Are They Going to Start Shooting Anti-Vaxxers?
Open Letter to Journalists from Mom of Vaccine-Injured Child

Weekly Wrap: No, Senator Feinstein, Wakefield is Not a Fraud

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaBy Dan Olmsted Diane Feinstein

The idea that Andy Wakefield is a fraud is the quick-and-dirty way to dismiss anyone with vaccine safety concerns. I was reminded of that on a couple of fronts this week. An Age of Autism reader who wrote Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to support vaccine choice just received this reply:

“I understand that many parents are also concerned that vaccines may cause autism. This claim was published in 1998, in an article in the Lancet, a British medical journal. The researcher who authored the article was later found to have deliberately falsified data to produce a fraudulent link ..."

The source of the "fraud" claim, the British Medical Journal, decided to remind everyone of that 2012 report this week. In a "Dear Colleagues" letter, BMJ Clinical Director for North America Carolyn Wong Simpkins wrote that in the current measles outbreak, "we are seeing the sad consequences of parents opting out of these [vaccine] benefits. But do you remember the origins of the rumors attempting to connect the MMR vaccine with autism? It began with a research paper—later retracted—from investigators at a London medical school, but soon spread fear, guilt, and now the resurgence of a nearly eradicated infectious disease across the globe.

"In 2011, The BMJ published an in-depth, three-part investigation that described the problems with data corruption and bias in the original paper. As we move forward, and encourage parents to vaccinate their children, I think it’s important to revisit this history and remember the detrimental effects that fraudulent data can have on the health of the global population, and the importance of championing transparency, integrity, and scientific literacy."

May I be permitted to interject a minor quibble here? There was no fraud! I first made that case in a 10-part series in 2012, and am recapitulating it here in the hope that someone of Feinstein's stature  might decide to look more closely before they repeat the "fraud" canard yet again.

The BMJ began its 2011 attack on Wakefield's "elaborate fraud" by claiming he altered every single one of 12 children's anonymous case histories to create a phony link between the MMR vaccine and autism. In five cases, it said, signs of autism actually began before the shot was even given.

If true, yep, that's "deliberately falsified data ... a fraudulent link" -- in a word, good old-fashioned fraud. But let's meet the claim at its strongest point and see if it holds together. That is the story of Child 11 in the case series. In the BMJ, author Brian Deer claimed Child 11's symptoms couldn't possibly have been caused by the MMR shot because they appeared “too soon” -- a full two months before the shot. Deer said the father himself spotted the "anomaly" and was deeply upset about Wakefield's deception. Wow. Gotcha! An "elaborate fraud" indeed.

 But none of that is true. 


Like Deer, I was able to identify the 12 Lancet families, and I set about contacting them in the months after the BMJ series was published; I eventually spoke to more of them than Deer did both in the U.S. and England, where I spent a week taking trains from Wales to Bath. I met Father 11 -- the only American case -- closest to home, at a Peet’s Coffee shop in an affluent, picture-perfect Southern California enclave.

We sat outside in the mid-60s sunshine he jokingly called “a little frosty.” A wealthy businessman who lives in a gated community nearby, he wore a light jacket emblazoned with “Cal,” for the University of California at Berkeley where he got an engineering degree. He carried a thin file folder and a spiral notebook.

 In this laid-back setting, it was hard to grasp the role he and his family have played in one of the major medical controversies of our time, one that unfolded in a foggy city 6,000 miles to the east.

 This father is Deer’s best witness among the parents of the 12 children described in the Lancet paper – in fact, his only one, the lone parent who is hostile to Wakefield, not just a little frosty, but coldly angry. His anonymous comments to Deer in the BMJ seemed to fully support its January 5, 2011, cover story: “Secrets of the MMR Scare: How the Case Against the MMR Was Fixed.”

 “My investigation of the MMR issue exposed the frauds behind Wakefield’s research,” wrote Deer. Child 11 was among those “whose parents apparently blamed MMR,” but in truth “Child 11’s case must have been a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms began too soon.” [Italics in original] Deer quoted from a Royal Free Hospital discharge summary: “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age. In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

 Deer summarized: “That put the symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy had MMR. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. …” 

This "fraud" by Wakefield -- blaming the vaccine for symptoms that began two months before the shot -- was the coup de grace for serious consideration of a link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield was “convicted of fraud,” wrote Time magazine in an article titled “The Dangers of the Antivaccine Movement.” An editorial in The New York Times, titled "Autism Fraud," noted Britain’s General Medical Council had already stripped Wakefield of his medical license, and the Lancet retracted the paper: “Now the British Medical Journal has taken the extraordinary step of publishing a lengthy report by Brian Deer, the British investigative journalist who first brought the paper’s flaws to light — and has put its own reputation on the line by endorsing his findings.”

 Indeed it did.

 “Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare,” Editor in Chief Fiona Godlee wrote. She said “there is no doubt it was Wakefield” who was responsible for the “elaborate fraud,” despite having 12 co-authors.

 Hold the door, please. I was about to learn that Deer’s explosive claim about Child 11 – Exhibit A in this alleged hoax -- was false. 


The father opened the file folder – guarding the papers against a fickle coastal breeze -- and showed me a letter he had written on January 1, 1997, to “Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Royal Free Hospital, London, England.”

 "My son [name deleted] at age 15 months, was immunized with the Merck MMR vaccine and became ill for the next several months,” the letter began.

 “As his pediatric records indicate he came down with a viral infection, and shortly thereafter viral pneumonia. His condition slowly deteriorated over time, and was diagnosed as being autistic on his birthday at age 3. The onset of his autistic behavior began around 18 months. … He was diagnosed as moderate to severe, with no speech, no eye contact, and cognitive function at 6 months overall.”

Multiple specialists in the United States confirmed the autism diagnosis, the letter added, as well as their suspicions of the MMR vaccine as the cause. Further workups in California also revealed “indeterminant inflammatory bowel disease” -- the dual syndrome Wakefield was then investigating at the Royal Free. That was why the father wanted the hospital’s pediatric gastroenterologists to evaluate his child.

