Hysterical and Ignorant: L.A. Times Op-Ed calls Vaccine Concerns “Cockroaches”
The Supreme Court Did Not Deem Vaccines "Unavoidably Unsafe," Congress Did.

The BBC: Vaccine Critics Are A "Virus"

BBC Newsnight
Note: We would like to acknowledge the suffering in California is reaching many friends and families of AofA, including Del Bigtree, who lost his home to the blaze. We are very sorry.  Below John's introduction are the complaint by Professor Exley and the response from Newsnight.  The language used to vilify those who question vaccine safety is becoming more chilling by the moment, as civility and discourse seems to have diminished on both sides of the pond.

By John Stone

Only the other day Del Bigtree* was commenting on HighWire that the United States had become country with news services that the populace could not take seriously like China or Iran: the same is undoubtedly true of the United Kingdom and particularly its increasingly embarrassing BBC news service. This was highlighted in a recent exchange of letters between Prof Chris Exley and BBC complaints director Colin Tregear, following a toe-curling Newsnight presentation about measles and vaccine safety. Exley complained about bias in the presentation and simply pointed out that the claim that vaccines were safe was unfounded. The manufacturers acknowledged significant levels of serious adverse effects, the scientific literature does not support safety, the problems are real. It is simply not telling the truth to say vaccines are safe.

The tenor of Tregear’s reply was essentially that the BBC only has to listen to health officials, the WHO etc.: in other words they have bureaucratic concept of truth.  He defends the reporter who declared the doubts expressed in social media as being a "virus". Fundamentally this is hate talk. It is not to be condoned if people who have different experiences want to talk about it, if people - many of them well educated - want to read and comment: these people are themselves apparently a disease to be eradicated.

Professor Exley's Letter:

BBC Newsnight Comments

The clear and unambiguous message that Newsnight appears to wish to put across in this piece is that all vaccines are 100% safe and only ill-informed individuals think otherwise. The view that not all vaccines are 100% safe is portrayed as only being held by individuals who are not sufficiently educated to know otherwise. They are somehow slaves to internet scare stories. The message is given that doctors are aware of ‘facts’ which demonstrate that all vaccines are 100% safe. No ‘facts’ of any sort are given or discussed. The three chosen experts have no background in either science or vaccine safety. The two in the studio are charged in their everyday lives (jobs) with the responsibility of assuring individuals that vaccines are 100% safe. The third guest appears to have no relevant expertise in vaccine safety beyond the opinion that vaccines are safe and only individuals that believe in conspiracy theories think otherwise. The only other individual interviewed (by Grossman) is the discredited ‘journalist’ Brian Dear.

This piece of reporting is clearly stating the message that all vaccines are 100% safe and that anyone who might question this is at best ‘uninformed’ and at worst a dangerous anti-vaxxer.

The case of Dr Andrew Wakefield is yet again brought to the fore as if all research on vaccine safety in the 20 years following this episode can and should be discounted.

I am the world’s leading expert on human exposure to aluminium. I have been working in this field since 1984. The majority of vaccines include an aluminium salt as an adjuvant. We have been researching the mechanism of action of aluminium adjuvants for about 10 years. Our research along with that of many other reputable scientists across the world has highlighted the toxicity of aluminium in vaccines and its role in many of the serious adverse events reported in individuals following vaccination. The frequency of such adverse events (data from the vaccine manufacturers) is acknowledged to be as high as 2.5% which for vaccines which are given to millions of individuals equates to 25000 well people per 1 million recipients becoming ill following vaccination. Fears about vaccines are well-founded. They are not fabrications of the so-called anti-vax movement, they are medical facts based upon hard science. We who are working to improve the safety and efficacy of vaccines are doing what we can to reduce collateral damage from vaccines and we very much resent the suggestion by your programme, its presenter, reporter and guests that we are somehow ill-informed conspiracy theorists who are trying to scare individuals into refusing vaccines.

The facts about vaccine safety are what are influencing individual’s decisions about vaccination and not scare stories being spread ‘like a virus’ through the internet.

Displays of lies or at best ignorance as occurred throughout this Newsnight piece are not what is needed to improve the safety and success of vital vaccines.

I have noted a few specific points of contention in the piece below using the timing from the video.


876 cases of measles. How many of these new cases were in individuals who had been vaccinated against measles? This number was given as a ‘fact’ in support of a decline in the number of individuals being vaccinated against measles. Give the full information underlying this number and then allow individuals to decide if such could be a factor or not. 


Define ‘irrational fear’ in this context. You are suggesting that all vaccines are 100% safe in all recipients. However, many individuals, approximately 2.5% using vaccine manufacturer’s own data, suffer a serious adverse event following vaccination. So, the ‘facts’ as Newsnight are keen to highlight, show that 2.5% of vaccine recipients become ill following vaccination. Adverse events following vaccination include everything from a sore arm to death. Is this an ‘irrational fear’?


Medical science does not have to counter just one type of ‘virus’. Grossman likens any hard peer reviewed science that reports safety implications of vaccines as a ‘virus’. Does he also consider the lists of serious adverse events recorded on patient information leaflets provided by manufacturers as a ‘virus’? I consider it not only in bad taste to refer to vaccine safety concerns as a virus but also highly ill-informed or simply plain ignorant.


The studio guests are neither scientists nor do they have any specific expertise in vaccine safety and yet this is what they are then questioned on by Emily and this is what they seem perfectly happy to express their opinions about. Where is the ‘expert’ on vaccine safety among these ‘picked for purpose’ individuals?


Regarding the much touted theory of ‘herd immunity’, for how long do vaccine manufacturers advise that their vaccines remain effective. Most give estimates of 2-5 years, how does this equate with the herd immunity argument which suggests that 95% of individuals should be covered by a vaccine?


