

Forbes has followed the story:-
From above:-

"Collaboration, Rory Collins, contacted Godlee on several occasions to express his concerns about the papers, though he declined requests to respond in BMJ. The BMJ editors agreed with the authors of the two studies on the wording of a published correction (see below), but Collins still wanted a full retraction. Godlee reports that she is uncertain “whether the error is sufficient for retraction, given that the incorrect statements were in each case secondary to the article’s primary focus.” As a result the BMJ has convened an outside panel of experts “with no dog in this fight.”

John Stone

This was my earlier response yesterday evening to "jgc56":

"Shouting doesn’t win arguments, and what we know after Mitting is that GMC panel was simply not reliable – after 3 years they had no reasoning for their main decision – and unlike Walker-Smith, Wakefield and Murch were not funded to appeal: their cases have never been reviewed although very similar in many respects to Walker-Smith’s and in the case of Murch almost identical. As to the investigatory procedures Walker-Smith was entirely responsible for what went on in his department – all the clinical decisions went back to him and if Wakefield initiated anything independently that would have been an issue for which Walker-Smith was answerable, and Walker-Smith was cleared. As to taking blood tests that is something which does not generally need ethical approval. I note Dr Evan Harris (at the time of the BMA ethical committee) telling parliament on 15 March 2004, just as he was denouncing Wakefield and colleagues stating:

"“The guidelines were published and circulated by the Department of Health in 1991, the British Paediatric Association—now the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—in 1992, the General Medical Council in 1994 and the Royal College of Physicians in 1996. The guidelines made it clear that children should not be exposed to anything more invasive or risky than a blood test unless certain conditions —likely specific clinical benefit to the child—were met”


"So, one rule for Wakefield and another everyone else.

"Everything the public think they now know about Wakefield is based on a flawed and political process. The chairman of the GMC panel failed to declare before sitting that he worked for licensing authority, that he had shares in one of the MMR manufacurers, and after the hearing he exposed his further bias by calling in a BMA debate for MMR to made compulsory (all against the Nolan committee for standards in public life recommendations). I mentioned above that the head of GMC panels doubled as the allegedly independent peer reviewer of the Deer 2011 allegations in BMJ (and despite also being a BMJ editor!). This was all entirely inappropriate – apart from anything this was plainly very intimidating for the profession.

"Yes it does matter that there are standards in public life, transparency, accountability, journalist's ethics, independent panels, reasoned prosecutions, reasoned judgments. All of this is absent here.

"What stands out in your response is your indifference to due process."

John Stone

My comment posted this morning on Forbes to "jgc56"

"Here we go round the mulberry bush. “How did Wakefield fail to receive due process?” Because we know that many of the findings against him hinged on the 172-96 claim (the substance of Deer’s first hidden complaint/denunciation to the GMC) and this was not true. The issue that Wakefield was a researcher and Walker-Smith a clinician (as well btw as a researcher) has no bearing on the 1998 Lancet paper. The question that Mitting posed was whether any of the data in the paper relating to the 12 Royal Free patients was obtained as part of research rather than routine clinical enquiry even though there was no evidence for 172-96, and he found not – and Walker-Smith as senior author was as responsible for the content of the paper as Wakefield."


"PS Not only was Walker-Smith as responsible for the content of the paper as Wakefield he was responsible for collaborating with Wakefield, so all this stuff about Wakefield's interest being research is a red-herring."

Selective disregard

It's interesting how rarely it's mentioned that the Lancet team employed lumbar puncture to diagnose potential mitochondrial disease in child subjects or that the practice isn't generally questioned in the notoriously difficult to diagnose and dangerous disease. But all sorts of things which are considered dire medical conditions in typical children-- like seizures or bleeding bowels-- are minimized or ignored in the cognitively disabled.