So – first came the shot, then the symptoms. The father’s account, and medical records created before he got anywhere near Wakefield, could not be clearer. But didn’t he tell Brian Deer exactly the opposite, as recounted in the opening of the BMJ cover story? And didn’t a hospital record confirm that?

No. And no.

Though you’d never know it, the father was actually disputing a much more minor "anomaly" -- how long after the shot specific symptoms occurred -- that didn't bear on the essential truth of the paper. There was no question of which came first -- it was the shot. In fact, the father did directly blame the MMR for causing his son’s illnesses and autistic regression – a fact that appears to have escaped Deer’s notice, or at least acknowledgement.

Yes, the father was angry at Wakefield. Yes, he disagreed with other points, some of them unrelated to the content of the Lancet article. But no – he did not say that the symptoms came before the shot. He gave Deer no basis to claim that the shot came "too soon" to have triggered the symptoms. 

No basis, in short, for a claim of fraud.

But what about the the discharge document that was the sole basis for Deer's claim? It was simply wrong, one of thousands of pieces of paper generated by many medical personnel in a complicated medical case stretching over many years; perhaps the “13-18 months” was a typo for “15-18,” since that is what the father had reported all along. Regardless, the father says he never told Deer that the symptoms came first, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Deer apparently did not bother to check that one piece of paper against the large volume of other evidence, or to confirm it with the father, or to make sure that his own claim that symptoms began “a month before the boy had MMR” coincided with any actual chronology.

As far as I can tell, no one on the planet -- no doctor, no parent, no document – has ever said Child 11 was anything but healthy and developing normally before the MMR. No one, that is, but Brian Deer in the BMJ. And here we see Deer at work: Because Wakefield was a fraud – because Deer said so – any discrepancies between data in the Lancet paper and any other source was proof against Wakefield. One document says 13-18 months for the period of regression? That was evidence enough that Wakefield “used bogus data … to manufacture a link” between the MMR and autism.

And so it went in the other 11 cases -- no evidence at all of the "fraud" Deer and the BMJ alleged; in fact, plenty of evidence of no fraud at all. The claim was really a selective, manipulative, deceptive -- one might say fraudulent -- exercise that no one bothered to subject to a case-by-case critique.


To my surprise as we sat outside in Southern California, Father 11 told me he hadn’t read the BMJ article, and he declined my offer to quote from it or have him read it during our visit. He would rather lay out the sequence in his own words, he told me.

That turned out to be a useful approach.

His son had been completely healthy and developing normally, he said, until the MMR shot at 15 months triggered a downhill progression.

“I very much believe it,” he said about the relationship of the shot to the symptoms: The measles component of the vaccine triggered an immune deficiency that produced the cascade of devastating physical and mental problems. This, in fact, was Wakefield’s provisional hypothesis.

When I showed Father 11 what Deer had written about the shot-and-symptoms sequence, he said, emphatically, “That’s not correct.”

A few days later, after he read the BMJ piece, the father sent Deer and myself an email.

“Mr. Deer’s article makes me appear irrational for continuing to believe that the MMR caused difficulties which predated its administration, but until the incorrect dates in the discharge summary were pointed out to me this week, I failed to realize that the discharge summary was inaccurate.”

The father, still seething at Wakefield for other slights, imagined or not, wrote that this was an honest mistake on Deer’s part.

“Based on the incorrect discharge summary I shared with him, Mr. Deer reasonably inferred that my son’s autistic symptoms predated his receipt of the MMR vaccination, which they did not.”

I’m no engineer, but neither is Father 11 a journalist. As someone familiar with the norms of my profession, I had rather a different reaction. I found it hard to see how Deer -- who interviewed the father in person twice, once in California and once in London, corresponded by email, and must have heard the same story I did — could get something so important so wrong. The number of times he used the father’s quotes to misleading effect – making him appear to angrily assert that the symptoms preceded the shot – was too high; the way he did it seemed too artful.

Yet when I met him, Father 11 was as straightforward and precise as you might expect from a successful engineer.  By the time I finished my Peet’s, I had no doubt about the chronology or the documentation.

Besides, the imperative to get the facts correct – and to correct them promptly and prominently if called for – is implacable. Even more than a hurried newspaper account, there were not supposed to be any mistakes in Deer’s work in the august British Medical Journal. They said so themselves.

Yet this rather fundamental mistake, if you can call it that, in Deer's reporting -- which went to the very heart of the claim that Wakefield committed an "elaborate fraud" -- did not perturb the BMJ. Nor did the other cases I dissected that pointed to, at most, issues of interpretation and analysis in the paper, most of it supplied not by Wakefield -- a researcher -- but by the clinicians he worked with.

This is a single example of many factual misrepresentations by Deer and the BMJ. In 11 out of the 12 cases, the case histories were actually taken not by Wakefield but the senior clinician and author in the paper Prof John Walker-Smith who, unlike Wakefield, was funded to appeal and completely exonerated in the English High Court in March 2012. The judge found no evidence of misreporting of data or inappropriate medical procedures. The two histopathologist co-authors defended the clinical findings of the paper in the face of BMJ's allegations (here  and here) and in November 2011, after the intervention of whistleblowing scientist David Lewis, Deer and BMJ's editor Fiona Godlee along with their expert advisor Prof Ingvar Bjarnason were forced into an embarrassing climb down in the columns of Nature.

But they've stood by their fatally flawed "fraud" claim, and that has caused irreparable harm. “The BMJ stands by the article by Brian Deer and the linked editorial published on 5 January,” Godlee wrote in February 2011 in response to e-mails critical of its reporting by readers at Age of Autism.

“The article, which was subjected to peer review and editorial checking, was based on enquiries carried out over some seven years, involving, among other things, interviews with parents of children enrolled in Andrew Wakefield's research. Four such parents are quoted in the article. As made clear in the article, the core data on which the findings were based were evidenced, except in the case of one child, by the transcript of a General Medical Council fitness to practise hearing which sat between July 2007 and May 2010.”

That “one child” – the exception for which no independent evidence existed -- was Child 11. No one could check what that father said, or so it seemed. I imagine Deer was counting on that. Now Deer and the  BMJ (which has partnered with MMR manufacturer Merck on other projects) just go on repeating their many long-ago disproven allegations in the cynical expectation that no one will be able to do anything about it.


Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.




Why is it so hard for some people to understand that vaccines are dangerous to SOME people, and for that reason alone we should not force people to receive vaccinations, because most of the people who fear vaccines, fear them for personal reasons, mainly because someone in their family has been damaged by vaccines. It's called freedom of choice. Parents of children who can't speak for themselves have a duty to protect their children. If the parent thinks a vaccine could harm them, they have a right to protect their child from possible harm. It has NEVER been proven that vaccines are completely safe, thus it is unreasonable to assume we must force all parents to vaccine their children, or force any individual to get a vaccination. Respect freedom of choice. Respect parents right to decide what could be safe for their children. Respect an individual's right to deny a medical intervention that has known side effects. If you want to vaccinate your child, go right ahead, that's your choice, but do NOT tell others we must vaccinate our children or must receive vaccinations. Our bodies. Our children. Our choice.

Godfrey Wyl


"As a follow-up to my previous posts regarding the feasibility of filing injunctions to stop mandatory vaccination programs in the U.S., I think from my reading that the vaccines would have to be taken one by one."

I can only conclude that there is some confusion here. One does not "file an injunction"; one files a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief. In this case, it would have to be against the person in charge of the body responsible for policing school vaccine mandates, to enjoin enforcement.

The problem is that the basis for any such relief needs to be that the mandates themselves are unconstitutional, which they plainly are not. I see no way for such an effort to survive summary judgment.

Jenny Allan

Betty Bona- With me you are preaching to the converted, but I am realistic enough to accept the need for some compromises in the war for vaccine choices and safety. If we can at least identify those children with a higher risk of MMR vaccine damage, then this in turn should lead to more holistic and alternative methods of immunisation.

Betty Bona

Interesting article about a C4B gene variant possibly causing more susceptibility to febrile seizures after the MMR. I guess the variants supply a lesser amount of the gene products. The problem with simply testing for the presence or absence of this gene is that it ignores the whole field of epigenetics. How many children with the more MMR healthy version of this C4B gene have environmental exposures that turn these crucial genes on or off (epigenetics)? Genetic research without considering epigenetics is so yesterday!

Jenny Allan

Barry asks:- "Deer had no access to them. Most of his so called 'fraud' relates to apparent discrepancies between the GP and hospital records. Who gave this information to Brian Deer?"

Good question Barry!! Deer claims he got the records as a result of a previous UK Court case, when Dr Wakefield attempted to sue him. The Judge dismissed the case.
However, this litigation was about defamatory Deer articles in Murdoch's Sunday Times and a TV Channel 4 documentary, much of which was based on -you've guessed it- the Lancet Children's medical notes.

Isabella Thomas, parent of 2 Lancet children, has always maintained Deer got copies of her children's hospital notes illegally, from another staff member at the Royal Free Hospital. The GP records (which are completely separate) were claimed by BMJ Editor Fiona Godlee, to have been acquired from GMC transcripts taken during the 3 year disciplinary hearing against Dr Wakefield and his 2 clinician colleagues.

Jenny Allan

Another link - This time to some MEANINGFUL genetic research in Denmark. The scientists discovered a genetic SUSCEPTIBILITY to developing child febrile seizures after administration of the MMR vaccine. They have put this risk at 1 in 1000 children. The article, whilst being very careful to 'toe the line ' on the 'debunking' of MMR vaccine autism links, suggests children should be screened for these genes before MMR vaccination. Febrile seizures, whilst normally causing no lasting damage, CAN be due to encephalitis, admitted to sometimes cause 'autism like' conditions.
Most journalists and even doctors and scientists, whilst happy to debunk the 1998 Wakefield et al paper, have plainly never bothered to read it!! The following extract hypothesises a genetic link to autism, caused by some children's immune systems being unable to cope with the three live viruses given simultaneously in the MMR vaccine:-
"A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins.15 In the context of susceptibility to infection, a genetic association with autism, linked to a null allele of the complement (C) 4B gene located in the class III region of the major-histocompatibility complex, has been recorded by Warren and colleagues.24 C4B-gene products are crucial for the activation of the complement pathway and protection against infection: individuals inheriting one or two C4B null alleles may not handle certain viruses appropriately, possibly including attenuated strains."

If it is now possible to IDENTIFY children, with a genetic tendency to develop seizures (which can cause autism), then this is where the research cash from Autism Speaks and other charities, and Government research grants should be going, instead of completely useless research into twins. It does not require an Einstein to deduce identical twins, with identical genetics, will also have identical genetic susceptibilities.

Gene link to seizures in children after MMR vaccine

By Richard Ingham October 26, 2014 4:06 PM
Paris (AFP) - "Scientists in Denmark said Sunday they had found genetic clues to explain why a small number of children have febrile seizures -- brief convulsions -- after receiving the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
They stressed there was no need to scrap the MMR vaccine -- caught in a health scare in 1998 that watchdogs later declared groundless -- and described its use as a "great achievement" in saving lives.
Reporting in the journal Nature Genetics, the team found that febrile seizures occurred in roughly one in every 1,000 children who were given the MMR vaccine.
Two genetic variants came to light that pointed to a higher risk of a febrile seizure in the second week following MMR vaccination, they said.
They lie on genes that play an important role in how the immune system reacts to viral intruders.
Febrile seizures are the term for when a child develops a high temperature, loses consciousness and spasms.
The episode usually lasts for a minute or two, but apart from causing alarm for parents and the need for a checkup afterwards, is typically not dangerous.
A known but rare side effect of vaccination or viral infection, febrile seizures are different from epileptic seizures, which occur without fever......................
......Further work should tease out other genetic culprits, hopefully leading to a diagnostic test to show which children could be at greater risk of a febrile seizure after a jab. The study was unable to say whether children who had seizures did so as a result of getting a triple immunisation, as opposed to getting single shots to protect against the three diseases. The triple vaccine is the only available in Denmark."


"Filth in the Cardiology industry " that's a new one for me. I've heard of lots of stalling & bs involved with MS. No one seems to really find the cause or even what is going on with that disease. Many broke off from the official MS Societies due to the pharma influence. For me, the neurologists really have blood on their hands. They must have an idea of vaccine injuries and autism. I think many of them know darned well that MS drugs have killed more than any of the surgical solutions. I think most people now are very sceptical of medical treaents and research in general.