The inference here by Emily is that all experts say that all vaccines are 100% safe. At no point does she point out that there are many highly credible scientists working on vaccine safety because they know that vaccines are not 100% safe, they (vaccines) are far from this expected goal.


The arrogance of the ordinary consumer. These consumers have read the patient information leaflets and they have read the high quality peer reviewed science that shows that vaccines are not 100% safe. The arrogance is in the invited, so-called, ‘expert’ and not in the consumer.


But these ‘concerns’ which all contributors to this programme liken to a ‘virus’ are concerns emanating from hard science and so-called vaccine safety trials carried out by vaccine manufacturers, their own data are sufficient for everyone to have serious concerns about vaccine safety.


But based upon what is being said you are not up to date by any means and you are not providing individuals with the latest research, you are presumably just towing a government line on this issue which is that all vaccines are 100% safe.


Emily says, ‘create a public health scare’ which clearly suggests that there are no public health issues associated with vaccines, something which is completely wrong.


The ‘expert’ suggests that anyone who suggests that vaccines are not 100% safe are part of a conspiracy theory.


Having a view that vaccines are not safe  is ‘creating public scares’.

I am not against life-saving, effective and safe vaccines. I am against vaccines with high levels of collateral damage where perfectly healthy individuals are made ill by a vaccine. I am always against obfuscation of science-based ‘facts’ relating to medicine and human hea

lth and it is highly concerning that Newsnight, having responsibly raised many such important issues in the past seem in this instance to be blind to the damage being caused by some vaccines.

Professor Christopher Exley PhD FRSB

The Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratories,

Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG

[email protected]


The Response from Newsnight: (see the full pdf here: Download Newsnight Executive Complaints Unit Finding)

Thank you for your email of 5 November and the detailed explanation of your
complaint about the item on vaccination which was broadcast on the above edition of
Newsnight. I have now had an opportunity to watch the programme and carry out
some additional research into the issues you have raised. I understand the reason for
your concerns but having considered the content of the programme I do not believe
there are grounds for me to uphold your complaint. I hope I can explain the reasons
why I have reached this decision.

I should begin by explaining the remit of the Executive Complaints Unit is to consider
whether the content of the item in question breached the BBC’s editorial standards, as
set out in its Editorial Guidelines. The guidelines on Accuracy and Impartiality refer to
the concept of “due accuracy” and “due impartiality” where the term “due” means
“adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the
content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that
expectation”. The guidelines on Impartiality also make it clear “Due impartiality is
often more than a simple matter of “balance” between opposing viewpoints”. This is set
out in more detail in Section on Due Weight (4.4.2) which says:
Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be
covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single
programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve “due weight”.
For example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the
prevailing consensus.

As you know the item on the programme considered why there has been a continued
fall in the number of people receiving the MMR vaccination and why there appears to
be “an increasing scepticism towards vaccinations for other diseases that can be lifechanging
or even fatal”. As the presenter, Emily Maitlis, said in the introduction:

…we are going to ask why the “anti-vaxxers”, as they are known across the pond, seem to be regaining the upper hand in telling us when facts can simply be dismissed. Have we had enough of experts or do we genuinely believe science is now up for debate?

In practice, the guidelines I have set out above mean I have to take account of where the weight of informed scientific opinion lies in this debate when considering whether the scope of the discussion and the choice of contributors met the requirements for due impartiality. My understanding is all the leading authorities and bodies responsible for public health support the use of vaccination, and say there is no evidence for the kind of public safety concerns outlined by Ms Maitlis in her introduction. Vaccination is not completely risk free but the side effects tend to be mild; serious side effects are extremely rare. Medical professionals around the world therefore agree the benefits far outweigh the risks. The NHS, for example, has a page on its website about vaccination benefits and risks which says:

All medicines have side effects. However, vaccines are among the safest and the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the risk of side effects.

When you're considering a vaccination for yourself or your child, it's natural to focus on the potential side effects. But a better approach is to try to balance the benefits of having a vaccine against the chances of harm.

Most side effects from vaccination are mild and short-lived.

I think it is also reasonable to say leading health bodies around the world have expressed concern about the growing number of websites which question the safety of vaccination or suggest the potential side effects are greater or more harmful than the medical community believes. I note, for example, the World Health Organisation says:

Due to the success of immunization, some diseases are no longer perceived as a threat. Certain groups have even questioned the utility of vaccination in spite of its proven success in controlling disease. In recent years, a number of web sites providing unbalanced, misleading and alarming vaccine safety information have been established, which can lead to undue fears, particularly among parents and patients. Acknowledging the above-mentioned issues and urged by governments, key non-governmental organizations and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), WHO initiated, in 2003, the Vaccine Safety Net Project (VSN).

I am therefore satisfied it was reasonable and appropriate to select the contributors who took part in this discussion. I do not share your view that it was necessary to include a contributor who had “a background in either science or vaccine safety” bearing in mind the topic of the discussion (“Have we had enough of experts or do we genuinely believe science is now up for debate?”) and the weight of informed opinion about the safety and potential side effects of vaccines.

I accept there are some, including yourself, who are concerned about the ingredients which are used in vaccines, such as aluminium. I also appreciate you and others have conducted research which suggests a correlation between aluminium in vaccines and conditions such as autism. However, I am unaware of any studies which have demonstrated a causal link and I have to take account of the fact the vast majority of scientists in this field take the view vaccines are safe and consider appropriate measures are in place to investigate reports of suspected serious side effects. The Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, for example, issued a report into vaccine safety in 2013. The associated website says:

Vaccines are among the most safe and effective public health interventions to prevent serious disease and death. Because of the success of vaccines, most Americans today have no firsthand experience with such devastating illnesses as polio or diphtheria. Health care providers who vaccinate young children follow a schedule prepared by the U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Under the current schedule, children younger than six may receive as many as 24 immunizations by their second birthday. New vaccines undergo rigorous testing prior to receiving FDA approval; however, like all medicines and medical interventions, vaccines carry some risk.

