The Microbiome-Gut-Brain Axis in Health and Disease
Best of: New Life New Hope

Best of: Princess Pharma and the Pea

Princess PeaBy John Stone

Re-posted from July 2014

Two weeks to go before the publication of Robert F Kennedy jr’s book about vaccine mercury and we all know where we are headed: the same place as last year when Jenny McCarthy was given a job on ‘The View’  and Katie Couric scheduled a program in which the safety of HPV vaccines were questioned: the unspontaneous howls of pain are starting. It does not matter that the book is apparently couched in the most diplomatic language or that its claims have been diluted, it will be too much for the sensibilities of the vaccine lobby. I am sure we have often referred on these pages to Hans Christian Andersen’s tale ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ but this time I have been thinking of an even more succinct and ironic tale ‘The Princess and the Pea’. A prince wants to marry a princess but the only way it can be confirmed that she is a real princess is because the candidate is so sensitive that a pea hidden under a pile of mattresses causes her to lose a night’s sleep. I think we can be sure that the vaccine lobby is according to this definition “a real princess”, and that there is no criticism so slight that we will not be told about the terrible pain it has caused.

There is no doubt either that the voice of the princess is about to be heard in the land. There is no criticism so gentle or diplomatically couched that the princess can withstand the pain: the outraged opinion pieces will appear in every newspaper, the sage doctors will emerge from every corner on the TV saying “Get the damn vaccines”, we will have wall to wall Dorit Reiss: the princess will tell us how painful it all is. Of course the moral of Anderson’s story is that it is not princesses who have to endure a lot, it is ordinary people: the princess is a great deal more trouble than she is worth. She has also arranged that ordinary people cannot be heard, or they are brusquely pushed to the side. Only the princess’s pain really matters in the great scheme.

Of course, the argument will be that all this sensibility is for the benefit of ordinary people, but if this was so the princess would listen to ordinary people when they tried to express their pain rather than trying to shout them down or shut them up, hiring a mob to help her. The princess is highly manipulative and knows how to get her own way.

Unfortunately, Robert Kennedy will not be able to appease the princess any more than Jenny McCarthy or Katie Couric. Instead we will just have another great tantrum and the usual hysterical, unhinged display of self-righteousness.

The Princess on the Pea

By Hans Christian Andersen translated by Jean Hersholt

Once there was a Prince who wanted to marry a Princess. Only a real one would do. So he traveled through all the world to find her, and everywhere things went wrong. There were Princesses aplenty, but how was he to know whether they were real Princesses? There was something not quite right about them all. So he came home again and was unhappy, because he did so want to have a real Princess.

One evening a terrible storm blew up. It lightened and thundered and rained. It was really frightful! In the midst of it all came a knocking at the town gate. The old King went to open it.

Princess Pea 2

Who should be standing outside but a Princess, and what a sight she was in all that rain and wind. Water streamed from her hair down her clothes into her shoes, and ran out at the heels. Yet she claimed to be a real Princess.

"We'll soon find that out," the old Queen thought to herself. Without saying a word about it she went to the bedchamber, stripped back the bedclothes, and put just one pea in the bottom of the bed. Then she took twenty mattresses and piled them on the pea. Then she took twenty eiderdown feather beds and piled them on the mattresses. Up on top of all these the Princess was to spend the night.

In the morning they asked her, "Did you sleep well?"

" Oh!" said the Princess. "No. I scarcely slept at all. Heaven knows what's in that bed. I lay on something so hard that I'm black and blue all over. It was simply terrible."

They could see she was a real Princess and no question about it, now that she had felt one pea all the way through twenty mattresses and twenty more feather beds. Nobody but a Princess could be so delicate. So the Prince made haste to marry her, because he knew he had found a real Princess.

As for the pea, they put it in the museum. There it's still to be seen, unless somebody has taken it.

There, that's a true story.

John Stone is UK Editor of Age of Autim


Angus Files



PE01658: Compensation for those who suffered a neurological disability following administration of the Pluserix vaccine between 1988 and 1992

Pharma For Prison


British Autism Mother

@ Wendy Stephen

Arising from your posting. My ASD child (now adult) was given the MMR on a date in late April 1992. The batch number started with a capital M and continued with about ten numbers. Do you, by any chance, know which manufacturer supplied this vaccination? It took bureaucratic jumping through hoops just to see my child's old paper records - somehow I doubt those records will be "available " for the supplier. Thanks.

Wendy Stephen

It's probably worth remembering that the Canadian pre marketing clinical trial of TRIVIRIX only ran between September 1985 and January 1986 with a mere 356 children between 11 and 19 months of age receiving the vaccine in Montreal. Post vaccination monitoring only lasted for 14 days which would have missed a significant number of cases of aseptic meningitis occurring beyond the cut off point. Elizabeth Miller, Michael Goldacre, Simon Pugh, Alaric Colville et al in their article in the Lancet April 17th 1993 (vol 341) noted that "half the aseptic meningitis cases identified in children aged 12-24 months were vaccine associated with onset 15-35 days after vaccine."

Three batches of Trivirix were used in the trial with an average number of post vaccination "observation days" being 11.67, 11.96 and 11.96 respectively.

Wendy Stephen

The MMR brands used in the UK campaign had the following Product licences.

MMR by MSD PL 0025/0078 dated 17th August 1972
Pluserix (SK&F) PL 0002/0166 dated 17th June 1988
Immravax (Merieux) PL 6745/0020 18th September 1989

Pluserix was manufactured in a facility in Rixensart Belgium, was already in production, and was imported from there into the UK. (I know this because I requested the information from the MHRA in the UK in respect of my daughter's batch code)

There was no need for a 'production facility' to be set up or for them to be "inspected" etc.

Given that Professor Salisbury made his remark about Pluserix on 17th May 1988 and the licence was granted a month later, I'd say that definitely falls into the "shortly" category.


"Reputable organisations"
I grew up with such faith in organisations and establishments. Such faith in the educational system, the academic institutions, the science, the studies, the research, the EPA, the forest service, the CDC.

Did you know that at one time I thought my dream job would be to work for the CDC. I kid you not. I applied to work there. I really did not think I was in their league. Truth was they were not in my league.

John Stone


I am afraid they were not kisses before I turned them into xs. I did it not because the language was so very shocking these days but because I didn't see why I should be abused and defamed like that in public. But it is troubling because ECBT is supposed to be a reputable organisation and its "expert" cannot conduct himself any better than this. The reason it is happening is because after years of research the gentleman has his facts skewed and he does not know how to regain face.


"You are a xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxx;...

"And again, you xxxxxxx xxx,...

Wow. So professional and distinguished. Maybe those are kisses, as in hugs and kisses XOXOX .

You know what really struck me about the Canadian debate with journalist Lawrence Solomon was how civil and polite it was. Really pleasant and cordial, respect all around, even though there were extremely diverse views expressed. And I wondered, is this typical of Canadian culture, so genteel, or is this just these folks? Because compared to them, we (some of us) act like complete barbarians (no offense to barbarians).

John Stone

More from ECBT's resident "expert" Dr Harrison:

"@ John Stone: Salisbury said would be license(d) shortly. So, when was it licensed? In the US, once licensed then they have to set up production facilities which doesn't happen over night and they have to be inspected and lots tested. I guess you don't understand the difference between "shortly" and actually being license(d). Just because he thought it would be "shortly" doesn't mean it was."

I fear that Harrison has completely lost the thread - both vaccines were apparently ready to deliver but it was the SKB one, Pluserix, with Urabe mumps strain which did not have a license - I am not sure, off hand, when the license was issued but presumbly before October when the program began. But the Jeryl-Lynn version from Merck which did have a license was being offered through Wellcome so there goes his theory that it was unavailable.

He continues:

"And you ignore as I wrote in my article: Minutes from a 1993 JCVI meeting state, as follows: The Health Departments had had a difficult time with regard to MMR supply, problems caused in the main by the manufacturers. Other vaccine manufacturers producing MMR which contained the Jeryl Lynn strain of the mumps virus included RIVM (under a very prescriptive license from MSD making sale in the UK impossible) and Rubini in Switzerland (a vaccine which lacked sufficient study in the field to be certain that there would not be a Urabe-like problem). Merck and Merieux were collaborating to produce a Jeryl Lynn strain vaccine [90]. 1993 you xxxx. So, the UK didn't have an adequate supply of Jeryl Lynn long after Canada stopped using the Urabe since Canada had an adequate supply or don't you understand English."

But sorry, we are not talking about 1993 when both SKB and Pasteur Merieux had suddenly withdrawn their Urabe containing vaccines from the British market, creating a sudden shortage, but 1988 when Wellcome were offering the Merck product ready licensed.

"You are a xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxx; but I just spoke with a medical librarian in Canada and, hopefully, she will help me get more information, including the exact date that the Trivirix manufacturer stopped distribution. Since the CDWR was from 1990, it only mentioned this; but didn't give the date, so it may have been much later than the July recall in Ontario. "

But we know that it had already begun in February 1988 at the latest.

"And again, you xxxxxxx xxx, Wakefield made NO mention of the voluntary stop by manufacturer of distribution and he said Canada and gave the CDWR which I found said that Ontario recalled only lots distributed by Provincial government"

Whatever, Wakefield's precise verbiage he was indicating a situation in which the vaccine was withdrawn in Canada even as it was being introduced into the UK (as was reported to him by Dr Thores, the Scottish observer at the JCVI). There is no evidence to insinuate bad faith or misrepresentation. The fact that Harrison is having to go back to a librarian to dig out evidence to support his theory now years later, just emphasises that he was making unsupported allegations before.

Finally, I wonder if it is alright for ECBT's expert to shower people with verbal abuse.