Deer had no access to them. Most of his so called 'fraud' relates to apparent discrepancies between the GP and hospital records,


Who gave this information to Brian Deer?

Justice for Andy

Andy should sue everyone, and we all should be paying for it. We are all being kept poor (parents are still effectively the payors for most decent therapies) for a reason.

By the way, just watched a new documentary film called "The Widowmaker" available from YEKRA online about the filth in the cardiology industry. It is films like this that people must see; once you become aware of the utter corruption of medicine in one arena, it is not difficult to imagine it in another...


Andy should sue Sen Feinstein in a highly publicized case for claiming he committed fraud.


From a number of sources, some published here on AoA, it is public record that the MMR shot when first introduced caused aseptic meningitis among other problems. Professor David Salisbury was in charge of UK vaccination policy during this period. The negative experience in Japan in the early 1990s was another indicator that public health vaccine pushers had ample warning that MMR shot is dangerous- and sought to bury that data. Here one source:

"In fact, introduction of MMR was planned for the UK in 1987, ironically, in the same year that Canada reported its first cases of MMR induced mumps encephalitis (see Champagne et al. Can Dis Weekly Rep. 1987;13:155-157). In 1988 distribution of the Urabe containing MMR was ceased in Canada and the product recalled. In July of the same year a UK license was granted and a UK deal struck to indemnify the manufacturers. In other words, despite the fact that a possibly safer but more expensive MMR vaccine was available Professor Salisbury opted for a cheaper and potentially more dangerous version without ever having performed the recommended comparison trials advocated by the JCVI. Professor Salisbury apparently states on his CV, presumably with some pride, that he was responsible for the introduction of this vaccine into the UK.

Soon after the introduction of Urabe-strain MMR, by then recalled in Canada because it was damaging children, a UK MMR vaccination campaign, similar to the one being launched today, was supported by Professor Salisbury. Immediate reports of meningitis followed (see Gray JA. Lancet 1989;2:98). An additional report (see Murray MW., Lancet 1989;2:677) confirmed that the emergent meningitis in UK children was identical to that which was the basis for withdrawal of the vaccine in Canada."


There is some very good information about how CDC lobbies state to The Refusers


Also, with the injunctions, the Hep B injunction should not be just to stop requiring it for entry into public school; it should be stop altogether the routine injecting of newborns with HEP B. The argument should be that there is plenty of evidence that this vaccine causes harm; that unsuspecting new parents will not even know to ask about it, let alone exercise their right to refuse it; that expectant mothers can be tested for Hep B prior to birth, thus there is absolutely no reason to give the shot to every newborn baby, regardless of risk status. That Hep B is not something that is easily spread in schools -- children would need to be having sex and/or sharing needles. Thus, it should be removed from the list of required vaccines for entry into any school.


Brian Deer tries to make it appear that to travel 280 miles to get specialized medical care for your child is grounds for suspicion. But Father 11 traveled *5000* miles after advice, not from "anti-MMR campaigners" and not because Wakefield recruited him, but because he was listening to American medical specialists.

In the BMJ/Deer excerpt below, Deer tries to tar all 12 Lancet children with the same brush:

"The 12 children were admitted between July 1996 and February 1997, and others had connections not revealed in the paper, almost as striking as the trio’s. The parents of child 9 and child 10 were contacts of Mrs 2, who ran a group that campaigned against MMR. And child 4 and child 8 were admitted—without outpatient appointments—for ileocolonoscopy and other invasive procedures, from one Tyneside general practice, 280 miles from the Royal Free, after advice from anti-MMR campaigners."

John Stone


One has remember that there was no Freedom of Information in regard UK government documents until January 2005. However, I believe that removal of Pluserix and Immravax were reported in 1992, certainly in the BMJ and probably in some newspapers but obviously in a way to downplay concern. The facts were available to interested persons which of course never included members of the British jounalistic profession. For example, CHS posting in 2009 was able to write about it.

I remember challenging Ben Goldacre about it on his blog in 2005. I don't believe it was ever a state secret. It is just like the stuff we seen now with mainstream news sources failing to report the CDC whistleblower. It is not secret, it is just how the public debate is minutely controlled.


Jenny Allan

I don't think Dr Andrew Wakefield will mind my quoting from his book Callous Disregard here. This is from the chapter called 'The Whistleblower':-
"There is much more that can and will be written about the Urabe episode. I have confined this chapter to my state of knowledge in 1996-7, since it was the insights provided by 'George's*' disclosures that were, in part, my motivation to fight for a safety first vaccine policy. *(George was the name initially given to the whistleblower, to protect his anonymity).

This story highlights so many of the problems within the UK's vaccine politburo, not least of which are the disproportionate influence of a few individuals,the apparent manipulation of information and access to it, and above all, where the perception of the importance of vaccine safety ranks in the priorities of those who are charged with looking out for our children."

I find this chilling and frightening and all too relevant.

Jenny Allan

@ John Stone
"I believe you are in error over the Urabe strain MMR vaccines being banned in the UK in 1992."

No error John!! But you are correct; it's very much a 'moot point' whether it was the UK Government or the vaccine manufacturers who effectively 'banned' the Urabe MMR vaccine, but either way the vaccine was 'effectively' banned, in the sense that NHS health premises were told not to administer this version of MMR vaccine. At that time single measles and rubella vaccines were still available.

By deliberately suppressing all the Government papers pertaining to this dangerous Urabe MMR vaccine, for 20 years, those responsible plainly hoped the scandal, and their part in it, would never be revealed to the public. In the end, these revelations came out in Scotland, just as the GMC guilty verdicts on Dr Wakefield and his clinician colleagues were announced. I stupidly gave my Herald internet copy to a nasty little media man, outside the GMC premises. By the time I got home, this had been edited to exclude the most damning evidence of the UK Government's complicity in the harm done by this vaccine.