Driven largely by concerns about potential side effects, there has been a shift in some parents’ attitudes toward the child immunization schedule. HHS asked the IOM to identify research approaches, methodologies, and study designs that could address questions about the safety of the current schedule.

This report is the most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date. The IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule. Should signals arise that there may be need for investigation, however, the report offers a framework for conducting safety research using existing or new data collection systems.

In conclusion, I do not believe the choice of contributors or the manner in which the discussion was conducted led to a breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality.

I have also considered the specific aspects of the debate which you said were “Displays of lies or at best ignorance” and assessed whether they were materially inaccurate or would have left the audience with a misleading impression. I propose to address each one in turn, following the chronological order of the list you sent on 5 November.

1. The figure for 876 laboratory confirmed cases of measles in England came from Public Health England. The Head of Immunisation at PHE said “The measles outbreaks we are currently seeing in England are linked to ongoing large outbreaks in Europe. The majority of cases we are seeing are in teenagers and young adults who missed out on their MMR vaccine when they were children”. I therefore do not believe it was materially inaccurate or misleading to cite the figure since it is clearly the informed view of PHE that non-vaccination is a significant contribution to then increase in confirmed cases of measles.

2. I think the most reasonable inference to be drawn from the use of the phrase was that it was irrational for people to fear “the thought of injecting themselves with a disease supposedly to inoculate them against something else” when the evidence demonstrates the risk of possible side effects from vaccines is far outweighed by the benefit of protection against fatal diseases such as small pox. I therefore do not believe viewers would have understood the reporter, David Grossman, to suggest all vaccines are 100% safe.

3. The use of “virus” in this context was clearly a play on words and has to be judged accordingly. Mr Grossman began his report as follows: “This is the story of a virus and how it has spread round the world affecting countless millions. This is not though a biological virus but an idea that is now blamed by some doctors for the deaths and illness of children on every continent”. When he went on to say “it’s clear then that medical science doesn’t have to counter just one type of virus. There are those which affect our bodies and those which affect our minds” this was referring back to the original “idea” that ill-informed members of the public believe they know more than medical experts. In this context, I see no reasonable basis for concluding the audience would have assumed there were no grounds to be concerned about vaccine safety.

4. I addressed this point in my response to the due impartiality of the discussion.

5. Helen Donovan from the Royal College of Nursing spoke about a “small decrease” in vaccinations and said one of the reasons this was significant was because “We know that the WHO recommend that we need to have 95% of all our children immunised against all of our vaccines”. It seems to me reasonable to cite an international body such as the WHO when explaining why a fall in vaccination is regarded as a cause of concern. I do not see a requirement to explore this in more detail in the context of a discussion about “an increasing [public] scepticism towards vaccinations”.

6. Professor Michael Patrick Lynch was talking about what he perceived as the danger of social media sites which provided news and information tailored to the preferences of users. He expressed concern this “can reinforce the sense that we can be our own experts on almost any topic”. Ms Maitlis followed up by asking “So is it because we feel smarter or is it because authority has let us down? We don’t have the same sense of deference; we don’t want to believe the experts anymore?” Her questions clearly went beyond just the safety of vaccines and so I do not share your impression of what viewers would have understood Ms Maitlis to be saying.

7. Professor Lynch was expressing a professional opinion about why public attitudes towards experts appeared to be shifting. He was not talking specifically about vaccine safety and I think it is reasonable to assume viewers would have understood the broad point he was making about “arrogance on the part of the ordinary consumer, arrogance of a certain type that we know it all”.

8. I did not share your impression the “concerns” which Dr Pauline Paterson identified were “emanating from hard science” as you suggest. As I mentioned in Point 7 above, the discussion was about the spread of information and the idea that “everyone can be seen as having equal weight when it’s in cyberspace”. Dr Paterson clearly stated “anyone can be seen as an expert on social media, on the internet, and also concerns can spread very quickly with the internet, with social media”. Viewers would, I think, have understood she was making a far broader point than one about scientific evidence and was referring to the spread of opinion dressed up as evidence.

9. Helen Donovan was making the point that nurses are generally regarded as trusted and so it was important they were “as up to date with all the information that’s out there”. I appreciate you think the current information from the NHS, WHO, NAS etc. is misleading but I imagine the audience would have understood Ms Donovan was simply expressing the view that nurses need to have the latest information to allow them to respond to questions or queries from the public.

10. All the leading medical bodies take the view vaccinations are an essential public health intervention to prevent serious disease and death. The benefits to human health are considered to outweigh by far any potential risks. I therefore do not believe it is inaccurate or misleading to suggest those who try to push the public away from vaccination are responsible for creating “a public health scare”.

11. Professor Lynch was expressing a professional view rather than an incontrovertible fact and the audience can be expected to judge his comment accordingly.

12. As in Point 11, Professor Lynch was expressing a personal view.

In conclusion, I do not believe there are grounds for me to uphold your complaint. I should explain there is no provision for further appeal against this decision within the BBC’s complaints process but I would be happy to consider any comments you may wish to make about my finding. I would be grateful if you could let me have any such comments by 26 November.

Alternatively, if you do wish to take your complaint further, you can ask the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint. You can find details of how to contact Ofcom and the procedures it will apply at the following website: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint. You can also write to Ofcom at Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, or telephone either 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040.

