More Autism Parents "Waiting for a Miracle"
Special Education As a Result of Vaccine Inury

The British Establishment In Ethical Collapse Over Vaccine Damage

House of CommonsBy John Stone

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of fraud simply because the claim had been made in a British Medical Journal editorial in January 2011 which had never been retracted (despite overwhelming evidence against it claims).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

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

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

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

Meanwhile Wakefield’s fate serves as a warning to anyone else who might professionally step out of line over vaccines. In this context it is necessary to pose the question in what other field of human activity would this means of controlling public discussion and opinion be considered politically tolerable or enlightened? Vaccines are just industrial products and it is short-circuiting safety systems if there is overwhelming hostility led from top down to reporting and investigating their adverse effects. Governments have too much invested in the reputation of program and presently they do not incorporate the appropriate checks and balances to investigate themselves. Whatever monitoring of programme takes place comes from the same agencies that license and promote the products.

Following the original set of allegations were launched against Wakefield  in February 2004 politically charged prejudicial statements were made to the media by both Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair [4,5].

There is much evidence that the Wakefield paper should have been restored and the editorial by Godlee et al (along with the investigative reports by Brian Deer, which it accompanied it) should have likewise been retracted. It is troubling Postnote544 should revert to the situation in January 2011 when the position unravelled in the months that followed. Dr Godlee made concessions that the author of the BMJ report, journalist Brian Deer, was working from different data to that available to the study authors [6] and that the journal ought to have acknowledged it business association with MMR manufacturers Merck and GSK [7]. Matters came to a head in November 2011 when Dr David Lewis – in a lengthy submission which the BMJ published in part - produced print outs of the biopsy slides confirming the paper’s findings, and serious concessions by Godlee and Deer were made in a news report in Nature [8, 9]. A letter was published in the BMJ from senior histopathologist from the paper, Dr Amar Dhillon [10], standing by the results making it clear that the biopsy results were determined independently of Dr Wakefield (and his colleague Dr Susan Davies [11] had already written to journal repudiating Deer’s account the preceding year). In the absence of further evidence supporting the BMJ account it was perhaps more than time their allegations were retracted. However, their case became even problematic in March 2012 when the High Court fully exonerated the senior author of the Wakefield paper (and senior clinician), Prof Walker-Smith. Since Prof Walker-Smith had as much responsibility for reporting in the paper as Wakefield, and was responsible for compiling the medical histories in 11 out of 12 cases there could be no question of Wakefield tampering with evidence [12]. The final nail came later that year when University College London refused to conduct an inquiry into the affair for lack of evidence [13].

In the United Kingdom there is overwhelming institutional bias against recognising vaccine damage. In 2007, after the tragic death of Sally Clark (wrongfully found guilty of the murder of her children 1999) Neville Hodgkinson reported in the Spectator [14]:

An examination of related legal and other correspondence has now made clear the reason for this extraordinary omission. It is that child health experts, following public loss of confidence in vaccination when the risks of brain damage were first publicised, were trying to maintain a united front in preventing further debate. Even paediatricians who gave testimony on Mrs Clark's behalf told defence lawyers that if vaccination were mentioned as a possible cause of Harry's death, they would dispute it. Not wanting to confuse the jury, and with judges having a history of bowing to dominant medical opinion, the defence decided to stay silent on the issue.

Yet the reality is that product inserts and data sheets acknowledge the possibility of serious injury. On the other hand any doctor giving testimony about such a matter (which would be perfectly acceptable, for example, in a United States court) would likely face retribution at the General Medical Council. The Wakefield paper poses an existential question about the way the vaccine programme is run in the United Kingdom which is, what would happen if doctors started, or in practice were allowed, to even consider the possibility of vaccine damage? This is also implicit in POSTnote 544: the fact that the Wakefield paper had challenged policy.

The result is that we have a system which is not entirely honest about risk and which places the control of infectious disease way above the potential for harm (for instance neurological) from an expanding vaccine schedule. A serious problem with this is that the better the system becomes at suppressing the harms of vaccines the harder it is to actually know what is going on. Spontaneous reporting is not a good way of assessing levels of damage, and even less so if any attempt to do so is likely to be met with extreme institutional and social hostility. But quite apart from the atrocious injustice to those that are hurt there may be an ever increasing burden to society.