No matter, I still have my copy of the Scottish Daily Mail's report. I am happy to provide a screen shot to AoA, as evidence for anyone wishing to include this in the US as evidence to Senators etc. Below is a transcript of part of it:-

Scottish Daily Mail
21st May 2010
NHS bosses were warned about fears over certain strains of MMR vaccines three years before they were banned.
Concerns were raised in 1989 over links between two strains of the vaccine –used to protect against measles, mumps and rubella but the vaccines were not axed until 1992.
A memo between Scottish Office Health Officials promises to look into possible links. Weeks later, in a letter to Department of Health mandarin Roy Cunningham, an official reveals ‘Colleagues have had feedback from health boards expressing concern about reactions to the MMR vaccine.’


As a follow-up to my previous posts regarding the feasibility of filing injunctions to stop mandatory vaccination programs in the U.S., I think from my reading that the vaccines would have to be taken one by one. In that vein, I would start with the FLu, Hep B, Gardasil, and MMR -- filing separate injunctions for each, against requiring any of these vaccines for entry into any public space. (Here in Virginia the HPV vaccine is required for entry into middle school). The argument in these injunctions should be that no person should have to provide any excuse whatsoever for opting out of these vaccines. Each has individually been shown to be so problematic that the risks may outweigh the benefits.


John Stone and Jenny;

That story alone - if it could get out to the masses would make it very clear to everyone that there is too much power in the hands of a few!

And it needs to be taken away.

Some one coined the the phrase here; medical tyranny - good phrase for what we have been living through since the canonization of Dr Salk.

John Stone

Hi Jenny,

I believe you are in error over the Urabe strain MMR vaccines being banned in the UK in 1992. On the contrary the manufacturers withdrew the brands on legal advice leaving the Department of Health and their advisory committees on the hop. Pluserix under the name Trivirix was withdrawn in Canada in 1988 (as correctly reported by Andy Wakefield in his book) and immediately afterwards introduced to the UK in full knowledge with an indemnity to SKB (later GSK).

After a British government lab corroborated that the vaccine was causing meningitis the Canadians withdrew its license in 1990 but no action was taken in the UK.

I believe the licenses for Pluserix an Immravax lapsed in the UK years after the products themselves were withdrawn.

Jenny Allan

The following link refers to an early version of the MMR vaccine, containing the URABE MUMPS component. In the UK, this vaccine was marketed by GSK as PLUSERIX and Merioux as IMMRAVAX. Dr David Salisbury, in charge of UK child vaccine licensing and implementation, introduced this dangerous vaccine during 1988, in defiance of warnings from Dr Wakefield, who had been informed by a Canadian whistleblower the vaccine was causing aseptic menigitis and multiple child injuries in Canada.

The Urabe MMR vaccine was banned in the UK in 1991 aftyer causing the same havoc it caused in Canada, but our greedy mendacious Government retained the vaccine licence, in order to flog all the surplus Urabe MMR vaccines to unsuspecting South American countries. Below is what happened in Brazil, a more honest account than from our own UK health authorities, who instead 'buried' all the Urabe papers for 20 years. Amongst the many adverse reactions to the Urabe MMR vaccine, was encephalitis. brain inflammation which can result in ....AUTISM!!
From above article:-
"Outbreak of Aseptic Meningitis associated with Mass Vaccination with a Urabe-containing Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine
Implications for Immunization Programs
Ines Dourado,1 Sergio Cunha,1 Maria da Gloria Teixeira,1-2 C. Paddy Farrington,3 Ailton Melo,4 Rita Lucena,4
and Maurfcio L. Barreto1
A mass immunization campaign with a Urabe-containing measles-mumps-rubella vaccine was carried out in
1997 in the city of Salvador, northeastern Brazil, with a target population of children aged 1-11 years. There was
an outbreak of aseptic meningitis following the mass campaign. Cases of aseptic meningitis were ascertained
through data collected from the records of children admitted to the local referral hospital for infectious diseases
between March and October of 1997, using previously defined eligibility criteria. Vaccination histories were
obtained through home visits or telephone calls. Eighty-seven cases fulfilled the study criteria. Of those, 58
cases were diagnosed after the vaccination campaign. An elevated risk of aseptic meningitis was observed 3
weeks after Brazil's national vaccination day compared with the risk in the prevaccination period (relative risk =
14.3; 95% confidence interval: 7.9, 25.7). This result was confirmed by a case series analysis (relative risk =
30.4; 95% confidence interval: 11.5, 80.8). The estimated risk of aseptic meningitis was 1 in 14,000 doses. This
study confirms a link between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and aseptic meningitis. The authors discuss
the implications of this for the organization and planning of mass immunization campaigns. Am J Epidemiol
disease outbreaks; meningitis, aseptic; mumps vaccine; product surveillance, postmarketing; vaccines
Aseptic meningitis is a well documented adverse
event (1-4) that is attributable to the Urabe mumps
strain of the combined measles-mumps-rubella
(MMR) vaccine. To our knowledge, the occurrence of
aseptic meningitis in the form of a typical outbreak following
a mass immunization campaign with Urabeand
Lenigrad-Zagreb-containing vaccine has not so far
been reported.
A mass immunization campaign with MMR vaccine
was started in Brazil in 1992. It began in the state of
Sao Paulo with a nonselective approach (5). Since
then, similar campaigns have been conducted in different
states of Brazil each year, always with a target population
of children aged 1-11 years. In the second
semester (August, September, and October) of 1997,
the MMR immunization campaign was carried out in
four different states. In three states, the state
Epidemiology Surveillance Service was notified of an
aseptic meningitis outbreak approximately 15 days
after the national vaccination day.
Media coverage of such outbreaks and the potential
for a reduction in vaccination compliance in further
campaigns has generated concern among public health
officers and campaign administrators. We carried out
an investigation to estimate the risk of aseptic meningitis
associated with MMR vaccine delivered in a mass
immunization campaign and to address the implications"

