First They Came For Alex Jones
The Slow Moving Catastrophe of Behavior, Learning and Mental Health Problems in Kids

British Medical Journal Fails On “First Do No Harm” Over HPV Vaccines

image from encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comby  John Stone

"If the contents of either of the papers became widely known it would surely have sounded the global death knell for the products and also called twelve years of government policy into question. When balancing the welfare of British children against the interests of industry and state it seems in the end the children barely weighed."

Serious ethical questions arise over the role of British Medical Journal and the promotion of Human Papillomavirus vaccines. Back in May BMJ published a news report of the Cochrane Review of HPV vaccines by former London Times journalist Nigel Hawkes “HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds”. It has come to light in the blog of Prof David Healy (author Pharmageddon and Let Them Eat Prozac ) that the BMJ knew the reasons for this confidence were at best extremely controversial, and that the journal itself had turned down an earlier paper by members of Nordic Cochrane (including leading scientists Peter Gøtzsche and Tom Jefferson) highlighting major flaws in the science surrounding the products. Healy states:

“ Some months back, the Nordic Cochrane Center, one of the centres in the Cochrane Collaboration, sent a review of studies done on the HPV vaccine to the BMJ.  Much to their surprise, BMJ turned down this article which contained all studies done on HPV and a serious attempt to flag up the limitations of the trials and accordingly the limitations of what we could confidently say.”

This paper is still unpublished but two weeks ago BMJ Evidenced Based Medicine published a second paper by the Nordic Cochrane group, Lars Jørgensen, Peter Gøtzsche and Tom Jefferson attacking the foundations of the Cochrane Review, as reported on Age of Autism last week and now available in full from Prof Healy’s site. Despite the BMJ Group publication the main journal chose not to publicise this extraordinarily newsworthy event. (It might be said that news is not what it was and this is one of the most blatant suppressions of  the news in modern medicine - the "Fake" comes in not reporting.)

While there is no doubt that the BMJ Group is commercially conflicted, not only accepting advertising from all the manufacturers – GSK, Merck and Sanofi - but also being in historic partnership with Merck, perhaps the real reasons are even more disturbing and relate BMJ’s peculiar relationship as the journal of the British Medical Association (the doctors’ trade union) with the British medical profession. If the contents of either of the papers became widely known it would surely have sounded the global death knell for the products and also called twelve years of government policy into question. When balancing the welfare of British children against the interests of industry and state it seems in the end the children barely weighed.

Last week the present writer tried to challenge a senior BMA member - Dr Peter English, Chair of its Public Health Medicines Committee - in the on-line columns of BMJ:

“As a “Public Health Physician” Peter English seems to express a breath-taking disdain for the public, while also apparently eliding any critical view of vaccines at all with being “anti-science”… I wonder what he thinks the public, particularly prospective vaccinees and their families, should be allowed to know about the recent paper by Jørgensen regarding the inadequacies in the trialing of HPV vaccines?”.

Naturally, it was not published.

 PostScript: In a 2008 letter to BMJ regarding HPV vaccine, co-signed by Prof Keith Neal, Peter English discloses:

"Competing interests: Between them the authors have given occasional lectures for, received expenses for professional conferences from, and participated in advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and others."


John Stone is UK and European editor of Age of Autism





From a deposition of Stanley Plotkin, vaccine developer, in a 2018 custody battle between parents:

"Painstakingly, Mr. [Aaron] Siri took Dr. Plotkin through this extraordinary abuse of data. Overall, the Gardasil trial showed that 2.3 percent of the women who received either the vaccine or the combined aluminum/saline developed a systemic autoimmune condition within six months. Mr. Siri explained to Dr. Plotkin, and got him to confirm, that the saline group, had it been reported separately, actually had an adverse event rate of zero. 'And then if we had a third column that was just the saline placebo, it would show 0 percent? Wouldn’t that have been a significant finding to report?' Dr. Plotkin had no real answer: 'I don’t—you’d have to ask a statistician.'