I have been kicked off of two websites and was shocked how easily it was.
I was not mean or nasty. Just said what had happened to my children and how they reacted to vaccine injuries and then well maybe other facts like things said in Congressional hearings and the antics of Paul Offit voting himself rich, and many other facts no one wants to know about.

So, Joel - can expect to be muted on a website that have people that are sick and tired of being muted themselves after they witnessed - bonifide vaccine reactions. We might need a little more peace than most.


Thanks for not posting any more of Joel

John Stone

Further from Joel Harrison:

"I asked you in several comments, given that the risk from aseptic meningitis was 1 case from the Urabe for 125 from the natural disease what you would have done if the Jeryl Lynn would not have been available; but you refuse to answer."

But he is forgetting that he had previously given 1 in 250, and even the British government study admitted to 1 in 11,000 ie 1 in 27.5. But even this only a projection because no one was counting.

John Stone

We have some more comment from Joel Harrison. As I have previously indicated were are unwilling to post comments loaded with personal hostility, ad hominem, off-topic (we are of course by now way of topic) but just to show that we take facts seriously I quote from his latest message.

"The Brits were beginning their program and had only available an approved Urabe and immediately began trying to get a source for Jeryl Lynn."

This is a completely false representation of the situation: I quote from the JCVI minutes of 17 May 1988 (p.1):

"Dr Salisbury reported that he hoped that thhe SKF (SmithKline French) vaccine would be licensed shortly since its constituent parts were already licensed. Wellcome had contacted him to say that they wished to join the MMR market. Their vaccine contains the Jeryl-Lynn strain of mumps. The MSD vaccine already has a product license."">">

So "the Brits" already had a source for MMR 2 and it was already licensed, while SKB's product was not.

John Stone

Joel seems not to be able to interpret documents and their import at a basic level. The document reads that the manufacturer volunteered not to distribute the product in Canada - implicit in this is a negotiation. The manufacturer has a contract but they have been prevailed upon not to distribute the product nevertheless. It is different from the manufacturer just withdrawing the product as they later did in the UK in 1992. Meanwhile, supplies of product either run out or are returned. Clinics cannot continue to use the product if it is not being distributed. This is reported in the Canadian Disease Weekly Report, which is an official source (for the entire country presumably and not just one province, or just some batches). This, of course, does not prove that the information is correct but it certainly shows that that is what was being said. And this is the situation reported by Andrew Wakefield in his book.

John Stone

OK Joel, that is positively your last comment on this site. The Canadian Disease Weekly ReportDec 15, 1990 (cited footnote 60 in your paper) states:

"Consequently, the manufacturer of TRIVIRIX voluntarily discontinued the distribution of the vaccine in Canada [this is in the period after introduction post 1986] until laboratory data were available to demonstrate that the mumps viruses isolated from these vaccine recipients were not related to the Urabe mumps vaccine strain"

But here you are trying pretend that it was only one province recalling some lots when you know perfectly well otherwise.

John Stone

OK Joel, that is about your last chance - mostly because I simply do not have the time. Several sources said the vaccine was withdrawn in Canada, not just the province of Ontario: there was no lack of understanding on my part and certainly not on Andrew Wakefield's. So, if by any chance you found instances where this was not the case it would barely be of any interest.

The one thing I do get is that that you could not actually vaccinate an infant with 10,000 vaccines but who said I did? But we are talking lunacy. What is the point of saying it is theoretical. In human science nothing is theoretical: if it doesn't work the theory has been disproven. Each one of these products has significant risks but we are just banging more and more of them in regardless. The new one on the UK infant schedule, Bexsero Men B, was said in the insert to have a bad adverse reaction in 10-25 year-olds above 1 in 50 administrations, and that is being given to an 8 week old with DTaP-polio-HiB, rotavirus, 13 strain pneumococcal. But I don't know why we should not add in small pox, anthrax and bubonic plague, because it is all theoretically safe.

I am not sure what your point is about the Milgram experiment and coercion. There is huge coercion with the vaccine program and it getting worse.

The DTP was only phased out in the UK in 2004 - I believe in the US in 2001 but someone can correct me on this. This was a known to be dangerous vaccine - you could not credit how anyone could advocate its use - but in the UK the schedule was accelerated in 1990 from 3, and 10 months to 2,3 and 4 months so that it could inflict non-theoretical damage on thousands of children. And if they died their parents were likely put in prison. Joel, I have been relatively civil (certainly in comparison to you) but I do not see the great beautiful idea, and I do not see the basis of trust.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

You write: "Well, Joel, you must be allowed to tell your own story, but such seems to have been your conviction that Wakefield was wrong that you somehow managed to overlook the fact that he was right: in simple terms - and outrageously - the British government introduced a vaccine that had had to be withdrawn in another country."

No, it was NOT "a vaccine that had had to be withdrawn in another country." They had another even safer vaccine available; but, otherwise, they would have continued with the Urabe because it was still far safer than the natural disease. You just continue to understand this. I used seat belts; but the addition of airbags improved my safety; however, if airbags weren't available I would still use seat belts. And Canada didn't suspend the license, one Province recalled lots of the vaccine. This isn't my story, it is what all the documents I've read state. I really believe that you are so vested in your belief system and defending Wakefield that you literally only perceive what you unconscious wants you to, that is, incredible selective perception.

And why have you not posted my comment addressed to Dorie Southern? Submitted yesterday and again this morning.


Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH: Guess what! We share the same hobby. I too read a lot about the history of infectious diseases. Some day we much compare our books in our libraries.

Where we part similarities is that I don't live a lone though.
I am a care taker to five other people, and I am very involved in my community.
I am also by the very nature of being human - a natural scientist and you look for patterns. I have found those patterns and it is disturbing.

John Stone is sick? Yes, he is sick. He is sick at heart for he is a Father that has had to make his own hard decisions of where to place is vaccine injured son.

Fairy tales is the one you have bought into. Vaccines cause no problems and is the answer from heaven.

Plus you are being big, bad ,and very disingenuous, for as you say - YOU are - are OLD enough to have had the actually measles, mumps and rubella; along with chicken pox. In spite of this you still are being snarky about some one jogging the public memory of what it was like when these diseases were common and mild by pointing to the evidence that still exist, much to the sadness of the CDC, of old television shows and dolls


@ Dr Harrison- Thank you for posting on AoA, albeit repeatedly, and your interesting scholarship series at ecbt as well as the posts/articles in OVJ. I am going through them as I was unaware of some of what you'd written.

One comment I would make regarding the Wakefield (AW)-Brith Christenson (BC) exchange, their papers, and your interpretation. It seems to me that BC's papers and the varied Swedish 1980's studies that are referenced in _Callous Disregard_/your series concern themselves with (primarily) vaccine efficacy, antibody titers, etc and, quite honestly very secondarily or indirectly, with vaccine safety. I think that is what AW was trying to convey in his book- that there seemed to be some very limited information about vaccine safety and adverse events. Yes, BC did report adverse events in their study, but this is data culled from a national database and apparently reflects serious to adverse events in ~1/11000 kids which I think is similar to what I've seen in earlier comments.

Perhaps this isn't surprising given where the rate per 100k was in the mid 1980's and where it might be now. There are also many more vaccines given than just MMR; at last count they reflect >3x more than when I got vaccinated as a kid and, with all due respect to 'microbial antigens', much more aluminum/Hg/adjuvants than I was ever given.

So, I'd suggest that we be honest and forthright about the intent and true purpose of a now 30+ yr old series of papers that appear to be more concerned with vaccine efficacy and community disease protection than reporting vaccine safety or adverse events. If BC and her group's research were concerned with vaccine safety, it would seem that they would have reported more extensively on rates, and followup. Reporting vaccine safety does not appear to be the focus of her research.

Regarding your whining (yes, this is an objective observation) about moderating your comments: You have the ecbt forum, and innumerable sites to post your viewpoints; apparently you post prolifically and on diverse subjects. This is simply one of many fora to post commentary. It is not, to my understanding, an ostensible 'echo chamber' any more than other sites. Finally, it is not a vehicle for any of us to abuse others with thinly veiled attacks or disparaging remarks.

If it makes you feel any better, AoA doesn't post all of my comments either.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

Once more, the lots of the vaccine were withdrawn from the Province of Ontario. Perhaps, you don’t understand the difference between a Province and a Nation, Canada. Second, the report clearly stated it was a benign condition and since they could immediately switch to the Jeryl Lynn vaccine since it had already gone through the Canadian approval process and could be made available, they switched. The Brits found this out and immediately started looking for someone who could produce the Jeryl Lynn for them; but given that the risks from the natural disease was much much higher, they opted to continue with the Urabe. You just don’t get it. You don’t sacrifice the good, reducing significantly the risk from the natural disease, for the perfect, reducing even further the risk from one vaccine of a benign condition. The risk from natural mumps was far greater than from the Urabe vaccine and they immediately started the process of getting the Jeryl Lynn. As for whether other areas of Canada also withdrew the Urabe, I read through every government report I could get my hands on and even contacted by phone a couple of Provincial health departments. The Canadian reports that I arranged to have posted were through an old friend, a professor of political science who suggested I contact someone he knew who then put me in contact with someone in the Canadian government who found the articles, scanned them and e-mailed to me. So, it wasn’t easy; but I don’t give up easily. I did later on, after my article was published, find that one clinic in Montreal also switched to the Jeryl Lynn around that time and phoned the Quebec Deparment of Health and they could not find any other clinics that had switched at that time. So, to the best of my ability, I did due diligence.