It certainly would be callous disregard to use such an invasive diagnostic approach for anything more trivial than life-threatening or disabling conditions like mitochondrial disease or ravaged intestines-- for instance unconsentedly testing whether healthy minority children who happen to be siblings of juvenile offenders somehow metabolize Prozac or stimulant drugs differently than white children who don't have "crime" in the family. Something like that would be heinous. So you have to wonder what non-lawyer Dorit Reiss would say about an NIH department head and other NIH researchers who, while under grants from pharmaceutical companies to come up with positive findings for their products, routinely employed lumbar puncture for things like measuring drug metabolism in captive minor state wards in NIH facilities? http://books.google.com/books?id=jrt3Iqvks-oC&pg=PA128&dq=Peter+Breggin+Judith+Rapoport+spinal+tap&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uD1nU7bFI-zmsATus4LYAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Peter%20Breggin%20Judith%20Rapoport%20spinal%20tap&f=false

It doesn't look like the NIMH's Judith Rapoport has lost her license to practice-- even after she repeatedly used spinal tap for drug studies on unconsenting children and even when she and other NIMH investigators defensively had captive child subjects fill out a survey saying whether they preferred spinal tap to going to school. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165178188901588


Lumbar punctures are a common clinical procedure in pediatric populations, yet little systematic information about side effects or the child's perspective of the procedure is available. In a subset (n=20) of a sample of children and adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders, we recorded children's ratings of research lumbar puncture in comparison to other hospital experiences of blood sampling, electroencephalography, and going to school. Lumbar puncture did not differ from the other procedures in terms of preference. (School attendance was the last choice of 50% of our patients.) Postlumbar puncture headache occurred in 13 of 60 (22%) patients (age 6.5–19.8 years). Adults may overestimate the relative noxiousness of lumbar punctures in children.

Haven DeLay

What DR. Wakefields did ""wrong" was to find that MMR vaccine might be damaging children - their intestines and when you damage the intestines, you damage the immune system.. How dare he question vaccines! That appears to be the only tie possible conflicts of interest matter. They certainly never seem to matter int eh case of Dr. Paul (Pr)Offit. Why is that?

Dr. Wakefield WILL emerge form this victorious. I have no doubt, and many of us feel that by his research and in hearing him speak over the years, he has helped us heal our children. He is a hero in my book and always will be.


I take comfort that one day Dr. Wakefield will be exonerated as more and more mainstream research comes out with findings that confirm GI issues in our kids. Stop sreading lies Brian Deer-tick.

This story was on the SFARI web site today:

"Analysis finds high rates of gut problems in autism" -SFARI


tony bateson

I didn't follow the Wakefield/GMC affair in detail although as an autism parent and a campaigner for resources for autistic children I had a strong interest. But I had read the Lancet paper and could never understand quite what Andrew Wakefield had done to incur such a disproportionate reaction from the medical establishment. Of course I now know, as surely so does anyone, the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry will go to maintain the status quo which is so powerfully rewarding for it.
When Brian Deer was shown on TV in the USA pursuing his vendetta against Wakefield I had a house full of people some of whom I asked to come into the sitting room to watch the programme. It was so disingenuous I asked this group who knew nothing about autism,mmr,Wakefield or Deer to tell me what they thought was going on. Their unanimous and spontaneous response was to say 'this man is on a mission and it looks rather like a 'fit-up''. Exactly, he could not hide his malice and spite, it just shone from his features.

Tony Bateson, Oxford UK.

Laura Hayes

I could not help but notice the huge irony in the words of Dorit Reiss against Dr. Wakefield:

"Charges that include hiding conflicts of interests, inappropriately ordering invasive tests on children for research purposes, misrepresenting an ethics committee approval."

Hello, Dorit, that is what DOCTORS do every single day when vaccinating their patients without true and proper informed consent (which is truly impossible to do since proper studies on vaccines and on the vaccine schedule have NEVER been done). Doctors do not disclose the myriad of conflicts of interest with regards to vaccines, including their "testing", their approvals, and their recommendations. They do not disclose that our entire vaccine program is one huge medical experiment gone tragically wrong. And a true ethics committee would never allow the ingredients in vaccines to be injected into humans, most especially fetuses, newborns, and infants, and it would never allow ANY medical treatment or procedure to be mandated.