It’s a remarkable exchange. Mr. Siri had just highlighted an extreme abuse of trust and data manipulation by Merck, Dr. Plotkin’s primary benefactor."

from How to End the Autism Epidemic by JB Handley

Jenny Allan

Eindeker- I don't think the people here really need a lecture on how to read a scientific paper. These days science is the new propaganda. The devil as they say is in the detail and how this is interpreted and more importantly how this is PRESENTED to the public. Below I linked to the article in the Scottish Mail. Headline "HPV vaccination linked to `dramatic´ fall in cervical disease" - Our Scottish Health High Heid Yins are very keen on vaccines. The English version was a 3 inch column with the headline:- "HPV vaccine has slashed the rate of Cervical Disease". Both articles were sourced from the same press release to the press association. I don't want to bore the pants off everyone here with a minute analysis of the paper, but it DOES NOT claim the introduction of the HPV vaccine for 12-13 year old girls a decade ago has slashed the rates of cervical lesions in young women. Quote:-"Conclusion We have presented linked data, from a population with high vaccine uptake and a comprehensive catch-up programme, which show routine immunisation with three doses of bivalent vaccine at age 12-13 years is associated with a profound reduction of cervical disease seven years later." As yes -'associated with' That means a hypothesis only, not quite the dramatic implication in the headlines. I was more interested in the graphical representations in Figures 2 and 3. These show clearly a convergence in both vaccinated and unvaccinated young women for the year when the HPV vaccination programme commenced. The graph does show a divergence for birth years 1990 -1994, but the HPV vaccination programme for 12-13 year old girls did not start until 2008 in Scotland. These women were vaccinated, presumably at their request, at a later age. These women were statistically a very small percentage of the total numbers involved in the study. The convergence which demonstrated a near identical reduction in lesions in both unvaccinated and vaccinated women was put down to the vaccine causing 'herd immunity' in unvaccinated women. ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS. Since boys, who make up 50% of the herd are not due to be included in the HPV vaccine programme until later this year. We are all agreed cervical lesions in women appear to be reducing since the roll out of the vaccine, but this process was going on before the HPV vaccine was introduced and could be due to better education about safer sex. After all, cervical cancer was always an 'occupational hazard' of prostitutes but nuns never got it! Incidentally, John is correct. There has been an INCREASE in cervical cancer in the age group 25-35. These women have been urged to take up the offer of pap smears.

Hans Litten

For Eindecker : (all these quotes apply to vaccination truth and discovery)

Progress in science depends on new techniques, new discoveries and new ideas, probably in that order. Sydney Brenner RIP

Innovation comes only from an assault on the unknown.
Sydney Brenner

I think one of the things about creativity is not to be afraid of saying the wrong thing.
Sydney Brenner

Sydney Brenner, (born January 13, 1927, Germiston, South Africa), South-African born biologist who, with John E. Sulston and H. Robert Horvitz, won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for their discoveries about how genes regulate tissue and organ development via a key mechanism called programmed cell death, or apoptosis.

Hans Litten

For Einey : Another nail in the "John Coffin" of the Gardakil-HCG vaccine !

Here’s another great quote from Dr. Nicole Delepine, a surgeon and Oncologist from France.

It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn’t, took only a few hours … This Titanic demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.

Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid, if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it’s the case for HPV vaccines. (source)

Hans Litten

Posted by: Eindeker | April 04, 2019 at 03:59 PM

I thought with the Internet lockdown, you had been made redundant !
Where have you been all this time - You have been missed.

Still defending the Gardakil-HCG vaccine are you ?
Don't you ever worry about the high stakes game that you are playing (if the truth ever comes out) ?
Mass sterilisations is the high stakes game - in case you try to play dumb.