As for the British government giving an indemnity, if I remember correctly it was a Latin American government; but that is beside the point. Governments give indemnity for many things that they mandate. As long as the product is made to their specifications. However, if the product was not made according to specifications, indemnity does not apply. A company should not be liable for doing exactly what the government instructs them to do. Don’t you understand this?

As for Offit’s 10,000 vaccines, first, anyone who read his article or listened to his talk on YouTube would understand he was talking about the number of antigens, microbes, that our immune systems can deal with. But even if they didn’t read his article, common sense would understand that it would be physically impossible at one time, even if five vaccines per syringe, to give at once and there aren’t even remotely so many microbes that one would even want to vaccinate for. As I wrote, we only in the US give 17 vaccines and not even all of those in same time periods. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would understand this. If you read my article, at the end I talk about the energy equivalent of a theoretical 10,000 gallons of gasoline. So do you believe that the average person if someone said we can now put 10,000 gallons of gas in your car tank would take it literally? And I really don’t care what some others say, people if not sure should take the time to check it out. Do you always believe what you hear without ever checking further?

As for the Milgram Experiments, I made it clear in my article that the Psychology Today article was not accurate. There was considerable coercion in the experiments and the effects of the coercion varied based on the different experiments. And I clearly explained how it was a false analogy. I gave an example of every medical association and tons of research recommending that diabetics get an annual dilated eye exam. In the US, most regular eye exams for prescription for glasses do not dilate. So doctors give the dilated eye exam to diabetics and it takes longer and they get paid for it; but they aren’t coerced to do it. You saw an article, didn’t bother to even try to access the actual research articles and used a false analogy.

And my article makes clear that doctors don’t make money giving vaccines. In the UK the amount they get reimbursed basically covers the cost and, perhaps, a small net.

And despite what you choose to believe the risks from several vaccines at once has been researched many times and are not greater than giving one at a time nor even remotely as dangerous as from the natural diseases.

As for the Guinea Bissau paper, I just downloaded it. I will read it carefully and I forwarded it to several colleagues; but it is one study and as I’ve written numerous times, even if I find the methodology and statistics to be good, even the best of studies can have outcomes affected by random factors. One additional point is that the vaccine was the DPT, that is, it contained the whole cell pertussis vaccine which has not been used in the US and probably not the UK for almost 25 years. However, initial reports of adverse events 30 years ago from the whole cell vaccine were found in later larger studies to be exaggerated. In any case, I will carefully read the study; but this is just one more example of how you jump at anything that confirms your beliefs. I would be willing to bet if several further studies find that either the study results were not confirmed or, perhaps, that the vaccine had been contaminated, something that could happen with any food or medicine, you will not write anything telling those following Age of Autism that the first paper wasn’t correct. Just not your or other Age of Autism writer’s style.

And back to Wakefield. He called it a dangerous vaccine. You don’t like the 10,000; but its OK when he calls a vaccine dangerous when ALL the reported studies, including the Canadian said it was benign. And you don’t seem to mind that he wrote in his book that a study found that the second MMR vaccine was associated with more adverse events, when in fact the study said the opposite and on and on it goes.

You are really tiresome. The Canadians found a rare benign condition from a vaccine that prevented more serious conditions from the actual disease, they had another vaccine available, so they switched. The Brits agreed, but didn’t have the alternative vaccine available, so they opted for the one that could cause a rare benign event to prevent the much higher risks from the natural disease while they worked to obtain the even better vaccine. Would you prefer, based on the Canadian statistics, 125 cases of aseptic meningitis from the natural disease plus several other serious conditions to 1 case from a vaccine? I guess you would. You want a world where small risks are more important than big risks. I don’t.

John Stone

Well, Joel, you must be allowed to tell your own story, but such seems to have been your conviction that Wakefield was wrong that you somehow managed to overlook the fact that he was right: in simple terms - and outrageously - the British government introduced a vaccine that had had to be withdrawn in another country. The vaccine license was suspended in Canada long before it was withdrawn: the CDWR reported this. It may not have happened very efficiently - there was talk of it in late 1987, it was obviously underway in February 1988 and the Ontario government was still worried not all stock had been returned in July, but it was withdrawn before the British government brought it in giving the manufacturer an indemnity through the NHS in October 1988. I would be very surprised if you have any evidence that it was still being used in Canada after that date because I do not see any in your article - but it would still be hair-splitting if you did.

The big problem - which you do not seem to get - is that unfortunately in people are made unwell by vaccines this information tends to be very unwelcome to people administering them, to say the least. I am not talking about sub-clinical cases. I fear that I have several times also witnessed the phenomenon in hospitals that the patients who are failing to thrive or may even be dying are not always the most popular with staff.

I note there appears to be nowhere to comment on your splendid new article on ECBT. A basic point - and this may not be the same in the US - but Dr Offit's 10,000 vaccines was frequently used by health officials in the UK as almost a doctrinal point in support of an extended vaccine program, when addressing public concern about multiple vaccines. I made an analogy with the famous Milgram experiment - I acknowledge there were at least several - but there was one very famous one. And my point is that it was inappropriate to use this to persuade parents that their children could safely have several vaccines at one time, against the evidence that were hurting or had damage - and I was saying that if you were worried about this you should not be reassured by such statements: just as the people administering the fantasy shocks (who were the people who were really being experimented on) should not have been reassured that what they were doing was beneficial. I think the idea of Dr Offit's article was to reassure parents, but what has happened to our children is not at all theoretical. In the paper reported this morning children who were given DPT vaccine in Guinea Bissau in 1981 had 5 times the mortality of those that did not, and I would suggest that was not very theoretical either.

I think it is very problematic if information is offered as reassurance one minute and the next you are being told it was only theoretical.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

You are really sick. No one prevailed upon me. I live alone, read a lot, have always liked reading on history of infectious diseases, came across Wakefield's name, then his book, our Central Public Library got a copy, I read it, assuming I would find something of value, i.e. that some subpopulation of kids more susceptible to adverse events or one vaccine; but instead was appalled by the poor documentation and reference list. Still, before passing judgment I obtained every document/article he referred to and then started my own search. No one even knew what I was doing until I had a first draft and sent it to friends and colleagues for critique. Are you really suffering from paranoid delusions of some mass conspiracy theory that you can't just accept that someone, on their own, based on their best judgment, whether you agree or not with it, wrote an article?

As for the journal closing after my article, they are a for-profit company that publishes over 100 journals and decided they weren't making enough money on it. But it is still maintained by them, so they are still responsible. In addition, though, as I wrote before, I didn't know Steven Rubin prior to trying to find a publisher, Dr. Rubin was upset and tried to convince them to not end the journal. It was new and it takes time to gain an audience; but, hopefully, you understand that modern corporations think in quarterly terms, not long term. Your typical dishonest illogic is like saying General Motors discontinues a certain model car, so if it turns out the car has problems, they would not be responsible. I have a Saturn which they no longer make; but promised to maintain spare parts for an extended period of time.

And you didn't post my recent comment. Must be nice to have a one-sided dialogue where you can say whatever you want.

And your resort to fairy tales, other article on AOA that base knowledge of measles on Brady Bunch, a mediocre sitcom, another based on a child's doll with "measles," YIKES!

Do read my latest article on Every Child By Two. It's about you.

Yes, the Japanese withdrew the vaccine. However, as my article on Wakefield pointed out, it was not manufactured correctly. Following the withdrawal of their MMR, they experienced mass cases of sick kids, hospitalizations, and a number of deaths. Get your facts straight.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

Yes, they don't know how many actual cases of aseptic meningitis. They know only the cases where the kid was hospitalized and a lumbar puncture was performed. I actually have several articles where aseptic meningitis was found by serendipity when a kid was hospitalized for a totally different reason and a lumbar puncture was performed. What you continue to fail to understand is that if I were to arrange for a random number, say 1,000, kids who are feeling under the weather, not really sick, just not feeling energetic as all of us experience from time to time and performed a lumbar puncture, there would probably be some cases of aseptic meningitis. Meningitis just means an inflammation of the meninges, the cells lining the spine. It doesn't specify how "intense" or "serious" the inflammation is. So, most cases of aseptic meningitis, whether from natural mumps, vaccine, or other fairly benign viruses would go undetected. Or would you like to perform lumbar punctures on everyone having an off day? There is actually a book about the immune system entitled "The War Within." Our immune systems are almost always confronting some invader, most of the time stopping them cold, sometimes after a short localized battle, and sometimes we get sick. Inflammation is just one of the ways our immune system deals with invaders, so many of us have probably had some minor inflammation of the meninges, that is meningitis. I repeat what I wrote in a previous comment, aseptic meningitis is not remotely related to bacterial meningitis which is a rare but horrible disease resulting in death and amputation. Try to understand they aren't the same.

I repeat what I've written umpteen times that the Canadian report found a few cases that needed hospitalization that were associated with the Urabe vaccine, that the hospitalization involved only rehydration for a day or two, that long-term follow-up found no lasting sequelae, that Canada already had an approved version of the Jeryl Lynn that could be immediately mass produced, so they switched. And had they NOT had the Jeryl Lynn available, I am confident they would have continued to use the Urabe until it was available and that is exactly what the Brits did.

And I repeat, the Canadian report, based on the data they had of hospitalized kids, found that the Urabe associated vaccine was associated with 1/125 the number of cases compared with the natural disease. So, if today I was told that the vaccine would have a less than 1% chance of causing aseptic meningitis compared with the natural disease, that all studies found aseptic meningitis to be benign, that there is always an extremely remote possibility that any conditions can be worse; but this could happen with the 125 to 1 natural disease cases and that there is clear evidence that mumps can cause a few deaths, hearing loss, and a few other conditions, all much greater than from the vaccine, I would not hesitate to get my kid the vaccine.