In this regard the Department of Health have neglected to collect autism figures for children since the middle of the last decade while the figures for schools – available from the Department of Education – continue to rise year on year (the rate being easy to calculate from published data by dividing the number of children in school by the number with an ASD diagnosis). These figures only give a rough idea and are an underestimate of the rise because (a) they are based on a 15 year cohort – which with a continuously rising trend means that autism is likely to be much more prevalent at the younger end of the group – and (b) not all cases will have yet been diagnosed (the Baron-Cohen paper having indicated this might happen on a 2:3 basis). Bearing this in mind we may not be far off population catastrophe. In England, as of January 2016 there was a figure of 1 in 71, while in Scotland in September 2016 it was 1 in 51, but with younger children we may easily be dealing with double that rate or beyond, and again for boys the rate is far higher. If, conservatively, the rate among younger children was 1 in 30 in Scotland, this would mean as many as 1 in 19 boys.

In 2009 a DH/National Statistics survey conducted by Prof Brugha and colleagues declared that there was an adult autism rate in line with that discovered in children c.2004 [15]. However, the methodology was flawed:  a non-standard and untested diagnostic method was used (adapted from ADOS  4) and even then the 19 cases diagnosed required an unexplained weighting method multiplying the figure by 3.8 to arrive at the 1% (i.e. they projected that they had missed 74% of the cases in the original survey, but no evidence was presented for this). The 1% figure was then used at an NHS press conference to the media as evidence that MMR was safe.  For example, a report by Guardian science correspondent Sarah Boseley was entitled “Autism just as common in adults, so MMR is off the hook” [16].  Whatever their case the 1% has now been left miles behind by what is now happening in schools.

 Presently, in reports from Scotland [17] and Northern Ireland [18], we are hearing about the insufficiency and breakdown in services, but we are not being told that the likely reason is unprecedented demand . Patently, it is also not the services creating demands they cannot cope with, and nor is it only autism – ADHD seems much on the rise as well. While we have a lot of policy emphasis on threats from infectious disease the rise in neurological impairment is barely being reported on at all and its causes are not being investigated. Troublingly, the Department of Health has not repeated the Childhood Mental Health Surveys of 1999 and 2004 [19, 20] which would expose this desperate and unexplained situation, effectively freezing the childhood figure at the 1% figure it was last recorded at 13 years ago. Indeed, the two published surveys  of 1999  and 2004 had already indicated a five-fold recorded increase in autism in children born between the two periods 1984-8 and 1994-9.  MMR was introduced just at the end of the first period, an accelerated DPT schedule in 1990 and HiB in 1992 in between.  If the rate of autism is possibly three times higher among younger children now than in 2004 we should perhaps also at least consider how far the vaccine schedule has expanded in the intervening years for a child entering school:

8 weeks: 5-in-1 vaccine: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b, 13 Strain Pneumococcal, Rotavirus, Men B

12 weeks: 5-in-1 vaccine, Rotavirus vaccine

16 weeks: 5-in-1 vaccine, 13 Strain Pneumococcal, Men B

One year: Hib/Men C vaccine, MMR, 13 Strain Pneumococcal, Men B  

2-7 years (including children in school years 1, 2 and 3)

Children's flu vaccine (annual)

3 years and 4 months: MMR, 4-in-1 pre-school booster: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio

Irrespective of the reasons for not updating the survey this represents a distortion of policy and institutional negligence.

Insufficient attention has been paid to the viability of the expanding schedule. A 2015 publication by United Kingdom vaccine programme veteran, Prof Elizabeth Miller referred in defence of the expanding schedule to “strong arguments against the immune overload hypothesis” [21]. The “immune overload hypothesis” may itself be a straw man but the reference as far as one can tell is to a 2002 paper by Offit et al repeatedly cited by British health officials since its publication[22,23,24,25], justifying multivalent vaccines and the expanding schedule. Offit argued a hypothesis of spare capacity, notoriously suggesting that an infant could tolerate at least 10,000 vaccines in one go based on the number of antigens. But apart from anything else the number of antigens is only a single element in what would make a vaccine effective. In most cases, for example – MMR is an exception – vaccines include adjuvants which amplify the effects of the antigens.  This problem is currently highlighted in a complaint by Nordic Cochrane about HPV vaccines: it is noted that the vaccines were not trialled against genuine placebo, but vaccines containing aluminium adjuvants, the effects of which have not been sufficiently studied [26].