Yours sincerely

Colin Tregear
Complaints Director



Excellent critique by Professor Christopher Exley, and what a shame that people are too close minded to hear him. They create a solid hard wall of denial constructed of very vague statements that “The consensus is.”


Re: “the weight of informed opinion about the safety and potential side effects of vaccines”

Oooohhh, now I get it! She used a scale to weigh all the different opinions! How very scientific, objective, mathematical! I would like to know how many pounds, ounces, tons, or kilos did the vaccine sceptic opinions weigh, compared with the vaccine dogma?


Dr, David Lewis was a microbiologist at EPA for decades. We can thank his research for dental-device heat sterilization becoming the standard worldwide. But later in his career he incurred the wrath of the "biosolids" industry--and Brian Deer.

After Dr. Lewis's attorneys confronted Brian Deer about the re-posting on Deer's website of a withdrawn biosludge-industry paper smearing Dr. Lewis, Deer replied that if the attorneys looked carefully they would see that the "f" in "pdf" had been omitted, thus the file couldn't be read; it had been that way for a long time, maybe forever. Deer was unaware that Dr. Lewis's attorneys had been archiving Deer's website for some time and could see that someone had recently removed the "f." Oops!

What more does anyone need to know about Brian Deer?

Maybe a little more. Dr. Lewis's book, Science for Sale, has an interesting chapter on Brian Deer.

Susan Welch


This excellent article got a mention on UK Column today. At 36 minutes they discuss the bias at the BBC and the shortcomings of the Complaints department there. As one of the presenters pointed out 'The BBC are just an extension of the (UK Government) Cabinet' (or words to that effect).


Brian Deer's oration about the very special snowflakes who live around San Francisco (who have too much money and new-agey ideas, to whom it's important that they be smarter than doctors) rang a bell. I'd heard it before, years ago, when it became apparent that women in Marin county had elevated rates of breast cancer. We didn't live in Marin, but occasionally we got the breezes so I followed the stories with interest. The explanations were variations of "women with too much money, who eat out too often and drink too many lattes after yoga."

But the real reason turned out to be something quite different. Wyeth had been concealing problems with its HRT drug. It's the first time I heard about scientific ghostwriting.


The program hauled out the old chestnuts about the smallpox vaccine, how it's just the juice of a few flowers or something, yet people were irrationally wary of it.

I don't know about the original vaccine, but the current one is kind of dangerous. According to The Clinician's Vaccine Safety Resource Guide, a book whose purpose is to coach doctors in how to sell vaccines to their patients, "U.S. military personnel administered smallpox vaccine had almost 7.5 times higher incidence of myopericarditis [inflammation of the pericardium and heart muscle] in the 30 days post vaccination than non-vaccinated active duty military personnel." (It must have killed the authors to put that sentence in.) "But don't panic," they say, "just remind your patients they won't have to get that one."

Jackie Fletcher

I was appalled at the Newsnight programme and submitted an email through the programme maker's complaints section on their website. With hindsight I should have posted the complaint because my original letter exceeded the number of words allowed. My edited letter was this:

'I am shocked at the level of poor research which failed the viewers with an interest in this topic. It appeared that Newsnight did not want to understand why parents hesitate or refuse vaccination, but wanted to embarrass and convince parents that their views and concerns are misguided. Newsnight did not challenge those with vested interests in promoting ever increasing vaccination programmes.

No questions about:
* The safety and efficacy of vaccines and the concentrated schedule.

* Parents’ concerns about the shortfalls of the pre-licensure trials and the post-licensure adverse event surveillance system and lack of detailed follow-up of reports of serious adverse reactions with the JCVI and the MHRA. Where is the safety data?

* The JCVI's introduction of Hepatitis B vaccination into the childhood programme. Pregnant women were already routinely screened for this disease and if they were found to be carriers their new-born babies were targeted for treatment. Hepatitis B is a disease that can be transmitted through injecting drugs/sharing needles, sexual contact with an infected partner or working in an ‘at-risk’ profession.

* The growing amount of aluminum contained in vaccines which is probably contributing to the rising incidence of autoimmune and neurological disease leading to long term, chronic, debilitating conditions.

* If PHE has independent scientific research that demonstrates the safety of injecting increasing aluminum adjuvants into 8, 12 and 16 weeks old babies through the new hexavalent vaccine. The accepted “safety” limit for a two month old, 5kg baby is 25 micrograms a day. As aluminium is a known neurotoxin why is it considered acceptable to inject 44 times the “safe” level of aluminium in one day to a baby’s immature immune system?

Parents are not challenging science but the dishonesty as to how science is presented.

Newsnight is considered by many to be a flagship programme. Its viewers deserve better.'

This reply came on the 2nd November:

'..Thank you for contacting us regarding Newsnight, which was broadcast on Wednesday 19th September. We appreciate that you felt a segment on the MMR vaccinations was poorly researched.

We have spoken to the programme team about your concerns. They have responded with the following:

"We don’t agree we failed viewers with an interest in this area or that we were trying to embarrass parents. Newsnight was simply looking at the reasons why vaccination rates for MMR are continuing to fall and what might be driving this trend both in the UK and abroad. In fact, the film shown specifically underlined parents’ role, saying that a family’s instinct is to protect its children; one contributor made the point that the authorities should make information about vaccines more easily discoverable, and show more respect for parents’ research capabilities. This was not an item about the risks or otherwise of particular vaccines but a discussion about the willingness of the public to believe expert scientific opinion."

And there you have it. All must be well.

Hans Litten

Anti-Vaxxers everywhere , every country , the same complaint. Why is that ?