A Deer in the Headlights! Please read Autism One interview with Dr. David Lewis below. It looks like even main stream scientists are now questioning Deer and the way the scientific studies were manipulated to screw over
Dr. Wakefield.

EPA Microbiologist Dr. David Lewis Wrote the Book on Research Misconduct - Then Throws the Book at Brian Deer


John Stone

So, nothing from Deer or Reiss on Forbes this morning - they sent in "Becky Fisseux" to try and clear up after. Cites Simon Murch's error about 172-96 at the time of Deer's original report which was not his evidence to the hearing and some nonsense about Mrs 12 from Sheldon Sheps' blog which doesn't prove anything. The game is over.

John Stone


Thanks. A couple of observations. Of course, the term "criminal standard of proof" which gleefully rolls off Deer's tongue means "beyond reasonable doubt" but as we know the GMC not only found things that were not beyond reasonable doubt but things for which there was no evidence whatsoever. The other thing to be said is that whatever steps the GMC took to review their procedures they did not take any steps to review the malicious and disproven findings against Andrew Wakefield and Simon Murch - so there is a plain and known injustice and they are absolutely delighted to let it continue. I somewhat doubt that any review of procedures will be more than "inadequate and superficial". Maybe Deer was right - the standard of proof was criminal.

A great irrelevance, of course, is that Wakefield and Murch did not appeal. In the modern world (certainly in the UK) there are great limits to the extent to which ordinary people can pursue justice, and it is getting worse by the day.

Jenny Allan

Yes -Excellent stuff John Stone, and well done for taking on these hyenas on hostile Forbes 'territory'. It is becoming increasingly pathetic on the parts of Deer, Reiss & Co to keep on repeating those now discredited GMC findings, based on Deer's now proven fanciful and malicious complaints.

Some more 'bottom line' observations:-
The 1998 Lancet paper identified a 'novel' condition which appeared to link autism and inflammatory bowel disease in 12 child subjects. That 'novel' condition is no longer 'novel'. The medical 'establishment' has now been forced (kicking and screaming) to admit that autism and inflammatory bowel disease ARE INDEED linked. The statistics speak for themselves, and there have been several well respected scientific papers confirming this. Displayed graphically, the steep rises in both autism and bowel disorders, closely correlate to the implementation of the MMR vaccine in the US and UK.

Following the 3 year £8million GMC 'trial' of Dr Wakefield and his clinician colleagues, Profs Walker-Smith and Murch, ridiculously stated to have been carried out to a 'criminal standard', but hopelessly conflicted and, (to quote Justice Mitting in the High Court), the GMC's examination of Deer's flimsy so called 'evidence' against the three doctors, was 'inadequate and superficial'. Prof Walker-Smith in his memoir called the GMC trial premises a 'torture chamber' and the trial 'an inquisition'. There are certainly parallels with the Salem witch trials and the Spanish inquisition.

Justice Mitting stated during his conclusions following Prof Walker-Smith's successful appeal, 'It would be UNFORTUNATE if this was to happen again.' Coming from a High Court Judge, this was tantamount to a 'Royal Command' and the GMC has now been collectively forced to completely overhaul their disciplinary procedures. There are no more 'trials'; instead the GMC proceedings are now in line with other UK industrial tribunals. That's as it should be.

The attempt by the medical pharma establishment via Emily Willingham to blame Andrew Wakefield for the lack of autism/bowel research, following the 1998 Lancet paper, is not only pathetic, but is actually counter productive, revealing to the world the undeniable fact that Dr Wakefield and his colleagues WERE RIGHT all along.

We have now been told officially that new SAFER vaccines and immunisation procedures are 'in the pipeline'. Yes -this IS an admission the present vaccinations are UNSAFE!!....but we all knew this anyway.

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you, Mr. Stone, for once again clearing out the smoke.

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.)