Beleaguered Autism Mom

Eindecker, The chances that early-stage cervical cancer can be cured are good in most cases. The survival rates for women with early-stage cervical cancer who have standard treatment are excellent. In the earliest stages (stage IA) at five years after diagnosis, approximately 95 percent of women are alive. However, according to VAERS data, there have been 430 deaths following the HPV vaccination. How many young women have to die from vaccination for you to notice that the vaccine is ending more lives than saving? The number of young women disabled by the vaccine is even higher. It doesn't matter how many reports claim a reduction in "abnormal cells that MAY become cancer," the family and friends of these young women know what killed them.
Are you even concerned about preventing cervical cancer, because it sounds like you are more concerned about cryotherapy, laser therapy, loop electrosurgical procedure (LEEP), and cone biopsy savings.

John Stone


Actually, when DeLong made a further calculation to include use of contraception the figures became even worse

You continue to show your total indifference to the deliberately sloppy science of the HPV vaccines, and the harm caused. I can promise you I am not indifferent to the diseases that vaccines are supposed to prevent, I am just outraged at the cynicism with which the products are developed.


No it isn’t strange answer at all. In order find benefit you/they focus on meaningless markers OK John there is no point in carrying on the national cervical cancer screening program is there John if these are “meaningless markers” > they are the markers used to screen women to prevent cervical cancer, which is where the data came from!!!

You’re better than this John, the conclusion in the paper you quoted was quite clear “ The substantial increase in stage I cervical cancers in 24 and 25 year old women, corresponds to changes whereby a high proportion of women are now screened for the first time between ages 24.5 and 25.5 yrs”
Susan “ In other words, they do not know. What they do know from these data is that there has been a 90% decrease in women having to undergo further treatment for CIN 3+ histology

“CIN 3 Severely abnormal cells are found on the surface of the cervix. CIN 3 is usually caused by certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) and is found when a cervical biopsy is done. If not treated, these abnormal cells may become cancer and spread to nearby normal tissue. Treatment for CIN 3 may include cryotherapy, laser therapy, loop electrosurgical procedure (LEEP), or cone biopsy to remove or destroy the abnormal tissue. CIN 3 is sometimes called high-grade or severe dysplasia. Also called cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and stage 0 cervical carcinoma in situ.”

This equates to only 6 vaccinated 20 year old women per 10,000 screened needing further treatment, compared to 60 unvaccinated 20 year olds per 10,000 screened.

A possible link between HPV & fertility has been thoroughly investigated and found to not exist
“From a cohort of 199 078 female patients, we identified 120 with diagnoses suggestive of POI. After adjudication and exclusion of 26 POI cases with known causes, we confirmed 46 idiopathic POI cases. POI incidence was low in 11- to 14-year-olds (0.87 per 1 000 000 person-months) and increased with age. One confirmed case patient received the HPV vaccine 23 months before the first clinical evaluation for delayed menarche. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.07–1.36) after HPV”
The DeLong study alleging a link between fertility rates and HPV has been discredited because confounding factors were not considered in her analysis, for example rates of contraceptive use !

Jenny Allan

HPV vaccination linked to `dramatic´ fall in cervical disease
PUBLISHED: 00:03, 4 April 2019 | UPDATED: 04:38, 4 April 2019

I would like to believe this, but the cynical part of me wonders whether this early assessment of HPV vaccine has been produced in an attempt to shore up failing confidence in the vaccine. Sure, the vaccine has reduced the incidence of two strains of HPV, and that's good, but it's far too early to say whether this vaccine will significantly reduce the overall incidence of cervical cancer in women, since it typically develops much later in life.

From above link:-
“These data are consistent with the reduced circulation of high-risk HPV infection in Scotland and confirm that the HPV vaccine should significantly reduce cervical cancer in the next few years.
“Indeed, cervical cancer cases in women aged 20-24 have reduced by 69% since 2012.”

This could also be due to a more responsible 'safe sex' attitude in our young persons, following AIDS and other scares.