I wear a seat belt and have done so long before it was mandated by law and long before it was even discussed in public service announcements. In fact, the first car I ever owned, purchased in 1969 when in grad school, had lap belts. I saw them, without thinking, immediately buckled up and from then on anyone who rode in my car had to as well, front seat and rear seat. I have seen reports of people who have been in minor traffic accidents where they got a bruised kidney or even a ruptured bladder from a seat belt and seat belts do not guarantee one will emerge from a traffic accident alive or without serious injury; yet I still buckle up, not because of the law; but because of the odds.

Wendy Stephen claims she is not anti vaccine and in her comments on Every Child By Two gave an excellent description of ALL the benefits, the protection to kids, that vaccines confer. However, she continued to emphasize what happened to her daughter and no matter how many times I agreed that rare serious risks can occur and that the British government should have done much more to help her daughter, she just kept on. That is what antivaccinationists do, the claim they are not against vaccines, just want them safer; but when asked how safe, it seems never enough. Well, I think even the Urabe vaccine's 1/125 risk for a benign condition and protection against a number of other conditions is safe and if the Jeryl Lynn had not existed, I and I think most rational people would opt for it. As for Wendy, she may not be anti vaccine, just a mother so obsessed with her daughter's problem that she can't stop focusing on it. However, if she said she saved the comments from ECBT, so if she reads them carefully, she will see that I was on her side, despite my error regarding Shame she didn't just either check it out herself or ask me for the link; but no use crying over spilt milk, I admitted my error and apologized in an earlier comment.

So keep finding articles about things like not knowing the true number of cases of something that in most cases would not be more than someone feeling a bit under the weather and keep finding someone who says that a condition has the "potential" to get serious and ignore that, just in my article on Wakefield, besides the Canadian report I list a number of studies that found no serious sequelae to aseptic meningitis and do focus on any possible, regardless of how rare, adverse event and ignore everything known about the risks from the actual natural diseases. You are so good at this.

John Stone

In the end one has to remember the terrible pain of the princess. The princess needed some explanation of Wakefield's history that the British government had introduced a vaccine after it had been withdrawn as unsafe in Canada, and it looks as if Joel was prevailed upon to provide an alibi. The alibi, which was a pack of distortions and misinformation, was published in a journal which immediately ceased publication, so no one was left with responsibility for it. But it will remain what people are referred to in respect of AW's historically correct claim.

I was listening last week to Fiona Godlee talking about AW and Natural News last week on the BBC saying that the public could go to "fact checking sites" as if that was an answer, instead of a logical fallacy - alternatively she may have regarded listeners as stupid (perhaps with some basis given the program). She probably had in mind that her answer to VaXxed was the refutation on Snopes. But the fact is that all these people have a problem with the truth. Godlee may indulge in the odd pious sentiment but the fact is she has survived as the editor of the BMJ for a dozen years so she must be able to play the game. These people have never wanted a dialogue and now they cannot tolerate one at all.

John Stone

Well this is what they officially owned up to in the UK, but you have to bear in mind that if you phoned up your GP about an adverse reaction to a vaccine you would probably get a very dusty answer, and the matter would probably not even be recorded. Joel has to imagine that in alll probability they would be as acerbic and unsympathetic as he is. It should be noted that the Goldacre here - a government scientist - is the father of the Great Panjandrum, Dr Ben Goldacre, who never mentioned his family links when defending the vaccine program, and was habitually vicious about anyone who criticised it.


However, they suggest 1 in 11,000, way above Joel's 1 in 100,000.

Lancet. 1993 Apr 17;341(8851):979-82.
Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in UK children.
Miller E1, Goldacre M, Pugh S, Colville A, Farrington P, Flower A, Nash J, MacFarlane L, Tettmar R.
Author information

Cases of aseptic meningitis associated with measles/mumps/rubella vaccine were sought in thirteen UK health districts following a reported cluster in Nottingham which suggested a risk of 1 in 4000 doses, substantially higher than previous estimates based on cases reported by paediatricians (4 per million). Cases were ascertained by obtaining vaccination records of children with aseptic meningitis diagnosed from cerebrospinal fluid samples submitted to Public Health Laboratories or discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of viral meningitis. Both methods identified vaccination 15-35 days before onset as a significant risk factor and therefore indicative of a causal association. With both, half the aseptic meningitis cases identified in children aged 12-24 months were vaccine-associated with onset 15-35 days after vaccine. The study confirmed that the true risk was substantially higher than suggested by case reports from paediatricians, probably about 1 in 11,000 doses. However, the possibility that the aseptic meningitis induced by vaccination was largely asymptomatic and a chance laboratory finding in children investigated for other clinical conditions, particularly febrile convulsions, could not be excluded. Comparison of national reports of virus-positive mumps meningitis cases before and after the introduction of this vaccine indicated that the risk from wild mumps was about 4-fold higher than from vaccine. Altogether, 28 vaccine-associated cases were identified, all in recipients of vaccines containing the Urabe mumps strain. The absence of cases in recipients of vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain, despite its 14% market share, suggested a higher risk from Urabe vaccine. A prospective adverse event surveillance system using the study methods is currently being established to assess the risk, if any, from the Jeryl Lynn strain which is now the only mumps vaccine used in the UK.

Wendy Stephen

Joel, your first question was this ......"DID THE UK GRANT A LICENSE FOR A URABE CONTAINING VACCINE AFTER CANADA WITHDREW THE URABE MMR VACCINE" and the answer to that question is a resounding yes, they did.

You have previously been provided with references to a paper by Mc Donald et al quoting the fact that Urabe had been withdrawn in February 1988 and links to minutes from a meeting of the JCVI noting that fact also. The UK did not award the license for Pluserix until 17th June 1988 so it follows that the UK did license a Urabe containing MMR vaccine after areas of Canada which had been using Trivirix, withdrew it from use because of a concern that it was causing aseptic meningitis in recipient children. (Later proven with laboratory confirmation to be absolutely correct). The relevant issue is that Canada withdrew Urabe containing vaccines due to a potentially serious adverse reaction, four months before the UK licensed Pluserix. It's an irrelevancy whether or not every single batch was withdrawn over the entire of Canada in February 1988 or only a handful of vials were withdrawn, the answer to your question still remains, yes. The Canadians withdrew Urabe on a safety concern before the UK licensed a Urabe containing MMR vaccine. The License for Trivirix was not withdrawn until 1990 but that has no bearing on the question you have posed.

Additionally, you have stated over and over that the risk of contracting vaccine induced aseptic meningitis was approximately 1/250th of the risk arising from natural mumps. In your article "Wrong about Vaccine safety: A review of Andrew Wakefield's callous Disregard" you note how the Canadians estimated the rate at which mumps meningitis occurred following administration of urabe containing vaccine to be 1 case per 100,000 doses by comparison to a rate of one case per 400 following the naturally occurring disease. However, your footnote 60 cites a copy of The Canadian Diseases Weekly dated 15th December 1990 which records the rate of laboratory confirmed meningitis in Canada to be 1 case per 62,000 doses and you make no mention of this. The true comparison is not therefore between 1 case per 100,000 doses following vaccination and 1 case per 400 following naturally occurring disease, but 1 case in 62,000 following vaccination and 1 case per 400 following the natural disease. This changes the risk significantly but you have failed to address this.
There was a huge difference between the estimated risk and the laboratory confirmed risk.

Stanley A Plotkin and Steven a Rubin in "Vaccines, Mumps vaccine chapter 20, 2007 Edition" recorded the laboratory confirmed rate also.

"In Canada , the observed rate of meningitis after vaccination with Urabe strain was calculated to be 1 in 62,000 doses of vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithkline"

In the UK, Colville & Pugh in their letter to the Lancet (vol 340, September 26th 1992) recorded that their studies in Nottingham had given a rate of "virilogically confirmed and suspected MMR associated meningitis of 1 in 3800 doses".

Finally, your statement below is seriously flawed for two reasons. Here in the UK the choice for parents was never about agreeing to a problematic urabe containing vaccine or face the naturally occurring illness when at all times we had another brand of MMR (MMR II) which did not have the problem. The risks they faced re aseptic meningitis following the Urabe strain was not 1/250th of the risk from the naturally occurring disease and coupled with the fact that there was another MMR on the market, which didn't have the problem, where do you think the parental choice would have lain, had they known?

"If I told a parent that a vaccine would have 1/125th of the risk from the wild-type virus of a condition, aseptic meningitis, that, so far, research around the world had found to be benign, a day or two in the hospital with no long term effects, that without the vaccine their kid would have better than a 95% chance of contracting the natural disease and that the natural disease had a number of other serious risks besides aseptic meningitis, you think they would not have vaccinated their kids".

John Stone


OK. You have a barrage of information there some of which may be correct (much actually isn't) but it distracts from the basic truth that the UK government introduced the Pluserix vaccine after it had been withdrawn in Canada - which is what Wakefield told us. It does not of course help to cite documents from autumn 1987 before these events. Evidently many people disagreed with you in the end about whether the product was acceptably safe. A basic problem with the data of course is if a child is (spontaneously) ill parents willl likely go to a doctor - if they have a reaction to a vaccine they are generally hung out to dry, so it is very difficult to get reliable data. We know a similar vaccine had to be withdrawn in Japan after a public outcry, so perhaps the events were not that rare after all.


Joel A. Harrison: "one would also have to believe, since everyone I know has vaccinated their kids, that all these researchers around the world have been willing to sacrifice their own children. "

You can't be certain that they vaccinated their kids, even if they claim they have. There are pediatricians who selectively vaccinate their children or don't vaccinate them at all but they keep it to themselves.