Clearly vaccines insofar as they work do so by creating inflammation,  are most often delivered by injection in a single instant and this again is different from Offit’s point of comparison which is casual daily exposure to antigens through food or dust [27]. It is evident that most/all vaccine package inserts acknowledge the potential for serious harm in rare instances, but we may have relatively little idea of how often without active long term monitoring. Again vaccines may have routinely unpleasant immediate effects: 6 in 100 toddlers receiving MMR according to one study had a temperature of 39.5C or above but there was no follow up after a month [28]. According to the FDA information sheet for for Bexsero Men B vaccine, now given to UK infants, 10-25 year-olds had  “serious adverse events” in above 1 in 50 cases [29]. These are anything but the subliminal effects which would seem to be implied by the Offit model. There does not seem to be any core, substantial science to the belief that the schedule can go on expanding without significant harm – Age of Autism has not seen any cited. Over such a serious matter for our children we need much more than the “strong arguments” suggested by Prof Miller: in fact “strong arguments” falls well short of being evidence at all.

In the case of autism US health officials have occasionally obliquely acknowledged causation by vaccine. In 2008, Julie Gerberding, Director of the Centers of Disease Control told CNN [30]:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism…

And health officials disclosed on separate occasions to journalists Sharyl Attkisson and David Kirby [31,32]:

The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Amid the Wakefield furore in 2005 the main text (in contradistinction to “the plain language summary”) of the Cochrane report on MMR safety was anything but reassuring: the “design and reporting” in MMR safety studies was “largely inadequate”. None of the six autism related studies was rated as being at “low risk of bias”, and there were serious design faults in all.  Pertinent questions might be “why?” and “why is this acceptable?”  In the case of the DeStefano (2004) study which was later to become the subject of Wakefield’s film  VaXxed Cochrane presciently warned [33, 34]:

The conclusion, however, implied bias in the enrollment of cases which may not be representative of the rest of the autistic population of the city of Atlanta, USA where the study was set.

Indeed, one of the main authors, Dr William Thompson, attempted to blow the whistle on the paper in 2014 in a statement through lawyers [35]:

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

Vaccines are a very tempting answer to the problem of infectious disease but it may be even easier than with many policies for politicians to ignore the downside of policy and leave it to the professionals. The book Don’t Tell the Patient by a former senior Department of Health official and founder of the yellow card scheme, Dr Bill Inman, reported how very few of the severe injuries from the old DPT vaccine ever got recorded. He states that from his data analysis it was at least ten times higher than the 1 in 300,000 that the Department of Health “was clinging to”. He noted [36]:

Children who had developed a temperature or had screamed repeatedly or had muscular spasms or convulsions after the first injection, had sometimes been given further doses of the vaccine with catastrophic results.

Another former Department of Health official told me that he had been to consult Sir Richard Doll who told him that the only way to assess the real level of damage in the population would be to actively monitor all the vaccinated for adverse events and sequelae, and this was not done. A study published this year showed that introduction of the vaccine in Guinea-Bissau in 1981 was associated with 5 times higher mortality rate in infants [37]. It has proved terribly easy to sweep such things under the rug.

In 2009 the government slipped on to the statute book a law requiring the Secretary of State for Health to follow the advice of the JCVI [38]. In 2014 the JCVI under the chairmanship of Prof Andrew Pollard recommended to the infant schedule the Men B vaccine Bexsero [39], a controversial vaccine [29,40,41,42] of which he himself was the lead developer [43]. The Cochrane complaint about the EMA also names Prof Pollard [44]:

There were no restrictions for the chair of the meeting, Andrew Pollard, although he had declared several conflicts of interest in relation to the HPV vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur MSD until 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Whether or not Prof Pollard’s name appears on contracts he remains Director of Oxford Vaccine Group [43] which develops vaccines. It may be time for politicians to take an interest in such matters again.


[1]POSTnote 544

[2] Oliver Moody, Disgraced MMR fraud doctor is back in Britain

[3]Oliver Moody, Web giants profit from anti-vaccne fraud’s video

[4] James Meikle, Claim that MMR work mixed science and spin, Guardian 24 February 2004.