PULSE -Supporting GPs since 1960 - April 2019- available to read online . www.pulsetoday
Page 4 Capita to be stripped of cervical screening contract . and Matt Hancok's quest tomodernise the NHS continues a pace .
NHS reviewing thousands of cervical smear tests after Lab failings in UK

It would be just great if retrospective desk top studies could be relied on to be accurate ,but recent cervical screening scandals, side-kicks the stats, desk top, summary conclusions, "Straight in tae the bonnie long heather and the glens of wishful thinking "
Faries and Pixies play in that glen , the glen of, good intentions, and wishful thinking, end up as reliable as the local weather predictions in april ,4 seasons in one day ,is the normal usual !

John Stone


No it isn’t strange answer at all. In order find benefit you/they focus on meaningless markers when cervical cancer rates have dramatically risen in 20-24 year-olds, so reducing pre-cancerous legions does not reduce cancer -oh dear!

Meanwhile, you remain indifferent to the reported harms and shoddy trial practices.


What a strange answer John: “Unfortunately, it does not show that the products prevent cancer,”. The paper shows that results found during routine cervical screening showed a 90% reduction (in vaccinated women) in the CIN 3+ abnormal cell cytology which is associated with a high risk of these women developing cervical cancer without treatment .
High grade CIN showed a significant overall decline (table 2 and fig 2). The rates of CIN grade 3 or worse decreased by 89% (81% to 94%), from a preimmunisation rate of 0.59% (0.48% to 0.71%) in women born in 1988, to 0.06% (0.04% to 0.11%) in women born in 1995-96.

susan welch

They found the vaccine had led to a 90% cut in pre-cancerous cells. "
They are not claiming that the number of cancers has been reduced. They only conjecture that this study means that the vaccine "should greatly reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in the future."
In other words, they do not know.

The above was pointed out today on FB. Eindecker.

As John points out, there is no mention that the 'products were ill tested and associated with harm'

How you can say it is excellent news that the media is promoting propaganda indicating that the product is a success is beyond comprehension. You must know that there have been studies that show it can cause infertility and, also, higher incidence of cervical cancer for those who had previously had HPV. Even if you find some research to counter this, the testimonies of girls and, occasionally, boys who have received lifelong disabilities should, at least, stop you from gloating.

In view of today's propaganda, many parents will assume it is safe and effective, thereby causing heartache for many more young people and their families.

Is more profit for the Pharmaceutical companies the only thing that matters to you?

John Stone


Unfortunately, it does not show that the products prevent cancer, and it does not invalidate earlier research that the products were ill-tested and associated with harm.


Excellent news the HPV vaccine has now been shown to have a dramatic effect in reducing pre-cancerous lesions detected at routine screening
A new study in the British Medical Journal has found a huge drop in the proportions of vaccinated women aged 20 detected at screening with cervical disease – the abnormal cells and lesions that are the precursor of cancer.
The researchers found an 89% drop in the numbers of those with the most severe levels of disease, called cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or CIN. There are three grades of CIN, with the most severe, giving the highest risk of cancer, being CIN3+.
There was an 88% reduction in CIN grade 2 or worse, and a 79% reduction in CIN grade 1.
There was a bigger decline in disease among those vaccinated at the age of 12 or 13 (89%) than in those vaccinated at 17 (51%). The vaccine is known to be more effective in those who have not yet encountered HPV, which is a sexually transmitted infection.
Conclusion from paper:
show routine immunisation with three doses of bivalent vaccine at age 12-13 years is associated with a profound reduction of cervical disease seven years later, measured by cytological and histological abnormalities and referral for colposcopy.

Jeannette Bishop

@susan welch, thank you for the UK Column link.