Reminds me of a line from the movie Spartacus when Julius Caesar asked Gracchus played by Charles Laughton if he believes in the gods.

"Privately I believe in none of them - neither do you. Publicly, I believe in them all. "

Joel A. Harrison,  PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

Following is the relevant part of my article:


Canada licensed Trivirix in May 1986 [57]. The starting date for the UK for MMR vaccinations was October 1, 1988 [58,59]. The license for Trivirix was withdrawn in Canada in May 1990 stating: “Recent laboratory findings from the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan have provided sound evidence. . . In addition, the report states: “The infection follows the course of benign aseptic meningitis” [60]. The UK withdrew the Urabe-containing vaccine on September 14, 1992 [61].

Based on reports of aseptic meningitis, the Canadians estimated its occurrence in association with the vaccine as 1 case per 100,000, compared with 1 in 400 following natural mumps. A prospective epidemiological and laboratory stud y was planned to run from 1987 through 1989 [57]. Minutes of a UK meeting read: “Members read a report of cases of mumps encephalitis which had been associated with MMR vaccine containing the Urabe strain of the mumps virus. . . It was agreed that North Hertfordshire would use the Jeryl- Lynn vaccine, if it was available from MSD [Merck, Sharp and Dohme], to obtain comparative data” [62]. From the following meeting’s minutes “It appeared that only certain batches of the Canadian vaccine had been suspended and that they had not banned all vaccine containing the Urabe strain of mumps. Dr. Begg would check with the Canadians” [63].

“The Canadians, “in a July 18th memo to all physicians in Ontario receiving vaccines from the Ontario Government Distribution Centre requested the return of any remaining stock of TRIVIRIX vaccine from doctors’ offices” [64]. Note that not all vaccines in Ontario were distributed by the Ontario government; thus, even in Ontario, not all batches of Urabe-containing MMR vaccines were recalled.

The Canadians did not withdraw the licensure of the vaccine prior to the UK’s program beginning; they recalled only certain lots. Licensure was withdrawn 20 months after the UK program began. The UK received reports of aseptic meningitis, investigated, and found that, at the time, only Ontario had withdrawn some lots of the vaccine. The Canadian report indicated that the risk for vaccine-associated aseptic meningitis was approximately 1/250th of the risk arising from natural mumps and that the vaccine-associated meningitis was benign, that is, with “no sequelae,” and “it is important to note that these cases had short hospital stays and complete recoveries” [64]. Note that the Canadian decision to withdraw the vaccine was based partly on laboratory data from the UK.


As is evident from the above, compared with the naturally occurring disease, the Urabe-containing MMR vaccine had far fewer and less serious adverse events. The UK did decide early on to replace it with the Jeryl Lynn strain. The decision to continue using the vaccines containing the Urabe strain while working on obtaining supplies of the MMR vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain was a prudent one given the far greater risks arising from the natural disease. Minutes from a 1993 JCVI meeting state, as follows:

The Health Departments had had a difficult time with regard to MMR supply, problems caused in the main by the manufacturers. Other vaccine manufacturers producing MMR which contained the Jeryl Lynn strain of the mumps virus included RIVM (under a very prescriptive license from MSD making sale in the UK impossible) and Rubini in Switzerland (a vaccine which lacked sufficient study in the field to be certain that there would not be a Urabe-like problem). Merck and Merieux were collaborating to produce a Jeryl Lynn strain vaccine [90].

In the UK, “despite the benign nature of vaccine-induced meningitis, a decision was made to replace the brands containing Urabe (Immravax by Merieux, and Pluserix MMR b y SmithKline Beecham) with that containing Jeryl Lynn” [91].

Professor Breckridge, as you quote, wrote “potentially serious neurological complications”; but as I explained both in comments and in the article, the risk of aseptic meningitis plus many other conditions was far greater from the wild-type virus and I also gave in my paper numerous studies that found aseptic meningitis to be a benign condition, something you continuously ignore. Kids have febrile seizures without aseptic meningitis and, yes, they can be frightening; but many studies have found no long term problems and a lumber puncture would be a possibility whether the aseptic meningitis was associated with the vaccines or the 125 times higher risk from the natural disease.

I was the one who obtained copies of ALL the Canadian reports and arranged for the University of Ottawa’s library government archives to post them. You ignore the fact over and over again the risk from the wild-type virus, that I gave numerous studies that aseptic meningitis was benign, and that I gave several references that clearly stated that the Jeryl Lyn was not available, at least not in the quantities needed and that the UK immediately started to arrange the switch as soon as it would be available. As for Professor Breckenridge’s “potential,” even a common cold can potentially be dangerous. And again, if aseptic meningitis had the potential, then the much higher risk from the wild-type virus would still call for the Urabe as a temporary vaccine while actively arranging for the Jeryl Lyn. I repeat: Don’t sacrifice the good for the perfect. Potential doesn’t mean will happen, may never; but the studies clearly indicated that the Urabe was a lot safer than the wild-type virus.

As for, “if the British people had been told,” really? If I told a parent that a vaccine would have 1/125th of the risk from the wild-type virus of a condition, aseptic meningitis, that, so far, research around the world had found to be benign, a day or two in the hospital with no long term effects, that without the vaccine their kid would have better than a 95% chance of contracting the natural disease and that the natural disease had a number of other serious risks besides aseptic meningitis, you think they would not have vaccinated their kids. Maybe I have more confidence in the intelligence of Brits than you do.

Re-reading my article after several years and i could have given a blow by blow chronological list of what happened. Probably would have made it clearer; but it is there in the text. Of course, you do your best to find flaws because you are committed to Wakefield; but I trust that anyone who has not taken a position, who reads my paper will agree with me. I've learned over the years that no matter how careful I write something, no matter how many people review it, years later I could always have written it better.

Right now I just finished proof-reading and editing a new edition of an undergraduate microbiology text book and the first draft of the first chapter that a colleague is writing on the first 100 years of the history of DNA. Keeps me busy and out of mischief. I found a number of minor errors and a couple medium in already excellent manuscripts and I bet that when I see the finished books, I will then see a few more. C'est la vie. I don't claim to have god-like perfection.

John Stone


In your paper you ask


The correct answer to that is "Yes", but your first statement is entirely misleading.

"Canada licensed Trivirix in May 1986...The starting date for the UK for MMR vaccinations was October 1, 1988...The license for Trivirix was withdrawn in Canada in May 1990.."

This hides the fact that the license was supended in February 1988 and this was even reported in the UK JCVI minutes. This statement is false:

"The UK withdrew the Urabe-containing vaccine on September 14, 1992.."

What happened was that the manufacturer withdrew the vaccine in the UK.

Obviously, if the British people had been told their children were to get a product suspended in Canada under a different name they would not have been delighted.

This is also not true:

"I also explained quite clearly that the UK decided to switch to the Jeryl Lyn strain; but needed to find a supplier and approve their production safety and that, in the meantime, given that the risks from wild-type mumps, including aseptic meningitis was far worse than from the Urabe vaccine, so the UK decided to use it until they could get a supply of the Jeryl Lyn"

The Merck version MMR2 was also licensed and in use concurrently with Pluserix and they were keen to compete for the market. There was a lot of dicussion in the JCVI minutes as I remember about which version to favour.

These are statements from the MCA when Pluserix finally had its license removed (I think only in 1998)

"Viral meningitis is a potentially serious and distressing condition and Urabe mumps vaccine-associated meningitis has led to seizures, hospitalisation and invasive clinical tests including lumbar puncture."


"Professor Alasdair Breckenridge, Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, said:
"There is sound evidence that mumps vaccine containing the Urabe strain of virus is associated with a risk of meningitis and no proven additional benefits. This risk to children of a potentially serious neurological complication makes its use unacceptable and we are advising MCA not to allow importation of vaccines containing this strain."

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

Once more WRONG. I didn't write in my article that what Wakefield wrote about the UK introducing the Urabe vaccine after it was withdrawn from Canada was false. I did make clear that Wakefield calling it a "dangerous vaccine" given that the Canadian report said it was associated with a few cases of aseptic meningitis, a benign condition. The Canadians followed up the hospitalized kids for at least a year after their one or two day hospitalizations and found no sequelae. I also explained quite clearly that the UK decided to switch to the Jeryl Lyn strain; but needed to find a supplier and approve their production safety and that, in the meantime, given that the risks from wild-type mumps, including aseptic meningitis was far worse than from the Urabe vaccine, so the UK decided to use it until they could get a supply of the Jeryl Lyn.

I realize you probably won't post this; but to slightly change a quote from Mark Twain: The are liars, there are damn liars, and there is John Stone.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Wendy Stephen:

You are partially correct, you didn’t actually post a comment on I apologize; however, did repost one of your comments and if you had checked it out, you would have discovered it, then simply made it clear that he had reposted without your permission and then could have posted a comment making clear that you do not wish to be associated with him in any manner. So, whether you like it or not, your comment is on If I found that he had posted anything by me, I would be extremely angry.

In case you are interested, you can find the post of your article at:

And you did post a quote from an article that quoted another article’s sentence giving the stats for aseptic meningitis, but it left out the first part of the sentence that said it was the stats for the wild-type virus. The article, by using just part of the sentence wanted people to think it was the stats for the vaccine. Again, you could have simply verified this and posted a comment regretting using a dishonest paper; but you didn’t.

And you kept insisting that an article that said it did not find the vaccine caused aseptic meningitis; but it may have, well, could, should, would. Not in a court of law and certainly not in science is “may have” proof of anything.

And you kept claiming that I didn’t care about rare but serious conditions; yet, I explained over and over again, that I do care and agree that your daughter should have been compensated; but that without some easy inexpensive test to determine in advance who would develop a rare adverse event, I choose to protect an exponentially larger number of children.