Jenny Allan

Cia- Senator Dianne Feinstein's e-mail contact details make it clear, she is only prepared to consider letters from US Citizens, preferably from her own Californian voting area. As for 'snail mail' -it does take 'ages' from the UK, and anything I sent would probably get binned unread. Instead, I am posting some links which US Citizens can use in their own letters to their own senators including Dianne Feinstein. Anyone is welcome to copy any of my own AoA comments, wholly or in part.
The following relates to Professor Walker-Smith's Feb 2012 successful High Court Appeal against the GMC verdicts:-
First Posted: 7/03/2012 14:21 Updated: 7/03/2012 14:32
From above:-
Speaking on Wednesday he,(Prof Walker-Smith),said he was "extremely pleased" his striking-off had been quashed and now hoped "to enjoy my retirement with my family".
He paid tribute to his supporters who included the parents of many children with autism and bowel disease seen by him at the Royal Free Hospital in north London up to his retirement in 2001.
In May 2010, Prof Walker-Smith lost his licence to practise along with Dr Andrew Wakefield who was at the centre of the MMR research.
A GMC fitness to practise panel found both men guilty of misconduct over the way the research was conducted.
Its verdict followed 217 days of deliberation, making it the longest disciplinary case in the GMC's 152-year history.
Today the GMC suffered a serious blow when Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in London, ruled the verdict and the decision to strike off could not stand.
The judge criticised the disciplinary panel's "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion".
The judge said: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again."


Dear Senator Feinstein,
I hope you read this article, and all of the comments too!

Carter's Daddy

Thanks, Dan, for these further details about child 11. Thanks also to all you commentors with your fantastic insights and ideas!


To begin filing injunctions, we need a lawyer, or better yet, a whole team of lawyers. Where does the ACLU stand on the issue of forced vaccination? What other legal groups exist that could become natural allies? We need allies with legal skills. But the idea of filing injunctions to stop vaccination programs certainly is not new. Here is a link to a successful injunction that was filed to halt the mandatory anthrax vaccination program in the U.S. military.

Anita Donnellly

@lisa the idea of filing injunctions is brilliant! How do we do this?
And also, until this email I had never heard of a senator naming and libeling a specific person in response to a question about an issue. That is scary and should be actionable by Dr Wakefield. I have this email too and responded to it some time ago with facts. They have no right to keep doing this. It is scary. It has to be unprecedented .

Jeannette Bishop

I heard in a discussion a few years back that the CDC supplied/offered interns to staff the offices of the Congress. I don't know how much that was/is the case, but it might be serving as a built-in filter of vaccine related concerns. I've also heard that in some instances (not necessarily related to this issue) a representative's staff may have some level of lobbying to them directly, i.e. if they represent the interests of some powerful group or other well to the senator/representative, there are promises of future opportunities, etc. So there might be that much more incentive in the Congressional offices to stay (or appear) ignorant and confident in the "official reality."

I think a little better of Feinstein (or perhaps her staff) to believe she is ignorant on this issue, though, and wish she conveyed a similar respect of the understanding and intellect of her constituents.


Forget Feinstein, she's got her head so far up her ass, that facts don't matter.


I wrote Diane Feinstein too, and received back a form letter that said something about her being a grandmother and wanting to do what is best for our children. She said the science for vaccines was good science or something like that. In any case, her response showed that she hadn't read my letter since nothing in her letter related to my letter.

I called her office and asked if anyone had read my letter, and the very nice lady that is there to dispel doubts as to the Senators wonderful concern for her constituents ( I am one of them) told me that they receive 1,000 letters a week. But does anyone read them I asked. Yes, she said, vaguely. And I said, well, I felt as if the person who looked at my letter said, huh another one of those anti-vaxxer letters and tossed it and sent an automatic reply to my e-mail address. I'll pass that along to the Senator she told me. Huh...maybe that is the automatic response as well. Thank you for calling us she added sweetly.

I had an eerie feeling that the Senator didn't have to read her mail because she is infallible, she already knows all the answers and doesn't have to listen to her constituents who are like stupid little children--well that was the tone of her letter to me, very condescending.


Dear Carolyn Wong Simpkins:

Do I get a free toaster if I open up an account with you?

I am sure that your "dear colleagues" along with the rest of the world, now know that the measles vaccine never got rid of a darn thing. It may have temporarily changed the manifestation of germ symptoms for part of one generation but the lifespan of humans can not compete with the survival mechanisms of germs because of one very easy to understand fact that cannot be altered: the procreation cycle of germs is way faster than in humans. It is a very elementary fact. Please don't try to argue the point. You will just embarrass yourself further. Unless the entire world is irradiated so powerfully and all at the same time so that all life forms on earth are destroyed (which would also wipe out the pharmaceutical journalism industry - I'm pointing that out to you because it seems to be necessary that I do that), there is simply no point to continuing to vaccinate people. Germs will always be here and evolving. Toxins will perpetuate toxic mutations. And there will always be people who don't choose the right nutrition or don't have access to the right nutrition that would allow them to coexist successfully in a naturally evolved symbiotic relationship with germs, as long as the 1% (re industrialists and politicians) is hell-bent on underwriting economic poverty.

As a matter of point, it is becoming rapidly apparent that vaccines just may be the best tool in the 1%'s arsenal to fend off the perpetual attempts by the non-1% to improve their standard of living, which always seems to lead to people demanding all sorts of other equality, too. After all, if a person never achieves health, he or she most likely won't have any wealth, either. And none of that, Carolyn, has anything to do with Dr. Wakefield.

So lets just call these new banksters what they are since they are so successful now at capturing and holding onto people's wealth: Merck Bank of America, GSK Holdings, AstraZeneca Financial, Pfizer Chartered, Novartis Federal, BlueCrossBlueShield Bancorp . . . only difference is you can never withdraw any money you deposit with them. And let's call you what you really are, Carolyn Wong Simpkins - a bank teller. And I don't care if you are offering a free toaster today, I think I'll be getting my medical advice elsewhere.

Every Person with Half a Brain, i.e.
registered independent voter


I think her throwing Dr. Wakefield's name around, as disgusting as it is, is meant to be a distraction. We need to confront her with the real fraud revealed by Thompson that she and her colleagues have refused to acknowledge or take appropriate action on. This should have been an emergency, with urgent recalls and holding certain powerful feet to the fire. Instead, we have urgent calls to mandate the drugs whose research we know is fraudulent. That's what people should be screaming about.