Thanks John,good article,serious ethical questions getting raised are as serious as it gets!
Nursing and Midwifery Council [NMC] Code of Conduct revised from 2007/08 version .
I am unable to find this version online ? perhaps you can to compare the difference between the two versions side by side ?
2008 version states.
The Code - Standards of conduct,performance and ethics for nurses and midwives .
Revised Code of Conduct 2015 onwards .
The Code - Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives.
To Prioritise People
Practice effectively
Promote professionalism and trust
Would Florence Nightingale be throwing an apoplectic style temper tantrum at the state of the refurbished ,remodled Code of Conduct ,with any reference to ethics being removed and replaced with fondled and fluffy terminology and very subjective looking limits and boundaries of conduct and performance?
Has The General Medical Council [GMC] Code of Conduct been changed in a fudge- a-nudge fashion as well ? I don't know?

susan welch

This issue got 17 minutes on UK Column news today (from approx 6 mins in to 23 minutes) and John Stone and Age of Autism featured quite prominently.

Worth watching.

Hans Litten

Hold on a second (credit : Mr BigOak)

I thought the science was (always) settled !

Particles Found to Travel Faster Than Speed of Light

Neutrino results challenge a cornerstone of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, which itself forms the foundation of modern physics

Hans Litten

An honest politician .....VOTE HER IN

I-Team: Las Vegas councilwoman's vaccine advice creates controversy

Meanwhile Dublin Ireland is on red alert after 11 children catch the measles "infection".....
You know the one, we all had it growing up , next to harmless (unlike vaccination).

The HSE are a complete laughing stock !!!

Elizabeth Hart

Re Jack's reference to "The fact that Lauri Markowitz of the CDC helped plan the protocol is evidence that CDC tainted the process..."

In regards to Lauri Markowitz's involvement in the Cochrane HPV vaccine protocol, on 29 February 2016 I forwarded an email to David Tovey, Editor in Chief and Deputy CEO of Cochrane, saying:

Dr Tovey, I see that Lauri Markowitz of the CDC is one of the authors of Cochrane’s HPV vaccination review, i.e. “To evaluate the immunogenicity, clinical efficacy, and safety of prophylactic HPV vaccines in females.”

I understand from a PubMed search that Markowitz is an author on many papers about HPV vaccination, for example this paper recently published in Pediatrics: Prevalence of HPV After Introduction of the Vaccination Program in the United States:

Markowitz et al’s recently published paper simultaneously received widespread acclaim in the mainstream media, see for example this article in Forbes magazine: HPV Infection Rates Plummet In Young Women Due To Vaccine:

So Markowitz is going to be reviewing her own papers for the Cochrane review on HPV vaccination?

The Cochrane ‘About us’ page is headed: “Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health.” The ‘About us’ webpage also states: “Cochrane contributors…work together to produce credible, accessible health information that is free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest…Our work is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high quality, trusted information.”

Really?! We’re expected to trust Cochrane’s information, e.g. a review of HPV vaccination which is being prepared by an employee of the CDC and an author on many HPV vaccination papers?

Markowitz was on the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Working Group in 2006. She’s the ‘corresponding preparer’ on the ACIP’s document recommending implementation of HPV vaccination:

How can Markowitz possibly be an objective and independent reviewer of the literature regarding HPV vaccination when much of the material she will be reviewing is her own work?

Dr Tovey, can you please advise on what basis Lauri Markowitz was engaged to conduct the Cochrane review of HPV vaccination?

Dr Tovey replied on 1 March 2016, saying:


Cochrane’s conflict of interest policy is publicly available:

I couldn’t tell for certain but it wasn’t clear from your email whether Lauri Markowitz has been involved in any of the RCTs that will be included in the review. If she is, there are rules about trialists not evaluating or data extracting from their own trials.

We can’t govern the opinions that review authors hold although we are stricter than other journals about conflicts of interests – in that declaration is not always sufficient. We have safeguards in place to avoid bias due to non financial conflicts although I acknowledge these cannot currently be fully controlled – but these include insisting on teams of authors, peer review at both the protocol and review stage, detailed editing by the appropriate Cochrane Review Group plus oversight by my Editorial Unit.