A few people are actually injured by seat belts in minor traffic mishaps; but 10s of thousands are saved from death and serious injury, so I support mandatory seat belt laws. And that doesn’t mean I don’t care about those injured by seat belts; however, life isn’t black and white and one has to choose the best option. There is an old saying: “don’t sacrifice the good for the perfect.”

And, by the way, if I didn’t misunderstand, you were going to e-mail to me via Every Child By Two the actual decision made in regards to your daughter’s case. I would still like to see it. And I was able to obtain the report that the CSM press release was based on, so I now have a folder of pdfs with over 200 articles and documents on mumps, mainly the Urabe version, and several papers from Japan, including the court papers. My intention is to write a paper on mumps and the Urabe vaccine. It will include a rather large table of all the studies with the results. My paper will let the cards fall where they fall. Despite what Stone and others think, including Linda1, I have NO vested interest in vaccines. Yes, everything I’ve learned over my life and continue to learn says they are far safer than the alternative, that adverse events are rare from vaccines; but if new credible research shows differently, I would accept it.

As an example, while growing up and through graduate school, I learned that Ulcers were a result of stress and the best way to treeat them was by stress reduction and diet, then Barry Masters from University of Western Australia in 1981 published a study that they were caused by the Helicobacter Pylori bacteria. I read the paper and was intrigued, it seems credible; but I didn’t just reject all that I had learned at once; but when a few more papers were published, I did without any regret. Though it was only perhaps 10 years of believing something based on the literature at the time compared to many more years with vaccines, my attitude towards new findings hasn’t changed. But the findings have to be credible and replicated.

However, I repeat, that I do believe vaccines can cause serious though rare adverse events; but, again, given no way to determine in advance, the exponentially greater number of kids protected means everyone should vaccinate their kids and, if a rare adverse event occurs, then society should do everything possible to help the child and family.

And, again, I apologize for not looking more carefully at the post of your article on; however, if you had checked it out, you could have pointed out in a comment that it was a repost and I would have long ago corrected what I said. So, my not reading it more carefully makes it mainly my error; but your not even bothering to check says something about you. If you told me you found something by me on a website, I would certainly have checked it out.

Now, I’m sure Stone and others will make a big deal about my error. So, I’m human; but for them, one error means they can extrapolate to and discredit everything I write. Not how scientists work. Even Einstein was wrong about one thing. I have a book that discusses his mistake; but that doesn’t discredit everything else he did, unless one uses the approach of Stone and others.

I regret that you didn’t check out during our first exchange because I have no problem admitting when I am wrong; though Stone continues to claim I have been wrong about several things and both I and colleagues have double-checked my quotes and sources and it is Stone who is wrong.

John Stone

Just to elaborate on my previous comment. Joel's imposture has been going on for three years: his assertion that Wakefield's claim that the British government introduced SKB's vrsion of MMR Pluserix after it had already been withdrawn under the name of Trivirix in Canada was false. Joel ought to have known his own claim was false based on the information in the document in his footnote 60,

and I pointed this out all of three year ago, shortly after the article was published, in an exchange in Forbes which I can no longer find, but with Dorit Reiss reponding on his behalf. The strategy since then is to argue that it may not have been withdrawn throughout Canada (hair-splitting). It is however, irrelevant since it was said that the vaccine had been withdrawn in Canada in the minutes of the UK government committee, the JCVI, in February 1988, so they must have acted on that basis (item 5):

I have a note from 2014 that the editor of the Open Vaccine Journal at the time (although it ceased publication soon after Joel's article) was Steve Rubin, a mumps expert and FDA official, and of course it was the mumps component which was so contentious in the vaccine. It would be very interesting to speculate who might still be sensitive about this now rather old piece of history, though it is my guess the British government wanted to use the deal as a sweetener for the merger between SKB (which at the time had no footing in the UK) and the British company Beecham. It is noted that Dr Salisbury (a DH official) thought the evidence was "slender" but four and a half years later SKB themselves withdrew the vaccine from the UK, so they must have been worried.

Wendy Stephen

Joel Harrison

"I also pointed out that she had posted on, a website, among other things, notorious for its anti-semitism, including posting the complete Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious bogus antisemitic book."

Just to be absolutely clear, I have NEVER, EVER posted ANYTHING on I have made this absolutely clear to Mr Harrison previously and the moderator on the Every Child By Two website in my complaint which resulted in all the comments being removed.

It is entirely untrue and yet Mr Harrison persists. Perhaps he would like to furnish me with an example of something on which I HAVE POSTED there to support his continued assertions and accusations.

I eagerly await his delivery of proof that I posted anything on in the same way that I am still awaiting examples from him from the ECBT echange of where I posted anti vax messages on anti vax sites. Still waiting!


Joel Harrison,

You are missing the point. You rely on what you have read. We saw our children/grandchildren regress before our eyes. Then we read. What we found out after hours and hours of research, was that the Lancet paper should have been followed up Research should have been carried out. The Government should not have buried it and vilified Andrew Wakefield. If this had happened, hundreds of thousands of children would not now be suffering brain damage. You carry on trying to justify this carnage by quoting papers and we'll carry on trying to help our families with the trauma they are going through. Yes, many of us are not academic - but that is not required when trying to minimize the damage done by vaccines

david m burd

John, Your ceaseless energy and objectivity on behalf of vaccine-damaged children and their families will, when such truth is inevitably, publicly acknowledged, shall having us address you as Sir Stone following Knighthood bestowed upon you.

I, for one, will partially self-censor Joel Harrison, PhD, MPD - to perhaps brief Abstracts. I hope you somehow severely limit your future energies on said Harrison, as all of need your invaluable better-spent energies. I put Harrison in the same boat as the so-called CDC "scientists" who dance to their own corrupt "studies."


Not sure that polio "trial" was really as hunky dorit as some people think.

"Eighty four test areas in 11 states used the textbook model: in a randomised, blinded design all participating children in the first three grades of school (ages 6-9) received injections of either vaccine or placebo and were observed for evidence of the disease. But 127 test areas in 33 states used an “observed control” design: participating children in the second grade (ages 7-8) received injections of vaccine; no placebo was given, and children in all three grades were then observed for the duration of the polio “season.”1

John Stone

Just to be clear Joel Harrison has been lying about Wakefield and Pluserix all along, meanwhile making defamatory remarks about anyone who tries to put him straight - the tirade goes on. I note that Wendy Stephen posted this comment for him on LB/RB earlier this month:

"Wendy Stephen February 8, 2017 at 15:39 #

"The UK product Licence for Pluserix (Trivirix in Canada) was signed on 17th June 1988 and it was introduced on 3rd October 1988.

"However, McDonald et al in their paper “Clinical and epidemiologic features of mumps meningoencephalitis and possible vaccine related disease” THE PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL V01.8, NO. 11, November, 1983 record how Trivirix was withdrawn from use in February 1988, four months before it was licensed in the UK.

"“At our institution, there have been no further cases of mumps CNS infection since the vaccine was withdrawn in February 1988 (unpublished data)”

"In that same month the UK JCVI working party committee set up to introduce the MMR vaccine, recorded in their 11th February 1988 meeting that Canada had “suspended the licences of MMR vaccines containing the Urabe strain”.

"There is absolutely no suggestion that the Canadians continued to use an unlicensed urabe containing Trivirix MMR vaccine, so it follows that Trivirix was removed from use in February 1988 with the suspension of the licence."

Faced with the fact that he was simply wrong Harrison splits hairs and insults people. And the fact was that he wrote a paper with hundreds of references which his friend Steve Rubin (an FDA official) got published, but it was still wrong. He can therefore go on writing what a fine and honourable person he is and what dastardly rogues we are but it is completely irrelevant. Trivirix was withdrawn in Canada before it was relaunched in the UK as Pluserix, and his paper was completely wrong and without basis. It is a pack of lies.

Dorie Southern

Mr Harrison, get a grip. Mr Stone is making the point that the vaccine industry cannot take criticism -- let alone questioning. So are you. But people are questioning vaccines. They should have that right.

Mr. Washington

“there’s an ongoing, permanent immune-system activation in the brains of autistic people.”

“There is also very striking evidence of immune dysregulation in the brain itself. Just last year, a group led by Carlos Pardo at Johns Hopkins found what they’re calling a “neural inflammation” in postmortem examination of brains of patients with autism who died between the ages of eight and 44 years. But these people weren’t infected — they died of such things as drowning or heart attacks. The study found that the microglial cells, which act as the brain’s own immune system, were activated. The study also found amazing increases of certain cytokines in the brain, and of others in the cerebro- spinal fluid. This is is a landmark paper, in my opinion. It presents the first evidence that there’s an ongoing, permanent immune-system activation in the brains of autistic people. It’s a subclinical state, because there’s no overt infection. But it’s there.”

Donna L

@ Joel
Uh, it was a joke, Joel, the capitalization of science remark.

George stevens

Joel harrison. I dare you to go to Richard pans Facebook page and post anything anti vaccine related for two weeks straight. Dont make it too scientific or fact based or he will just delete it but Write down the people that respond and how many times they respond. It's the same handful of people over and over again in fact you can almost see which ones have night shift and day shift of trolling. This includes Dorrit Reese, she will eventually respond especially if you get the better of the first wave of trolls, she has had her hands full lately though commenting on every article trump and vaccine related. Is there any other product sold in America that requires Internet trolls to push fear so people will purchase it?