Birgit Calhoun

I wrote the following letter to the Senator.

Dear Senator Feinstein! I believe you said that Dr. Wakefield was found to be a fraud. What research have you done to repeat this nonsense. I have followed the Wakefield story pretty much from the beginning. In order for Dr. Wakefield to be a considered a fraud he would have to have done something fraudulent. Dr. Wakefield would not be in the situation he is in if the people surrounding the British Medical Journal and their straw man Brian Deere had been honest themselves. It turns out you dear Dr. Feinstein apparently have missed this one big time. I am not going to elaborate, but your hiding behind others who accuse to state that Dr. Wakefield is a fraud, puts you in the same category as those who, if nothing else, have committed libel of the most despicable kind. Repeating falsehoods is a big problem in this country and in this case you are one of the many.

If a person does not have the money to defend against those defamatory statements, he is up a creek not just in this country but in England as well. Dr. Wakefield is an honorable man. And, please, do read the background behind your stating that Wakefield is a fraud. Read the evidence. There is none. Sincerely, Another author of the "incriminating" paper was completely exonerated. If you read all about Wakefield you will also learn his name. Birgit Calhoun


What has Senator Feinstein had to say about William Thompson's confession of research fraud on the vaccines that she is determined to force on her state's citizens?

cia parker

Stellar letter! Could you email it to Senator Feinstein (or snail mail if she only accepts emails from constituents)?

Ura N. Ideaht

You folks are a bunch of conspiracy theorists who are off the deep end. In fact, you are creating a greater risk to children by scaring people into not getting vaccines. Ridiculous and reckless!


When they say Dr. Wakefield and Fraud -- for me - it makes the lights dim in the room - my heart pound out of my chest, my tongue pulseand my hands just want to choke the life out of something - like the nearest pillow.

I am not sure that the when you have an issue effecting so many homes in the United States that the old political games of tarnishing some one's name that dared speak out - will work!

Maybe even back fire. Hmmmmm!!!

Jenny Allan

Dear Senator Feinstein,
I fully understand the reasons for your belief Andrew Wakefield committed 'fraud' by falsifying the medical histories of the 12 children in the 1998 Lancet Early report. After all, Brian Deer took the childrens' medical histories apart, didn't he? and he found all kinds of discrepancies, didn't he? So Dr Wakefield MUST be to blame, wasn't he?
"Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children
Volume 351, Number 9103 28 February 1998 A J Wakefield, S H Murch, A Anthony, J Linnell, D M Casson, M Malik, M Berelowitz, A P Dhillon, M A Thomson, P Harvey, A Valentine, S E Davies, J A Walker-Smith"

From BMJ's Editor in chief Fiona Godlee, (who admitted, to a UK Government sub committee), the BMJ's content was largely influenced by the journal's pharma backers and sponsors:-

“Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare,” Editor in Chief Fiona Godlee wrote. She said “there is no doubt it was Wakefield” who was responsible for the “elaborate fraud,” despite having 12 co-authors."

Ah yes, those 12 co-authors, who must all have been 'duped' by Dr Wakefield fraudulently altering their findings. EXCEPT HE DIDN'T!!

From the 1998 Lancet paper:-
"Clinical Investigations:
We took histories, including details of immunisations and exposure to infectious diseases, and assessed the children. In 11 cases the history was obtained by the senior clinician, Professor John Walker-Smith."

The 12th child was from the US, so no previous clinical history was available. Prof W-S did not have direct access to the childrens' GP (primary care) records, although in a few cases he contacted the child's GP for further details.

The immunisation records were obtained from the childrens' 'red books'. Health visitors record and initial these and other minor health details. The red books are kept by the child's parents or guardians. Deer had no access to them. Most of his so called 'fraud' relates to apparent discrepancies between the GP and hospital records, but such small mistakes and discrepancies are very common in our UK's vast and bureaucratic NHS systems.

Professor Walker-Smith, who was dragged before the GMC alongside Dr Wakefield and also had his medical licence revoked, appealed in the UK High Court against the verdicts. In February 2012, Judge Mr Justice Mitting took just three days to demolish the GMC's verdict, calling the GMC's examination of the evidence submitted by Brian Deer, the sole complainant, 'superficial and inadequate', and in several cases just plain 'WRONG'!! Prof Walker-Smith called the 3 year GMC hearing an 'inquisition' and the stainless steel surroundings a 'torture chamber' in his memoirs. The whole disgraceful episode cost an estimated £8million.

Before the High Court appeal, Fiona Godlee and her running mate Liz Wager from COPE, using several press and media outlets, including the BBC, ran a campaign to discredit ALL of Dr Wakefield's Co-Authors. This was a thinly veiled attempt to influence the appeal court judge, but Sir John Mitting, thank God, was not prepared to be swayed by lies and propaganda. He examinined the so called evidence carefully and without bias, and 'quoshed' the verdicts

Thankfully common sense also prevailed with the Godlee and Wager campaign, which collapsed spectacularly, with UCL, UKRIO and the UK Government refusing to have anything to do with it!! There was no evidence at all against any other Royal Free Lancet Co-authors, and if the REAL facts had been independently examined, NONE against Dr Wakefield either.


This issue needs to get inside a REAL COURTROOM. That is our only hope at this point. The only way I can see to do that is to begin FILING INJUNCTIONS in courts throughout the U.S., demanding an end to forced vaccination programs -- no reason should even need to be given -- for entry into any school or workplace settings. Bring together all the REAL evidence that raises very serious questions about vaccine safety and demand that this real evidence be examined, in a real courtroom, not kangaroo vaccine court, in the light of day. There is already plenty of evidence, even without the vax vs. unvaxed study, to conclude that the U.S. vaccine program is very dangerous. Filing injunctions is a way for those who have and have not yet been injured to come together and demand, not compensation, which would take us right back into the kangaroo vaccine court, but rather that the forced vaccination programs be STOPPED. That's all an injunction can do. But that's all it needs to do. In the process, all of the other, real studies that have been published, showing vaccine links to AUTISM, TYPE 1 DIABETES, ASTHMA, DEADLY FOOD ALLERGIES, LEARNING DISABILITIES, OCD, SPEECH DISORDERS, AUTO-IMMUNE, ETC., would be forced into the light of day. Not to mention the role of natural immunity from common childhood diseases as a means to prevent cancers and other more serious ailments later in life.