[5] BBC NEWS, Top doctor wades into MMR debate,

[6] Fiona Godlee, BMJ response to emails from Age of Autism Readers,

[7] Fiona Godlee, Response to John Stone,

[8] Eugenie Samuel Reich, Fresh Dispute Over “MMR Fraud”,

[9] David L Lewis PhD, Apparent Egregious Ethical Misconduct by British Medical Journal, Brian Deer,

[10] Amar P Dhillon, Re: Pathology results solve new bowel disease riddle, 9 November 2011

[11] Susan E Davies, Caution in assessing histopathological opinions, 15 April 2010,

[12] England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions, Mr Justice Mitting between Prof John walker-Smith and the General Medical Council,

[13] Zosia Kmietowicz, University College London issues new research standards but says it won’t investigate Wakefield, 14 September 2012

[14] Neville Hodgkinson, What Killed Sally Clark’s Child, Spectator 16 May 2007,

[15] Brugha et al, Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Adults Living in Houses Throughout England, 2009,

[16]   Sarah Boseley, Autism just as common in adults, so MMR jab is off the hook, 22 September 2009,

[17] Helen McArdle, Call for investigation as 20 young Scots a day rejected for mental health care, 20 December 2016

[18] Brett Campbell, Autism assessment waiting lists now at crisis level, says MLA , Belfast Telegraph, 22 December 2016,

[19] The Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in Great Britain (1999 Department of Health/National Statistics). Table 4.1 (autism cases recorded under the heading PDD)

[20] Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004 (National Statistics). Table 4.1,

[21] Miller E, Controversies and challenges of vaccination: an interview with Elizabeth Miller,  Footnote 3, 

[22] Offit PA et al, Addressing parents’ concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant's immune system? PEDIATRICS 2002; 109:124–9. doi: 10.1542/peds.109.1.124

[23] MMRtheFacts, MMR Information sheet 2,

[24]  John Stone, Irresponsible claims about vaccine safety? Questions for Sir Liam Donaldson and Prof Lewis Wolpert, 3 July 2004,

[25] John Stone, What David Salisbury said, and the DOH's position on multiple vaccine safety, 20 September 2004

[26] Gøtzsche et al, Complaint to the European ombudsman over maladministration at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in relation to the safety of the HPV vaccine, p.5 (18), p.27  (C9),

[27] Paul Offit, Are vaccines safe?, 2008 video lecture at 28 minutes

[28] LeBaron et al, Evaluation of Potentially Common Adverse Events Associated With the First and Second Doses of Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine, PEDIATRICS,

[29] FDA information sheet p.7,

[30] Transcript CNN, House Call with Dr Sanjay Gupta, 29 March 2008,

[31] Sharyl Attkisson, Vaccines, Autism and Brain Damage: What's in a Name?, CBS News, 14 September 2010,

[32] Robert F Kennedy Jr and David Kirby, Huffington Post, 27 March 2009,

[33] Demicheli et al, Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children, Cochrane Wiley 2005

[34] John Stone, Re: Evidence is not bullying, 18 September 2009,

[35] Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism, 27 August 2014

[36] Bill Inman, ‘Don’t Tell the Patient: Behind The  Drug Safety Net’ pp.134-5, Highland Park Productions 1999.

[37] Mogensen et al, The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment  

[38] Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009

[39] JCVI minutes February 2014

[40] Flyer for GSK Evening of Evidence formerly available here,  Reproduced here:

[41] Consult by Univadis, Bexsero section 5.1

[42] Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Australia),


[44] Gøtzsche et al, Complaint to the European ombudsman over maladministration at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in relation to the safety of the HPV vaccine, p.48-9



It is difficult for us peons to understand these laws, but they got it all sewed up. I looked at if for 26 years, thinking I let my son down and I just needed to try harder.

You can opt out of the vaccine compensation court and sue the pants off the pharma companies - or more likely spend the pants off yourself trying.

But before you can do that -- before; way before you can sue -- your case has to be accepted by the vaccine court. Accepted; is an impossible hurtle for peons which is what us middle Americans are. .


There seems so much to cover up that damaging children from childhood vaccines while adding on new unnecessary vaccines seems really just crumbs.