Staatssecretaris bindt strijd aan met anti-vaxxers: 'We gaan alles op alles zetten'


Omdat er zorgen zijn over de dalende vaccinatiegraad, gaat staatssecretaris Blokhuis de strijd aan met anti-vaxxers. Mensen die niet vaccineren worden actief benaderd en nepnieuws wordt aangepakt.
And there are definite forces in play trying to stop us from linking up ~!
As the EEFV said just last week, if we join up, we will win ! Unify !


"However, I am unaware of any studies which have demonstrated a causal link and I have to take account of the fact the vast majority of scientists in this field take the view vaccines are safe and consider appropriate measures are in place to investigate reports of suspected serious side effects. "

Riding roughshod over the 'precautionary principle'.


A response to this BBC piece by Dr. David Healy: https://davidhealy.org/ive-caught-her-virus-shes-caught-mine/?fbclid=IwAR3MTxjqQg5dpsdNVEXj_KjQPRRjvlYos_z-u5c1BOf9OFoVeB6HwVceREI

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you, Mr. Stone and Professor Exley!


Hey Eindecker,

Some insight into measles outbreaks. Do you know if there was genotyping to distinguish vaccine from wild strains?:

"Since approximately 5% of recipients of measles virus-containing vaccine experience rash and fever which may be indistinguishable from measles (9), it is very important to identify vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary isolation of the patient, as well as the need for contact tracing and other labor-intensive public health interventions...During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees (3). Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (R. J. McNall, unpublished data). In contrast, only 11 of 542 cases genotyped in the National Reference Center for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in Germany were associated with the vaccine virus.

Genotyping is used to confirm the origin of an outbreak and to exclude endemic circulation, but it is also the only way to distinguish vaccine strains from wild-type viruses."



Thanks John and Professor Exley for "Getting the job done"
A vaccination is a medical procedure and like any medical procedure requires consent and informed consent beforehand . If nurses and or doctors think they can sidestep consent and informed consent and use presumed or implied consent instead because a mass medication "Best Interest " judgement call has been made that suggests that any benefits outweigh any risks of vaccination? then they need to realise that their perception of such along with their professional regitrations are hanging by a flimsy thread on very shoogly pegs indeed !
In case they have not noticed the age of deference towards that very specific type of spoonfeeding and wet nursing folk ended with The Great War of Civilisation 1914-1918.
The Royal College of Nursing might want to consider making more fruitful use of it's time and resources on preventable Hospital aquired infections [HCAs]
See Vale of Leven Hospital Inquiry Report November 2014 . Aye, read it, and blinking well weep at the state of it ! Staff too busy or too lazy to complete essential care plan documentation .
No assessments ,no plan of action , implementation of care without documentation therfore no ongoing evaluation or review of care provided either.
Royal College of Nursing dropped it's members like a ton of lead ballons and walked away and left them to get on with it their own selfies .
The BBC can continue to use data based on fag packet estimations for harm and injury from vaccines .
What a comical presentation of a corrie-fisted cac-handed medicalised embarrassment for them
as well . The public are not fooled by their very passive agressive style of presentation along with their over use of the angry smile paternalistic and patrionising approach either .


"In recent years, a number of web sites providing unbalanced, misleading and alarming vaccine safety information have been established, which can lead to undue fears, particularly among parents and patients."

Could the WHO be talking about sites like this one?

How much did you get paid to ask that question?

Hans Litten

Posted by: Eindeker | November 15, 2018 at 02:46 PM

Were any of those 700 measles sufferers left with a lifelong neurological maiming ?
To those who know, the BBC has lost all credibility - BBC is a fake !
Autism in London is at 1 in 10 - no need to worry about measles in the least.

I got the measles, I got chicken pox, I got athletes foot, I might have got the mumps (70% never even know they had it - (and the mumps vaccine was faked with rabbits blood anyway by Merckury).

Never had the Flu-thanasia vaccine, in my 50s now, and I never will.

They did BCG me, and now I find out it was a load of lies. Doesn't work. Causes diabetes in fact.
I got mercury amalgams, well we know the truth and the lies of dentists there don't we ?
Unfortunately I have drunk flouridated water on occasion, but will avoid in future.
I have con_sumed aspartame unfortunately, do not plan to ever again (or sucralose etc).

But I recommend that you take your fill of them ALL. Eindeker
Maybe the fluoride will cause you to become an honest man - who knows ?


9% of measles patients reported having had 1 or more MMR -- but a full 42% of the measles cases were in ADULTS, most of whom would not remember if they had had measles vaccines or not, as those are given to 1-year-olds. We've seen this in the US time and again whenever there is an outbreak of a vaccine-available illness: the vast majority do not know whether or not they've ever received a vaccine, or how many doses, and are ALWAYS reported by the press as "unvaccinated."

11% of the measles cases were in infants under the age of 1 -- who would have been too young to get the vaccine anyway, but more importantly, THIS IS AN AGE GROUP THAT, IN THE PRE-VACCINE ERA, WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AT RISK FOR MEASLES.

I'm always astounded at how often vaccine defenders seem absolutely clueless about this. Measles was well known as a routine CHILDHOOD illness, NOT as an infantile illness. The general age of infection was 3-15-year-olds.

Don't you pro-vaccine chumps ever stop to wonder why the infant siblings of children with measles didn't come down with it back then?

For that matter, we only very, very rarely saw adults come down with measles back then, too.

Yeah, the vaccine might have been a brilliant idea on paper -- but in real life, we are seeing all kinds of unforeseen problems.

And until the medical community owns up to them, they're just going to get worse.