Anita Donnellly

I live in Northern California. My son got significantly better after going to Thoughtulhouse when Dr. Wakefield was there. I would like to go visit Senator Feinstein and Senstoe Boxers office with my son along. Editors I will put the email address that identifies my name in this comment section and I will give you my number for people to call. I got that same email from
Feinstein years ago and I wrote her back. Apparently she didn't bother to check her facts or change them. It's time to visit the offices and bring our kids. Who is in?

Ed Yazbak

Dear Senator Feinstein,

Talking of Fraud:

Dr. Andrew Wakefield lives in Texas and is easy to find.

May I respectfully suggest that you drag him in front of a US Senate Committee and ask him to talk about his "Fraud" and see what YOU think, now that you know what Brian Deer thinks.

May I respectfully also suggest that you get someone to drag Dr Poul Thorsen from Denmark over here to have him
answer questions about his fraud.

He has been awaiting extradition to the United States for months and months and for some reason he is not here yet.

I just looked at the "Office of Inspector General , HHS" website. It still features "OIG Fugitive Poul Thorsen" with a photograph and the following description:

"From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.
Thorsen worked as a visiting scientist at CDC, Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, before the grant was awarded.
The initial grant was awarded to the Danish Medical Research Council. In approximately 2007, a second grant was awarded to the Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation. Both agencies are governmental agencies in Denmark. The research was done by the Aarhaus University and Odense University Hospital in Denmark.
Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen.
In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering.
According to bank account records, Thorsen purchased a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, an Audi automobile, and a Honda SUV with funds that he received from the CDC grants.
Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States."


F. Edward Yazbak MD, FAAP

Bob Moffitt

The BMJ did what all practitioners of "advocacy journalism" do .. they convicted Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the "court of public opinion".

Indeed, if the BMJ had clear and convincing "evidence of fraud" against Dr. Wakefield .. they would have been remiss had they not demanded he be prosecuted in a court of law.

That they chose not to prosecute Dr. Wakefield in a "court of law" ought not surprise anyone .. because ..
a "court of law" would have required sworn testimony of Brian Deer and BMJ personnel .. who would be subject to the "discovery process" due the accused .. and .. assured of a vigorous cross examination .. by Dr. Wakefield's defense attornies .. who no doubt would have reminded Deer and BMJ they would be committing "perjury" if found to be lying.

Unfortunately, the media controls the information available to sway the "court of public opinion" .. and .. that media has absolutely no legal obligation to be "fair and balanced" to the accused .. in how they "report events".

(Remember Saddam's Baghdad Bob?)

We see evidence of this almost daily in the U.S.A. .. the most recent was yesterday's release of Attorney General Eric Holder's vigorous "civil rights investigation" of the police officer shooting of Michael Brown .. wherein the US Justice Department fully exonerated the officer .. finding that many witnesses who were shown for weeks by the media .. repeatedly claiming that Michael Brown had his "hands up" and said "Don't shoot" and the officer then shooting Michael in the back .. thereby killing him" .. were found to be less than truthful in their "sworn testimony".

Prior to that officer's Constitutional Right to defend himself in a "court of law" .. the officer had been "tried, convicted and would have been sentenced to life in prison" by the "court of public opinion" .. which is exactly what happened to Dr. Wakefield who .. unlike Prof. John Walker-Smith .. was denied HIS right .. to confront the BMJ and Deer in a "court of law".

Even today .. after the DOJ found the narative of "hands up .. don't shoot" to have been unequivocally false .. a sizeable number of people will be seen at various demonstrations throughout the country .. holding their "hands up" while saying "Don't Shoot".

That Senator Feinstein still relies on a "one-sided .. media driven .. verdict" in the "court of public opinion" regarding Dr. Wakefield .. is evidence that she is either incompetent or indifferent .. while witessing a man's reputation, career and life being STOLEN FROM HIM.

Has she ever heard of the Dreyfus Affair? Does she still believe Michael Brown had his "hands up"?

John Stone

From a current notice on BMJ Learning:

"BMJ Learning...receives an unrestricted educational grant from Univadis, a portal for healthcare professionals provided by MSD (Merck Sharp & Dohme), to provide free access for Univadis users across Europe, in English and other languages."

To recap, when BMJ's conflicts were pointed out in March 2011 (via Martin J Walker, Vera Sharav and myself) Dr Godlee responded with the following remarkable statement:

"Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to Vera Hassner Sharav's comment, [1] which for those of you who haven't seen it is reproduced below.

"Although Vera's claims may seem far fetched on this occasion, she is right that we should have declared the BMJ Group's income from Merck as a competing interest to the editorial (and the two editor's choice articles) that accompanied Brian Deer's series on the Secrets of the MMR scare.[2] [3] [4] We should also, as you say, have declared the group's income fromGSK as a competing interest in relation to these articles. We will publish clarifications.

"We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so... "

Later that year Godlee went so far as to tell the National Institutes of Health at a meeting in Bethesda that she had not personally realised that MMR vaccines were manufactured by Merck and GSK.

The upshot, however, was that while the BMJ posted a correction admitting aspects of their conflicts (but not BMJ Learning's partnership with Merck Univadis) above their editorial supporting Deer's articles they did not do so with the articles themselves, thus continuing to hide their blatant conflict in publishing the allegations to most readers of them - as in the present case where Carolyn Wong Simpkins' public relations letter fails to link once again to the editorial.

One of the extraordinary aspects of this matter is that the British Medical Journal having presently resumed their campaign of persecution and harassment of Andy Wakefield in the name of vaccine compulsion in the US is that many people in the UK will recall Fiona Godlee, during another trumped up measles scare two years ago, representing the British Medical Association on BBC Newsnight and defending the principle of vaccine choice against Paul Offit. So people in the US will be fascinated to know that the BMJ is now wishing something on them that they would not wish on British citizens (or at least not members of the British medical profession and their families), and are even prepared to overlook all the outrageous and long exposed falsehoods in Deer's account in order to press the current political agenda in another country.

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.)