Small to most, except for us crumbs and us growing number of crumbs.

John Stone


Well, we are somewhat off topic, but I cannot see where it says this. It seems to address the issue that the industry might not be covered by the VICP in the event of emergency products being rushed to the market.


It is often stated that big US pharma have no vaccine liability. This site says that patients can opt out of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and sue pharma directly.


Hello visitor ,please try immunisation against infectious disease-GOV.UK and let me know if you find it ok . I would be very interested to find out what other people think of this document . After reading it for the first time yesterday, I was shocked, angry, and deeply disgusted with the contents.
Flu vaccination for healthcare workers at NHS Education for Scotland Public Health Looks like and sounds like a watered down version of the green book with role play video presentation . One for watching " the little ones do, as the little ones see "
The green book Chapter 2 states there is no legal requirement for consent to immunisation to be in writing ? The whole area of consent let alone informed consent needs thrashed out from top to bottom fluffy consent is not acceptible for any medical procedure especially with dangerous Doctors being a danger to society the danger being when some have an identified training deficiency of never being taught how to leave their personal opinions in their organisational carpark
before they start their shift work .
With mandated vaccinations being on the agenda for some consent is now an urgent area of scrutiny . especially when it is leading on to the area of treatment options including Euthanasia and assisted suicide Raphael Cohen-Almagor You tube lessons from Belgium
Thank goodness for wise professors and Professor Raphael Cohen -Almagor is definately a wise one !
Thanks for mentioning the book by Lawerence Broxmeyer M.D sounds like a very interesting book "another for the list" If there was two cases of measles there would be a big panic but there is an akward silence around cases of current TB Cases ?
Thoracoplasty- Jings, my Aunty Morag was the second woman to undergo that brutal surgey and survive it at Mearnskirk Hospital Glasgow in 1945 We know a lot about TB in Scotland
hope to hear people's responses to The Green Book . The contents affect us all
Vaccine mandates are not getting accepted not now not ever!

John Stone


I am sure that the other side are panicked by the truth even if there are not too many people stating it - and this is a major cause of the current insanity. But I am also sure mistaken opportunism on the part of Theresa May was the cause of the British General Election of June 2017.

Grace Green

John, "the committee only dissolved because there was a general election". But why was there a general election? Never underestimate the lengths they are willing to go to, to cover this up. I can tell you, we've seen many examples of laws being changed so that they could avoid a confrontation over our case, going back many years. The excellent letters like the above which you've been writing may be having an effect behind the scenes. Now is the time for us all to push forward, even if just by continuing to say No.

John Stone


No, it is not about science it is about social control and repression. Here, for example is Seth Berkley, CEO of calling for dissenting voices aka "anti-vaxxers" to be excluded from social media, synchronised ahead of the non-debate in the UK about compulsory vaccines and the Guardian blaming the need for compulsory vaccination on "anti-vaxxers".

It would be hard to view these initiatives with greater intellectual scorn. No doubt one should always avoid the Hitler comparison but it gets to be like the Nazis blaming the Jews for the atrocities they have committed against them. But in 2017 you can get to read this junk, without irony, in the Spectator and the Guardian. It would be comical if it was not so sinister.

Elizabeth Hart

John, re your statement: "Meanwhile Wakefield’s fate serves as a warning to anyone else who might professionally step out of line over vaccines. In this context it is necessary to pose the question in what other field of human activity would this means of controlling public discussion and opinion be considered politically tolerable or enlightened?"

In regards to "controlling public discussion", in Australia coercive vaccination lobbyists have worked to censor public debate about vaccination policy and practice.

See for example this poster titled: "We don't do false balance." How SAVN contributed to a change in vaccination reporting:'t_do_false_balance_How_SAVN_contributed_to_a_change_in_vaccination_reporting

This poster was presented at the 15th Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) National Immunisation Conference in June 2016. This conference was sponsored by GSK, Pfizer Vaccines, Sanofi Pasteur, Sequirus A CSL Company and the Australian Government Department of Health.

As I know from personal experience, SAVN's modus operandi is to label anyone questioning vaccination policy and practice as 'anti-vaccination', and in so doing marginalise them and bar them from debate.