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Linda1:

You write: “You were doing ok until you resorted to this. Why do you ALWAYS do this? So condescending and arrogant. John may not be a scientist from formal education, but through life experience and years of independent study, far more than what is required for a formal degree, he has achieved a high level of knowledge, understanding and insight. But that aside, there is no shortage of highly educated scientists and physicians who are seriously questioning the vaccine program.”

But you obviously missed the part where I wrote: “have seen a couple of Mozart Operas and even had a music appreciation course in Junior High School, one semester when I was 11 years old. I wouldn't presume to expertise on the subject; but you, without any background in science, immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, biostatistics, think that you understand things better than I and my colleagues.”

Stone claims an expertise on Mozart, I don’t. And just because I am well-read and well-educated in my area of expertise, I don't assume that it transfers without putting in considerable time and effort to Mozart just because I had a course in music appreciation and have seen a couple operas. This has nothing to do with arrogance or thinking I am superior, it is just a simple fact that being intelligent and well-educated in one area doesn't automatically without a lot of effort transfer. You claim Stone has done extensive reading; but when he made a comment a while back that the statistics on smallpox deaths are questionable, I asked him to list just a few of the books and/or articles he has read on smallpox, I asked this same question in several comments that I submitted; but were not posted. To date, he has NOT responded. I, on the other hand, have read a dozen books on smallpox, probably over 100 journal articles, and additional chapters, plus how the smallpox virus is configured in microbiology books. And, if you read my latest article on Every Child By Two, it clearly points out that Stone read one popular article and saw a film, with no indication that he tried to read the actual research that the popular article discussed. Is this how he and you get your “high level of knowledge, understanding and insight?”

If he has read even an introductory book on immunology or microbiology or epidemiology or biostatistics, why is he so reluctant to disclose this? He claims extensive readings; but my articles often have up to 150 references and direct quotes that can be verified, his one or two references most of the time.

Let me give a couple of analogies:

Imagine a bridge collapses. The engineer who designed the bridge writes an article explaining the tensile strength and design dynamics, claiming the design was correct. Someone else writes an article saying the design was incorrect. Both use differential calculus to derive their respective positions. If you don’t understand Calculus, how could you possibly decide who is correct? Would you just automatically decide the engineer is lying just to defend himself? But the design could have been correct and the person who built it cut corners, etc.

When Nikita Khrushchev was premier of the Soviet Union, he gave a speech where one phrase was translated on the spot as “We will bury you.” A hostile threat. Yet, afterwards, experts in the Russian language said the correct translation was: “We will be alive and well long after you are dead and buried.” The former has continued to be quoted in books and articles, serves political purposes. As an analogy, I am a vegan. Imagine a discussion with a meat eater. If I said, “I will bury you,” that would be quite different from, “I will live a longer and healthier life than you.” Now, if you don’t understand the Russian language or, perhaps, had a short course in high school, how could you judge which translation was correct?

You write: “But that aside, there is no shortage of highly educated scientists and physicians who are seriously questioning the vaccine program.”

A number of years ago two scientists claimed they had developed cold fusion. Millions of dollars were given to them to develop their finding; but around the world scientists could NOT replicate their finding, in fact it went against the laws of physics. No law is set in stone, so if their finding had been replicated, then the laws of physics would have had to be changed; but it wasn’t. However, there are still “experts” around the world who believe in cold fusion and even some labs continuing to research it and some of the people involved have PhDs.

I haven’t read every study done by your so-called experts; but many of them and they are either seriously flawed in their design or haven’t been replicated by credible researchers. If you understood statistics and research, even an extremely well-done study can get a result due to chance factors which is why replication is essential. Given that research on vaccines has been conducted around the world, the only way to discount this is to believe in some world-wide conspiracy to further the interests of the pharmaceutical industry; but according to credible accounts, the total revenues from vaccines sold world-wide amounts to approximately 2% of pharmaceutical yearly takes. And one would also have to believe, since everyone I know has vaccinated their kids, that all these researchers around the world have been willing to sacrifice their own children.

I vaguely remember you not believing in herd immunity and asking me for a reference so I gave you one. You said you had access to a university library, so did you get and read carefully the article? Paul Fine (1993). “Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practise” Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol. 15, No. 2.

Its only 38 pages and you have had plenty of time. So, did you get the article and read it?


Joel Harrison completely shut down this conversation. That's what trolls and unhappy bratty princesses do. I hope this will not happen too often.


Joel Harrison;
I will not go read your article on Trump and the seven Muslim dwarves.
You are an old man typing at home; but you are not and will never be a Mother.
I too am now old, but once upon a time I was a young Mother that lived a fairy tale life.
I had drive, ambition: I too spent a lot of time in the periodicals down in the basement of the University libraries.

Then I witnessed something horrible, that dog heaps like you want to ignore. In the scheme of life there are some things that are so wrong and so terrible that to be on the wrong side make you the most evil henchman that are only told in fairy tales.

What I witnessed shook me to my core. I witnessed something that I would have believed impossible. From all the education and reading in libraries. I would have believed the pea and the mattress fairy tale before I believed that there are such things as vaccine injuries, and they are not uncommon.

So, write in the sanctuary of your castle, don't dare venture out and listen to what we have experienced in real life.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ Donna L:

You write: "he even forgot to capitalize Science."

Really,, I forgot to capitalize a word and that's the only concrete thing you have to say. Stone bases his articles often on one or two articles, sometimes just parts, claims he he bases his knowledge on careful readings; but refuses to devulge the names of just a few of the books and/or articles he has read. Wendy Stephen quotes from an article that quotes from another article a sentence; but only the second half of the sentence and your really super intellectual argument is whether I capitalized a word or not.

You people are truly pathetic!

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

You quote Wendy Stephen. Well, I also have all the comments. I pointed out that she quoted from articles that quoted out-of-context, that is, gave just part of a sentence. I made it clear that either she didn’t bother to check out the original source or wasn’t being dishonest. I do my best to avoid quotes from secondary parties, checking out the original source. I also pointed out that she had posted on, a website, among other things, notorious for its anti-semitism, including posting the complete Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious bogus antisemitic book. She could have check out for herself and responded that she didn’t realize he was an anti-semite and regrets posting on his website; but she didn’t, instead she complained to ECBT. She also cited an article written on the online site Namaste, a spiritual website and I pointed out that didn’t strengthen her argument to cite someone with no science background and no claim to such. You quote what Wendy Stephen sent you. I have sent the complete exchange of comments to a dozen people and none felt they were beyond the normal range of comment disagreement; however, they did say I could have been a bit softer in my comments.

Stephen is upset that her daughter who lost hearing in one ear did not receive compensation from the British government who decided it was “likely” the Urabe vaccine caused it, not certain; but likely. That is unfortunate; but what Stephen fails to understand is that if there were no mumps vaccine, then her daughter would have almost certainly been exposed to the natural mumps and would in all likelihood also lost hearing unilaterally. There is solid evidence that natural mumps does cause unilateral hearing loss. Given that the Urabe vaccine is an attenuated vaccine, that is significantly weaker than the natural mumps, given she had, unfortunately, a genetic predisposition to the mumps virus, the actual natural disease would with a high likelihood have caused the same problem or worse. Not certain; but high probability. The fact that Wendy Stephen is extremely thin-skinned is NOT my problem and, perhaps, isn’t bothered that is an antisemite. And she sent via ECBT e-mails to be forwarded to me with references to articles which I did obtain. She could have expressed her problems with me via e-mail; but didn’t. I consider that unethical on her part. I was raised to always try to deal directly with someone before involving third parties.

And she wrote: “his views did not reflect those held by the site.” Well, if she took the time to read what is written, I voluntarily write articles for them. I am not their employee, so it is her inability to understand simple English. I have just as much right as anyone to post on websites. No, I wasn’t reprimanded; but they did take down the complete exchange and everyone I have spoken with thinks it an overreaction. There choice. In addition, she writes: “Anyone who cannot observe a code of respectful decency in their posts or abide by the site's policies should not be made welcome on any site, and that should include Mr Harrison.” As far as I am aware, ECBT does not have a code that says I can’t point out that someone posts on a notorious anti-semites website nor cites truncated sentences where the first part actually changes the meaning completely. I guess if I said the Bible supports stealing, and cite “Thou shalt steal,” conveniently leaving out the word “Not,” and someone pointed that out, they would be out of line?

You write: “There was no ad hominem attack on Dorit Reiss. Reiss has been the vaccine industry's biggest advocate on social media, publishing in almost industrial quantites. I have not been monitoring her for a bit but this was written in 2014 when she was posting comments by the tens of thousands, and no one knew how it was done. “

Really, “tens of thousands.” Give me a credible publicly verifiable source for this.

You write: “Reiss was certainly advocating that people who had views she disagreed with should be silenced on mainstream media.”

This is the major difference between me and you. I would back such a statement up with direct accurate quotes, not from one source; but several. So, give me quotes from 5 - 10 articles by Reiss, including the links. And not from twitter or short comments as it is impossible to really present an argument; but from reasonably written articles by her so I can see what her reasoning is. For instance, if she wrote that antivaccinationists should not be allowed to pound on restaurant windows when Paul Offit is eating breakfast, or shout down people who disagree with them, or, or, or.

If you have read “carefully” any of my papers, I give extensive accurate quotes and extensive references, including links when available or detailed references so one can easily find them at local university library.

As for my sometimes hostility it is because you have not posted comments by me that were direct to the point, e.g. when Laura Hayes claimed there were NO double blinded randomized trials of vaccines and I simply submitted a description of the polio vaccine trials and when you claim things about smallpox and I ask where you got your information and you refuse to reply.

It should be obvious from my articles and accurate quotes the time and effort I put into my articles, which is why I only am able to write one taking several months; but you seem to a lot of articles without a substantial reference list, so, what do you base them on?