John Stone


I have just documented that Public Health England hiked the figure of cases for the quarter from 91 to 265 in line with WHO propaganda - I pointed this out in BMJ on-line in September and no explanation was forthcoming (and btw simultaneously with the most recent orchestrated media hate campaign against Andrew Wakefield).

It is remarkable how little detail you have mastered over all these years. Astonishingly, you seem to be under the common misapprehension that the Wakefield/Lancet paper was an epidemiological study.



An obvious problem with the Jain and Glickman papers is their ability to draw inferences from convoluted designs rather than posing simple questions like the Mawson paper (ie vaccinated vs unvaccinated). Virtually all the epidemiological studies testifying to the safety of vaccines in relation to autism are conspicuous (suspiciously) for their flawed design. That vaccines can cause autism has been conceded both scientifically and legally by the US government.


An overwhelming difficulty with the many General Practice Research Database based studies such as the one by Kaye you have cited is that the database only records data sporadically. Recognition of autism has been an order or two of magnitude below diagnosed levels. Verstraeten in published emails also doubted the data on vaccination status was adequate.



Gary Ogden

Eindecker: You are incorrect. Our very own CDC put the Wakefield hypothesis (in the Wakefield paper the authors used the term "association")to the test and confirmed it. Not epidemiology, which cannot show causation unless it fulfills all nine of the Bradford-Hill criteria, but a study of autism rates in a cohort of Atlanta schoolchildren based upon age of administration. The study showed significantly higher rates of autism in African-American boys, and in children with no other co-morbid conditions, given MMR before age three. This alarmed them greatly. This is why they spent nearly three years figuring out how to eliminate their findings, and held a garbage-can party in a room at CDC to destroy all original relevant documents. Once they had it nice and clean, they shopped the "study" around to medical journals, in hopes of finding a publisher. No luck, so they got the pharma trade rag, "Pediatrics" to publish it in 2004. No other vaccine has been studied for its link to autism, nor has the schedule, or giving multiple vaccines on one visit been studied at all for safety. 18th Century quackery it is, and very lucrative. How dare you anonymously cast aspersions on those who report the tremendous suffering children and families suffer today from this quackery, suffering which didn't exist in my childhood.


Eindecker when are you going to answer the fundamental question?

How do you know measles (or pertussis or diphtheria or whatever) data is valid if doctors often use vaccination status to differentially diagnose. Indeed, the NHS (like all health agencies) explicitly tell doctors to ignore the possibility of measles in vaccinated patients.

It's ok. We both know the answer to that question don't we?

You will always ignore it. And instead you will throw out irrelevant obfuscation about how the existence of lab tests somehow (you'll never explain) counters that bias in the data (of course, not only does it not counter it, it actually reinforces it because we rarely did such lab tests before the vaccine).

At any rate, here is the quote from the NHS.

"Following assessment, if a diagnosis of measles is considered likely, it is essential to notify the local Health Protection Unit (HPU)" and subsequently: "Measles is very unlikely in people who have been fully immunized", followed by “Consider a different cause if the patient is likely to have immunity” http://cks.nice.org.uk/measles#!diagnosissub

Jenny Allan

Eindecker - Can you explain the discrepancies in the PHE Lab confirmed figures ?

January –March 2018 (2):-
Notified 1202 :Tested 748 (62.2%): Positive 91(12.2%)

January –March 2018 (3):-
Notified 1201: Tested 750 (62%): IgM Pos 175: PCR pos 72
Other pos 3: Tested Locally 15: Total 265.

The number of measles cases testing IgM positive in Table 1 for the second quarter of 2018 appears as 239 cases. This is also presented as the TOTAL number of cases in the same table, suggesting for the second 2018 quarter, IgM positive measles cases also sent for RNA testing were not counted twice in Table 1. (1)
April –June 2018.
Notified 1763: Tested 1161: IgM Pos 239: PCR pos 120
Other pos 48: Tested Locally 14: Total 239.

Conversely, the PHE blurb below Table 1 states the total number of positive measles cases to be 421, the sum of all the measles cases testing positive. (239 IgM + 120 PCR+ 48 other positives+ 14 tested locally)
This total, with regional breakdown numbers is repeated in Table 2. (1)

1. Laboratory-confirmed cases of measles, mumps and rubella (England): April to June 2018 Health Protection Report Volume 12

2. Measles cases confirmed by oral fluid IgM antibody tests and/or PCR in each quarter compared to the number of notified cases. January to March 2018

3. Laboratory confirmed cases of measles, mumps and rubella, England: January to March 2018 Health Protection Report Volume 12 Number 19 Advanced Access report 1 June 2018

Gary Ogden

Eindecker: Just some facts: The only reason measles has become dangerous is because of the vaccine. In my childhood, everyone got measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, etc. Everyone. In the case of measles, nearly always between the ages of 6 and 15. A tremendous aid in the development of our immune systems, and nearly everyone fully recovered. The vaccine has changed the demographic to an age when the vaccine has worn off, late teens to adulthood, when it is much more dangerous. And infancy, with virtually no nursing mothers able to pass on immune factors. The measles vaccine has been a disastrous mistake.

Gary Ogden

Master Frederick: I thought we had seen the last of you, but no! The answer to your question is a resounding yes. The WHO is the world's largest health-terrorist organization, and as such makes it habit of bad-mouthing anyone who gets in the way of its mission, which is world population reduction through the wonders of Medicine. Facts be damned. I would be happy to further explain if you wish.