Individuals associated with this group are also 'moderators' on the research sector/industry and government-funded The Conversation website, which has banned me from participating in discussion on that website, which often publishes articles relevant to vaccination policy and practice.

In Australia it is extremely difficult to raise legitimate questions about vaccination policy and practice. Government-mandated vaccination policies to access financial benefits, and childcare and pre-school, are being rammed through here, with the Australian Government's conflicted vaccination bureaucracy and politicians simply ignoring citizens' concerns on this matter.

The mainstream media, including the taxpayer funded ABC and SBS, is completely biased, and failing to provide critical analysis of individual vaccine products and revaccinations and vaccination policy.

The situation is dire here...

Jeannette Bishop

I heard Kent Heckenlively mention he has set up a petition for the Whitehouse. I think this is probably the link:

George stevens

Vaxism is reporting Roger stone is claiming Trump wants to put a 5 year moratorium on all mandatory vaccines. Stone has a direct line to the president i would take him seriously. Supposed to be a petition to sign.

John Stone


Unfortunately, the committee only dissolved because there was a General Election, and another one has to be formed in the new parliament.


Very interesting & well written.
Thank-you !!!
I have three children fully vaccinated & my eldest daughter had a serious reaction to the HPV Gardasil Vaccine ( cervical cancer) I was absolutely horrified what I find out afterwards. I had way too much trust in the Health System. Parents deserve to be fully informed. Now my daughter continues to suffer & in pain 3.5 years later. Please research get fully informed

Jeannette Bishop

Additionally--I need to be hopeful today particularly, so--I'l just assume the committee dissolved partly due to awareness from this submission of what they might or might not be about.

Jeannette Bishop

An inquiry into research integrity that won't actually research the integrity of the research of particular concern and claims made about it? Does the mere existence of the inquiry fulfill any function?


Excellent article John - it is hard not to feel totally disempowered when such evidence is put forward but can be ignored. Yes it is almost comical how Wakefield has been cast as Lord Voldemort (who may one day turn into a Prince) as truth has a habit of pushing forward and pendulum always swings when dark and persistent lies are held for such a long long time. I hope I am alive to see the day when that light and truth comes to the forefront and to see the embarrassment of those who have locked this truth and light away for so long. It will come - I suspect with new technology that will be able to detect vaccine damage in the body and/or damaging infiltrates in vaccines. Also more whistleblowers may come forth as a result of their own children being damaged. It will happen because I feel the way the schedule is going is going to push the whole thing over a precipice where greed and corruption gets a horrible awakening. Thanks John for being such an excellent part of bringing in that light and truth.

John Stone


That's interesting. There is presently no committee. Unfortunately, there is a new chairman - Norman Lamb - who as shadow Lib-Dem Secretary for Health c.2009 sponsored a motion in the House of Commons censuring a radio journalist, Jeni Barnett, for criticising the totalitarian behaviour of the vaccine lobby over MMR. As a Liberal-Democrat you might think he believed in funny old ideas like freedom of speech. He may be the man to write to or he may not.

I am trying to work out who might be worth writing to.




Did you speak of TB due to things discussed in this article?

I can't reach the Green Book via your link, so it may be in scope.

Margaret J. Jaeger

How many people with affected sons and daughters would you like to write or email the person in charge of that unblessed committee with personal testimonies and/or physicians verifications?...also, here in the USA, regarding complaints or charges about vaccine harm, testimony may not always be allowed in court cases. It seems the vaccine co-operative is always there and quashes presentations of testimonies as a sort of gossip,,even from first hand experience of parents.

Now Australia is imposing obligatory vaccines or nonchild admitted to school without them. We have similar ploys from local school districts too. They may all fail to mention that there are still some legal consents for not vaccinating in most states or that those who don't vaccinate, will be sent home whenever there's a case of some disease in the school....tho with so ,anybothers, seemingly, already vaccinated, and immune, could spread disease is also an amazing claim.....

John Stone


Yes, I blame the politicians very much - they want magical policy solutions. The don't want to be told the policy isn't safe, they don't want be told anything bad about it at all. And they are intimidated now.

But it is a poor show.


John Stone


Unfortunately the BMJ were able to crawl away from a libel suit in 2014 claiming that the Texas Court did not have jurisdiction. It was an inglorious moment for them but it is probably not possible to re-instate an action, which usually has to be begun within a year of the event, either side of the pond.