I am very confident that the review, if it makes it through to publication will be robust to the criticism that we can be certain will be thrown at it.

Best wishes


So much for the publication being “robust to the criticism that we can be certain will be thrown at it”…

Dr Tovey didn’t answer my question on what basis Lauri Markowitz was engaged to conduct the Cochrane review of HPV vaccination. Which makes one wonder who initiated the protocol?

What motivates people to become a ‘Cochrane author’?

Is it in the right spirit to to become a Cochrane author to review your own work?

Lauri Markowitz was subsequently NOT listed as an author on the Cochrane HPV vaccine review, so there was obviously a change of heart. But Markowitz was acknowledged for her input in the development of the protocol, and also for her “invaluable advice and contributions by reviewing the results and discussion sections”.

Also interesting to note the project was supported by the US National Institute for Health Research. See the full Cochrane review for Acknowledgements:

Elizabeth Hart

As you say John, "serious ethical questions arise over the role of British Medical Journal and the promotion of Human Papillomavirus vaccines..."

For instance in December 2016, on his BMJ Blog, Richard Lehman included a glib little piece promoting HPV vaccination, i.e. "Two is as good as three for HPV". Lehman said: "In the case of vaccination against human papillomaviruses transmitted sexually and associated with anal, cervical, and oropharyngeal cancers, we are awaiting the long term reductions in these conditions, which ought to follow elimination of the viruses; and the results are very promising. No adverse effects have emerged when teenage populations have been vaccinated, whereas viral transmission has fallen even more dramatically than expected. The question of how many doses are needed is now also practically settled: this trial across 52 sites in 15 countries confirms that two shots of 9-valent vaccine provide lasting immunogenicity. This is already standard practice in a number of countries and the accompanying editorial gives a good summary of the current position."

I took issue with Lehman's piece, submitting a comment questioning the evidence underpinning the original three doses of both Gardasil and Cervarix that had been given to millions of children, and also raising concerns about the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination.

Publication of my comment was delayed, while legal opinion was sought, including about a response I had received from Cervarix HPV vaccine trial researcher, Diane Harper, in which she said "my comment Cervarix has proven efficacy in a single dose against incident HPV infection and incident CIN 3 -- not against cancer -- just be clear about what my intents in my statement referred to. I agree that there is no evidence of cancers prevented -- especially the head and neck cancers that gardasil9 is being touted to prevent in boys."

After what seemed an inordinate delay, my edited comment was finally published on Richard Lehman's blog, see here:

I subsequently followed up with more detailed comments, which were not published, but can be seen here:

Undertaking correspondence with Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of The BMJ, she promised to act on the information I raised in December 2016 about the lack of evidence for multiple doses of HPV vaccines, and concerns about the unnaturally high antibody titres induced by HPV vaccination. On 15 February 2017 she advised me "the BMJ's associate editor Peter Doshi is actively investigating this issue", but I've heard nothing further.

In the meantime probably millions of young people have had multiple doses of HPV vaccines without knowing about the lack of evidence for the multiple doses, or about the unnaturally high antibody titres.

John Stone


Indeed, but this paper is evidently the off-shoot on another yet to be published paper - so we don’t know. Also, it has to be said that the issues with these products and their development are almost limitless. Wherever you go there seems to another treacherous angle.

Tim Lundeen

A good talk about the corruption from Bernadette Pajer at

James Lyons-Weiler

The critique of the review is good, but it missed a golden opportunity to actually bring the rest of the science forward. They did not go far enough and could have brought forward the literature on type replacement. The fact that Lauri Markowitz of the CDC helped plan the protocol is evidence that CDC tainted the process - she published on type replacement and in that study clearly cooked the data; the data from the CDC study found no net change in HPV infection before and after the HPV-4 was brought to market. I wrote to her and she stopped writing back after I pointed out the obvious. The CDC data upon independent analysis supports type replacement. AHRP calls Cochrane out for being corrupted by Gates $$$$.