John the confirmed number of measles cases in Q1 & Q2 2018 was :In England, 421 new measles infections were confirmed in the second quarter of 2018 compared to 265 in the period between January and March 2018, [1] bringing the total number of measles cases for the first two quarters of 2018 up to 686 (Figure1). quote from reference in earlier post
Exley questions how many of these were unvaccinated, with fairly cursory searching the answer is only 9% of these had one or more inoculations with MMR.
Further down Exley states Most give estimates of 2-5 years, (referring to how long immunity lasts for) how does this equate with the herd immunity argument which suggests that 95% of individuals should be covered by a vaccine? but he gives no supporting evidence for such an all embracing assertion. In fact the latest information is that measles immunity with 2 MMR inoculations is indeed long lasting It seems to be very long-lasting. Virtually everyone (more than 99%) will be protected against measles and rubella for more than 20 years after 2 doses of MMR. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-questions-answers/
John you then link MMR to autism, whereas in fact there is no epidemiological evidence to support such a link, (apart from the withdrawn Wakefield study). However there is convincing evidence that there is no such link: the study on MMR vaccination rates in younger high risk siblings with elder siblings diagnosed with autism https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25898051 and also a more recent reference by Glickman showing no linkage with MMR vaccination & autism, again looking at younger siblings of elder brothers or sisters with autism https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5745801/ .
There is also the Kaye longitudinal study looking at autism reports by GPs in England over the period 1998-1993 when the coverage of MMR vaccination was consistently at or greater than 95%, but the incidence of reported autism trebled, hardly convincing evidence for any link. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071423/

Angus Files

Eindeckers tombola generated figures ,nothing to beat them eh!

Pharma For Prison


John Stone


On 10 July it was published that there were 91 measles cases in England in the first quarter: by 24 August it had somehow grown to 265 (nearly three times).


Truthfully, I mind about measles but a few hundred cases of measles is not nearly as serious as several hundreds of thousands of cases autism and the hi-jacking of policy by deceit.

Grace Green

On the fallacy of "herd immunity". Let's scotch this one once and for all. I've mentioned before that my father was a pharmacologist, indeed he started his career researching vaccines. (Remember, Paul Offit is not a pharmacologist, he's a physician, and the same goes for most of the "experts" who are always going on about the dangers unvaccinated people pose to the rest of the population.) Well, when I was a child my family had a number of family friends we saw a great deal of, and one of those families didn't believe in vaccination. My father had no worries about us mixing with their kids, one of whom was exactly the same age as me, and the group sometimes went away for weekends in the hills, sleeping in very close proximity! So there you have it from the horse's mouth. These propagandists pick their "experts" to suit their aims, but don't want to hear from those with the real expertise. The BBC are clearly part of the actual conspiracy. (They have even refused me the pension they owe me!) It's very amusing that they refer to our message as a virus. Let's counter that by accusing them of speciesism.

Jenny Allan

Newsnight’s inexorable decline

Quote from above:-
"Newsnight came close to being axed, when it lost public faith in its judgment, after shelving the Savile scandal. Failure to get rid of the programme then now seems like a missed opportunity.
Frankly, who needs it? Why the hell should we, the public, have to pay for it now that it’s hit rock bottom? Andrew Neil manages more on a shoestring while Sky blows it out of the water with its non-stop news and current affairs coverage.............Put bluntly, Newsnight has become a leaky, old, left-leaning tanker in a media sea full of manoeuvrable pirate ships. Run by a crowd of Guardianista/BBC progressives out of touch with the viewers.
Goodnight Newsnight."

Well put Ms James


For your information John et al in the first 2 quarters of 2018 there were 686 laboratory confirmed cases of measles in the UK, "The hospitalisation rate has remained high at around 30% and 39 cases (9%) reported having at least one dose of a measles containing vaccine. So there was no evidence of measles vaccination in 91% of these confirmed cases, pity that Prof Exley didn't check that before writing his letter, it's fairly simple to track down with Google https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/736144/hpr3118_mmr.pdf

Jenny Allan

Who listens to the pathetic BBC 'Newsnight' anyway? The ratings are pathetic and still going down. Ghastly programmes like this are the reason. I did get a laugh at Brian Deer 'advising' the Government!!

Jenny Allan

From the programme:-
"The 'virus' is undermining trust in science and trust in the governments." ...so says the 'man from Connecticut'.

I have a message for him. Public trust in 'science' and 'governments' evaporated years ago!


I think I've referenced this before in a previous AoA comment of mine. If I'm being repetitive please forgive me. My addled, "conspiracy theorist" mind just can't remember at the moment. But whenever I see vaccine zealots tout the most recent tactic of vaccine injury and danger denial, which is to say that the internet is responsible for spreading conspiracy speak, ill-founded, unscientific, virus spreading, rhetoric that is going to kill us all, I'm reminded of a (somewhat) recent meme with Will Smith. In support of all of the heroic people out there trying to combat institutionalized racism, by standing up against African American boys being extra-judicially gunned down by the police, Mr. Smith is quoted as saying, "Racism isn't new, racism is being filmed". No one says that the cell phone is responsible for spreading lies. No one says, the death of theses young boys is coincidental. No one says the overwhelming police authority state that the killing of these young boys has nothing to do with racism.

So dear Fred I say to you,
Vaccine injury and danger is not new. Vaccine injury and danger is being more adequately discussed.

Thank you so much Dr Exley!!! And always to you John Stone!

Kayla Wildman

My five-month-old baby was the "expert" who taught me about adverse effects of vaccines. It took her eight weeks to apparently recover from her second DTaP -- though now that she's a teenager with complex chronic health problems, her current doctors periodically comment that there's no doubt that she is still suffering consequences from that vaccination.

Her doctor at the time didn't file a VAERS report, but I kept careful notes and filed one myself; and my baby's VAERS record is now tagged with eighteen different SMQs...which tells me that at least one "expert" charged with assigning SMQs to VAERS records took my baby's DTaP disaster seriously.