Donna L.

I guess we should give poor Joel a break. Clearly he is operating under a great deal of stress (he even forgot to capitalize Science!) and this part of his comment in particular sticks out like a great, big, fat...well, pea: "It would be like a legal trial where one side presented one or two witness and the other side was not allowed to cross-examine and present their own witnesses. But, of course, you would decide in advance that the other side were all liars, so why let them be heard. "

Imagine if we all had to experience such a travesty of justice! Oh wait...

John Stone


Joel was not doing well at all. I posted his comment because it challenged something in the article - he claimed something was ad hominem, but it wasn't. Then he goes into ad hominem - not addressing the substance of the article (a human situation as it happens) but saying I should not be allowed to comment because I am a not a qualified person although he would as you point out likely be saying the same thing if I were. Indeed, Dorit Reiss was certainly not a qualified person, if that was his point.



"One of the topics I have read dozens of books on and hundreds of articles is the Middle East, much more than you have demonstrated you have read on vaccines."

You were doing ok until you resorted to this. Why do you ALWAYS do this? So condescending and arrogant. John may not be a scientist from formal education, but through life experience and years of independent study, far more than what is required for a formal degree, he has achieved a high level of knowledge, understanding and insight. But that aside, there is no shortage of highly educated scientists and physicians who are seriously questioning the vaccine program.

You come here like you are some kind of royalty expecting the red carpet to be laid down for you because you are so smart and you get really frustrated and angry when people disagree with you. I'm not trying to be mean, but you always remind everyone of how superior your intelligence and training are. You're kind of a bit of a princess yourself.

John Stone


You should take note of what I wrote in answer to you three days ago:

"Joel We do edit correspondence. One of the reasons we do not post many of your comments is that you post off-topic, and engage in personal hostlity - a lot ad hominem about what bad people we are etc. Also if you post things which are factually in error (and you do it time after time) it gets to the point where it is much easier and less time wasting simply not to post than write rebuttal after rebuttal. You cannot go on posting your ill-researched, hair-splitting nonsense about Andrew Wakefield and Pluserix here and expect us to go on posting it.

"It is impractical for a site such as ours not to moderate comments - if we did not it would quickly become over-run by people who are hostile posting any old junk and very inhospitable for our regular readers. I witnessed this happening years ago on JABS Forum when Ben Goldacre's Bad Science mob decided to try and take us out. Respectful critical comments are generally welcome providing people stick to the point."

I also don't think commenters on Shot of Prevention escape personal abuse by yourself. If you missed it you might also care to read the comment of Wendy Stephen:

"I would sincerely hope that Age Of Autism, and every other website for that matter, rigorously screen comments for unsavoury content and, if my recent experience over on another website is anything to go by, that should positively include those submitted by Mr Harrison. By posting respectful comments in response to his published article, I was subjected to a barrage of name calling and insinuation which culminated in me submitting a formal complaint to the site moderator and all the posts being removed. (Although I do have them all downloaded). Not only were his accusations untrue, they became more and more insulting and offensive. Far from entering into a reasonable discussion on the subject matter, it descended into an eye watering abusive attack on me and the site's Executive Director advising me that Mr Harrison had been reprimanded for failing to abide by the blog policy and that his views did not reflect those held by the site.

"There will always be differences of opinion, there will always be those who are pro something and those who are anti, there will always be those who view their stance to be the correct one and argue against others who disagree, but nothing in any of that necessitates the dialogue descending into a personalised sustained name calling attack. Anyone who cannot observe a code of respectful decency in their posts or abide by the site's policies should not be made welcome on any site, and that should include Mr Harrison. "

Jeannette Bishop

IMO the corporate media are acting rather princess-y over this topic too. And some politicians:

Then there's the ranks of prima-donna pediatricians (not all of them). They were supposed to be able to take for granted (I'm guessing) that they were helping children while earning a decent salary, being pillars of society and all that, no questions need be asked (that how they were taught is appears ), and I wonder if they are ever forced to acknowledge what's happened or otherwise appear incredibly stupid, unfit and all that (from another Hans Christian Andersen tale), if then it will still be essentially all about them? Or will they finally start trying to undo and prevent vaccine injury? Will we want them to?

Some of her philanthropists seem to be pretty quiet currently about their princessy-partnerships (but I'm admittedly not trying very hard to verify that impression).

And I wonder how long her troll-friends will stay loyal and true? to their graves? until their last paycheck comes in? Are those the same endpoint?

Will medical boards continue their princess-prompted witch-hunts? Will pediaticians continue their blatant lies promoting her blatant legislative assaults on our rights? Will their colleagues and party continue to stand by and support them and her?

Overall this princess seems to have lured & captured so many, too many still invested in propping up crumbling facades and trying to shield theirs and others' unburst bubbles over what I think has been obviously very ugly and bankrupt of integrity for some time and I personally don't believe any amount of humanitarian plastic surgery, cosmetic regulation, or even being kissed by a frog can redeem this princess. But what say the masses, awakening, already awoke, or still spell-bound, intoxicated?

John Stone


There was no ad hominem attack on Dorit Reiss. Reiss has been the vaccine industry's biggest advocate on social media, publishing in almost industrial quantites. I have not been monitoring her for a bit but this was written in 2014 when she was posting comments by the tens of thousands, and no one knew how it was done. The link was to Christina Waldman's excellent article:

Reiss was certainly advocating that people who had views she disagreed with should be silenced on mainstream media. This is not a comment saying Dorit Reiss is a bad person, it is a comment about what she does.

Of course, silencing people on mainstream media is not enough anymore for the megalomaniac pharmaceutical industry.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

What a pleasant surprise. You posted my comment.

Thank you!

However, in the past you have also posted some of my comments, then allowed multiple commenters to attack me and did not post my replies to them, so we'll see. Since you have posted on Every Child By Two, you must have noticed that they allow a free-for-all. Same on Science-Based Medicine, Respectful Insolence, and many other websites.


About a year after my son's mmr I would often find him awake in the middle of night. Sometimes starring blankly at the wall, other times roaming the house or in the garage watching a bicycle wheel go around and around. He didn't sleep through the night until we started heavy metal chelation.

I would sleep better knowing the perpetrators were in prison.

Now I lie awake at night wondering what's going to happen when I'm not around to support him. Those darn peas in the mattress. Great story JS.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

@ John Stone:

Platitudes and an ad hominem attack on Dorit Reiss. Golly gee, who would have thought you capable of such? Well, I for one. And, if you didn't catch it, I've written an article about you that was just posted.

"John Stone and the 'Best of Age of Autism': Just Plain Wrong About Everything" at:

And just in case you also missed it, at the top of Every Child By Two's page Expert Commentaries and just after the introduction to my article on Shot of Prevention it states:

"The opinions in these articles reflect the views of the authors who are not employees of Every Child By Two and do not necessarily reflect the views of Every Child By Two."

I have NEVER worked for a pharmaceutical company, nor the CDC or FDA and I contacted Every Child By Two and offered to write articles of my choice. I buy the books, I drive to the university library, I pay to photocopy articles I can't find online and have not received even a cup of coffee and don't expect to. If they didn't post my articles I have other contacts who would post them on their blogs. I do NOT work for Every Child By Two. I am an old man writing articles from my home. I also wrote an article about President Trump's immigration policy which was published by a local online magazine. If interested, you can find it:

READER’S EDITORIAL: TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION BAN FROM 7 MUSLIM NATIONS SHOWS IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE AND POTENTIAL DEATH KNELL FOR AMERICAN COMPASSION at:’s-editorial-trump’s-immigration-ban-7-muslim-nations-shows-irrational-prejudice-and-potential

Even when I was working, I wasn't much for socializing, after work went to gym, then home for dinner, then read on diverse subjects or went to seminars. One of the topics I have read dozens of books on and hundreds of articles is the Middle East, much more than you have demonstrated you have read on vaccines.

So why do I do it? Because I have devoted my life to science and especially public health and preventive medicine. I have seen a couple of Mozart Operas and even had a music appreciation course in Junior High School, one semester when I was 11 years old. I wouldn't presume to expertise on the subject; but you, without any background in science, immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, biostatistics, think that you understand things better than I and my colleagues. And you claim you understand because of "careful" reading. But you only read one or, perhaps, a couple of articles. It would be like a legal trial where one side presented one or two witness and the other side was not allowed to cross-examine and present their own witnesses. But, of course, you would decide in advance that the other side were all liars, so why let them be heard.

I have throughout my life encouraged family and friends to vaccinate their children and I have had every vaccine available, even yellow fever, and other vaccines not given for Americans if they state in US when I worked in the far East. I gained nothing from my advice except the satisfaction of knowing that I had done the right thing.

You wrote in a previous article's comments that you didn't post my articles because they were irrelevant. So, when Laura Hayes, in an article, claims there has not been a single double-blinded randomized clinical trial of vaccines and I submit a comment giving, as an example, the polio vaccine trial of 1954-55 with almost 800,000 kids double-blinded and randomized, how is that irrelevant. Obviously, you don't want your readers to know the truth.

You probably won't post this; but if you truly believe in science and open dialogue then you should encourage your readers to read my recent article.

Gary Ogden

When we were children many decades ago, we understood such things very well. Something happened in the passage to adulthood which caused far too many of us to lose interest in, and the ability to question what we are told. On the other hand, just about everybody I talk to these days has lost trust in our institutions, so there is hope.

Angus Files

replace the mattresses' and eiderdown duvets with multi dose vaccines and without doubt the multi dose vaccines administrated to the child will prove that vaccines cause autism and your child is indeed human you and your child will probably never sleep naturally again. Pharma for Prison.


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.)