John Stone


There was a lady who rang me out of the blue a couple times - don't know where she got my number and I believe she was a dentist by profession - but she had a word for it all: "kleptocracy" and of course it poses as liberal democracy but mostly only people feel its absence, and a great hollowness.

Gary Ogden

A crime for the ages, the HPV vaccines, and BMJ an aider and abettor of this horror. The Merck mumps fraud case will be heard in court this year. A massive fraud against the U.S. government and children everywhere. Our government seems to be OK with fraud if it is committed in the name of commerce-witness Obama letting all the banksters whose fraudulent policies caused enormous misery go scot free for their crimes. The cases of the Japanese HPV victims are ongoing. The result will be, in both cases, very large fines, fines which are nothing more than pocket change to these these evil, repulsive corporations who seem to control all governments these days. But, as you say, John, word is leaking out. Lies this big cannot be forever hidden. Thank God for the internet; it is functioning as the press once did. Their ham-fisted efforts at censorship will backfire as more and more people awaken. The media call it "populism," but it is, in reality, individual people who are demanding the return of the basic, fundamental human rights that arose during the Enlightenment, and are delineated in such documents as Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, the Nuremburg Code, and so forth. People have every right to be mad as hell because the primary victims of these ruthless thugs such as Merck, GSK, et al, are children. I say prison for all of them, pharma executives, government officials, medical journal editors, the lot. Hard time. Breaking rocks.

Angus Files

Well done John you`ve just usurped the BMJ.The victories are flooding in these days -looks like they are rattled just a tadge.

Pharma For Prison


David Weiner

This whole notion that it is the proper role of governments (and quasi government institutions such as the BMJ) to balance the interests of different groups of people is a fatally flawed one, notwithstanding the fact that governments rarely even try to make a credible effort to do such a thing.

Genuine rights only exist at the level of the individual. The idea of balancing the interests of various groups is really just a rationalization for sacrificing the interests of the politically weak for the sake of the interests of the politically strong.

John Stone

So, finally 12 day later BMJ have produced a news report:

The story still deflects from the issue which is ultimately not the integrity of Cochrane Reviews, serious though that is, but the safety of the vaccines being injected into children.

John Stone


The biggest conflict is that they don’t know how to stop, while the stakes get ever higher.


Angus Files

The elephant in the room conflicts,or money talks the kids are seen as no more than weeds needing constant thinning via vaccines,shame on them.

Pharma For Prison


Jenny Allan

Thank you John for everything you do 'behind the scenes', particularly your relentless letter writing, to Government committees, press and media, (including complaints), and of course the BMJ. Anything not published can be posted here on AoA.

Suppression is a powerful tool, which has always been used by governments and corporations to hide inconvenient facts from the public. The internet is a recent 'fifth column' and present attempts to stifle views on internet forums and blogs reflect the increasing concern and even panic in some areas of the 'establishment'. There was a time when newspapers and the media could be relied on to expose governments' excesses and corruption within corporate & political systems. No longer. Pharma advertising revenue has ensured editorial complicity.

The HPV vaccine is an absolute disgrace. Just how much worldwide damage will this be permitted to cause before it is banned altogether? The first MMR vaccine caused untold brain damage and disabilities following a UK health Department's decision to implement this dangerous Urabe Mumps virus containing vaccine, disregarding compelling evidence from Canada about aseptic meningitis, causing encephalitis and brain damage. It was the vaccine manufacturers who banned this vaccine in 1991, three years after it was introduced in 1988. The UK Government conveniently slapped a 20 year suppression order on papers, which identified the Government's role in implementing an unsafe vaccine, in spite of warnings from Canada and dissent from several qualified advisers in the UK, who were of the opinion the mumps MMR component was unnecessary, since mumps in infancy is normally benign. If only they were listened to. MMR 2, with the Jeryl Lynn mumps component, was rushed into the UK child schedules with very little safety monitoring, (as was pointed out by Cochrane). Mumps is now endemic in our universities and colleges, where young adults are contracting a disease which can cause sterility. It is now officially admitted the mumps MMR component 'wears off". The answer? -another MMR jab. Fertility in the western world is declining rapidly but 'of course' (sarcasm)- correlation does not prove causation. There is now some evidence emerging the HPV jab is causing sterility in young women.