Angus  Files

Yep you can just see the how dare you stare,coming back from any politician if you brought that to them.
If any politician steps out of the globalization of planet earth they are burnt toast.

The article exposes all the cowards too scared to defend children in my book that makes them as bad as the makers and shakers of vaccine poison policy.

Pharma for Prison


David Weiner

It really is a tragedy that the BMJ (and many others) can get away with their incessant references to Wakefield's fraud.

The BMJ should be sued for libel and for a huge sum. Not to clear Wakefield's name. He knows that he has done nothing wrong and in time everyone will also recognize this.

But it should be done for the sake of our movement, because we cannot tolerate this albatross. It exacts too high a cost.

And we could make good use of the settlement too.

A Fisher

thank you

- this all sounds like a rerun of how the tobacco industry dealt with lung cancer for decades -

“Everyone knew but no one had proof”: tobacco industry use of medical history expertise in US courts, 1990–2002

the way Dr Wakefield has been treated mirrors the 'mouse house massacre' (ref 21 in above paper)

and the manner in which the vaccine media is controlled to protect industry is another case study in agnotology - keep the general public in ignorance at all costs - (which is why your work to call the establishment out on the detail is quite excellent)


More appreciated hard work to be grateful for thanks John.
The Green Book can be accessed at https/ -infectious-disease-the green- book.
Chapter 8 and 9 cover deciding whether to report a suspected adverse reaction to vaccination ?
States to be left up to individual clinical judgement whether suspected adverse reaction should be reported or not?
Action following evidence about vaccine safety THE JCVI MAY ?! GIVE RECCOMENDATIONS FOR ACTION . "Not even should, or must." Then these will take into account an assessment of the balance of benefits of vaccination verses the risk .
A scripted atrocity of state sponsored intentional negligence in action they will not get away with playing the three monkey card with this atrocity ie hear speak and see no evil .
Flu vaccination for health care workers
An educational film available at NHS Education for Scotland Quality Education for a Healthier Scotland Their vaccine risk assessments have got their knees firmly locked on the rockface which means they ain't going up down or sideways their stooshied and will need resque
Atotal of 315 cases of infectious tuberculosis were reported in Scotland in 2015
In 2012 282 people died from TB yet it remains a silent scourge for some reason ?
vaccine safety and risk assessments are not fit for purpose They are getting the same amount of trust confidence and respect of no more no less than somthing I would want to scrape of the bottom of the sole of my shoe from someone too lazy to bag it and bin it .

Tom Petrie

Much thanks to you John for that brilliantly written article/submission! It seems that the "Elite" have learned many lessons in their promotion of things that--years later--have been proven to be failures. Just repeat over and over and over certain "facts," and they can't ever be questioned. History has many examples and they include fluoridation ("safe and effective"), nuclear power and so many other things that we're supposed to accept as truthful concepts or ideas.

Having been studing the fluoride issue since I attended my first lecture way back in 1978, I learned that refuting nonsense is not difficult. IF you've studied your topic, you can speak the truth on it. The difficulty with the vaccine question is like that of any other controversy. The "controversy" is not the problem, the problem is that folks that have the wrong ideas are too reticent to admit that they might be wrong and consequently, won't even look at evidence, however well it might be presented.

Back in June of 1961, John F. Kennedy addressed the Yale Graduating class and stated: “As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our time we must move on from reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality.
For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth: persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forbears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

John wrote a powerful submission to this British panel. The question is will those reading it actually have the courage to actually read it AND act upon it. The other question is will the mainstream media actually publish this in their newspapers or magazines?

Jenny Allan

Thank you John - a powerful submission. Hopefully a seed of doubt will penetrate the skulls of a few of the ostriches in the UK Government.

bob moffit

John .. truly POWERFUL presentation .. indeed .. a public INDICTMENT .. of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Research Integrity .. acting under the pretense of "controlling disease" .. deliberately disallows the "rules of research integrity or public discussion" of vaccine science.

Your presentation is overwhelming regarding the UNWARRANTED savage attack that was unleashed upon Dr Andrew Wakefield .. continuing to this very day .. as a WARNING to anyone who dares challenge the POWERS THAT BE .. regarding THEIR faux "vaccine science".

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.)