Thanks to Wendy Stephen, a recent AoA post demonstrated an attempt by David Salisbury to suppress a freedom of information request 2007:-
"I note that you have implied that Urabe-based MMR vaccines could cause death from mumps meningitis/encephalitis. I am not aware of any deaths that were shown to have been caused by the Urabe mumps virus in the MMR vaccines used in this country between 1988 and 2002.
Please could you provide details that support your statement, or please remove this misleading information."
Dr David Salisbury, director of immunisation, department of health, London 08.03.07

FOIA Centre reply
"Our report in fact said: “It [Urabe MMR] was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the department of health in 1992.”
In a discussion with Dr David Salisbury, he clar-ified that his objection was that, irrespective of whether Urabe MMR had been blamed for causing deaths, he does not accept that any such deaths have in fact resulted from Urabe MMR or any other MMR.
We referred him to the judgement, of March 13, 2003 of the Osaka district court in Japan, which ruled that the death of two children (among numerous other serious conditions) were caused by Urabe MMR.
He said in response that Japan had a different Urabe MMR from the two Urabe MMR vaccines that were used in the UK.
However, it remains that it was established in this case – to the satisfaction of a court in Japan – that the deaths of two children were caused by Urabe MMR.
In addition, we referred him to several British cases where parents who claimed that their children had died as a result of Urabe MMR had received compensation under the “vaccine damage payment” scheme.
He said in response that this does not establish that the deaths were in fact caused by the vaccine.
However, in one case a tribunal ruled against a previous assertion by the department of health that the claim by a mother that her daughter’s death had been caused by Urabe MMR was unproven. Her claim was established at tribunal.
A separate tribunal awarded compensation in relation to another case where a child died after suffering brain damage caused by Urabe MMR. And another tribunal was persuaded that Urabe MMR was the likely cause of death in a further case.
Parents who have received compensation in such cases have indeed blamed MMR, including Urabe MMR, for causing the deaths of their children. Moreover, in some cases, their conclusions were endorsed by tribunals.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that we were entirely correct to say that Urabe MMR was blamed for the deaths of several children. We did not say that Urabe MMR had caused such deaths, merely that it had been blamed for doing so. We do not accept that the conclusions of tribunals should be dismissed."

This was a clear attempt at bullying and suppression by David Salisbury. He also wrote to the GMC before the hearing, alleging misconduct against Dr Andrew Wakefield and his clinician colleagues Professors Walker-Smith and Murch stating the MMR vaccine had an 'exemplary' safety record. In view of the FOI response, this was blatantly untrue.
The GMC panel were plainly lied to, and if the truth had not been suppressed, it is extremely doubtful this expensive 3 year hearing would have gone ahead. Several Lancet children had received the dangerous Urabe mumps containing MMR vaccine.

The 20 year suppression of these MMR vaccine papers ended just before the GMC guilty verdicts.
From the Scottish Daily Mail
21st May 2010

"MMR Jab sparks early warnings. ( headline) NHS bosses were warned about fears over certain strains of MMR vaccines three years before they were banned. "

Also being suppressed, is a long running US legal case against Merck, alleging they 'fiddled' their efficacy figures for the Jeryl Lynn mumps component of MMR 2. Merck has spent $millions in attempts to keep this out of a court of law...........................................and then there is that 'wanted felon' Poul Thorsen, happily living his life in Denmark.

If the press and media won't report it, then we must. If there are attempts to shut us down we change names and change sites and continue as before.

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.)