Parents like me will never "disbelieve" their own babies in favor of believing some distant "expert" who says vaccines are safe.


The BBC complaints director did not send back a brief "sorry not sorry" reply. I imagine Mr. Tregear was sweating bullets as he sought out every reference and argument he could find to counter the weight of Dr. Exley's irrefutable scientific authority. His response is pathetic.

Jenny Allan

It's time to call a halt to the financing of the Biased Broadcasting Corporation via the long suffering licence paying public. Instead, a system of paying for programmes should be introduced. Our national treasure David Attenborough has now been 'poached' by a commercial channel.
These days I hardly watch anything on the BBC. Sky makes a better job of the news and Netflix makes better films. I loathe those 'reality TV ' shows, but addicts can find plenty of them on the other channels.

Hans Litten

Worth repeating this I think for Fred :

An Excellent article to share regarding the media...
Why are we not hearing the whole story about vaccines?


And, let's not forget...
"There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We (DHHS) have reached out to media outlets to try to get them NOT to give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting."
Kathleen Sebelius -Sec. of DHHS, February 2010

Posted by: Pam | November 14, 2018 at 06:12 PM

John Stone


Yes, and note the segment of my compilation ‘Contagion’ linked to below in my answer to ‘Fred’


Very good parallel: I made exactly the same mistake


After 9/11, it was the consensus view of experts on US TV that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These experts had credibility and status. The "minority view," that Iraq had destroyed their WMD years before, was presented (from time to time) by Scott Ritter, who had been a weapons inspector. Ritter's opinion was swamped, however, by the sheer number of credible experts weighing in night after night on the other side. So I believed that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction because I couldn't believe that all those experts would be bald-faced lying to us.

But they were. They were all lying.

John Stone


From those people it would be an honour.


Frederic Chopin

"In recent years, a number of web sites providing unbalanced, misleading and alarming vaccine safety information have been established, which can lead to undue fears, particularly among parents and patients."

Could the WHO be talking about sites like this one?

Gary Ogden

There are certainly more, but I can see at least five logical fallacies in the BBC program and the ridiculous response to Professor Exley's complaint: (4) ad hominem- calling us "viruses." (125) star power and (27) blind loyalty, both variations on the argument from authority-invoking WHO, etc.; (127) the taboo-musn't ask questions!; and (146) zero tolerance, a variation of the taboo. Sadly, this sort of crap is what passes for journalism today. Now, if someone in the media did a story about vaccine promotion and consequences of the caliber of the recent Guardian piece on the promotion and consequences of the opioid epidemic, that would be something. They are eerily similar stories. They would be viciously attacked, and shortly go out of business.

Hans Litten

Global Update (as NOT reported by the BBC) - Vaccine Program disintegrating ? Vax Crisis ?


“Moderate” Indonesia: Muslim clerics reject measles, rubella vaccine as “unclean”

Indonesia’s immunisation campaign is in crisis. In August, its Muslim leadership officially forbade the use of the measles and rubella vaccine. Its followers have taken the ruling to heart — with a dramatic drop in vaccinations.
The religious proclamation — a fatwa — is not legally recognised or enforceable. But the Indonesian Ulama Council’s followers are obeying.
It was an unexpected outcome — and it has an enormous impact on holidaymakers from all over the world, including Australia.
The Indonesian Department of Health had approached the council in the hope of receiving a fatwa in support of their vaccination program. After all, the equivalent Malaysian council had made it compulsory for its Muslim followers to get vaccinated in 2016.
However, the Ulama Council (MUI) instead declared the measles and rubella vaccine to be “unclean”.
It asserts the vaccines use a gelatine as a stabilising agent which is based on ‘illicit’ substances derived from pigs.
Jewish and Muslim organisations around the world have ruled this not to be a problem.
But not so Indonesia.
“The government should strive to the fullest, as well as through WHO and Muslim-populated countries, to pay attention to the interests of Muslims in terms of the need for sacred and halal medicines and vaccines,” Secretary of the MUI Fatwa Commission Asrorun Ni’am Sholeh said.
Now Indonesian health authorities face an uphill battle in eradicating large pockets of communicable diseases.
A recent campaign on the island of Java had met with a near 95 per cent coverage rate. It had targeted almost 70 million children.
But it had sought religious backing among suspicious, more isolated, communities. Many believe vaccination to be a Western conspiracy to control Asia, or a Catholic attempt to eradicate Islam.
Now they have to contend with vaccinations being declared religiously ‘illegal’.
In some districts, vaccination coverage rates have been as low as 7 per cent.
For the vaccination program to be successful, rubella needs to have had a blanket reach of more than 80 per cent of the population. Measles needs 95 per cent.
The Ulama Council admitted the lack of vaccination posed a public health risk. It also noted there was no alternatives to the measles-rubella vaccine in use.


I had the good fortune hear Dr. Exley speak about aluminum in DC a few weeks ago. This letter makes me respect him even more.

David Weiner

Exley is a true hero.

Angus Files

vaccineophobia i need therapy...help!

Professor Exley`s video on HPV and Al.

"Spotlight on HPV Vaccines Symposium"


Pharma For Prison


Hans Litten

When you are worried Hotez, I am doing cartwheels and jumping for joy !

Anti-vaxxer Movement Is on the Rise in These 12 States—And That Worries Me | Opinion
Peter J Hotez On 11/14/18 at 1:03 PM

Peter I bet you don't take the annual Flu-thanasia vaccine yourself ? do you ?

Jenny Allan

From Professor Exley's Letter:
"876 cases of measles. How many of these new cases were in individuals who had been vaccinated against measles? This number was given as a ‘fact’ in support of a decline in the number of individuals being vaccinated against measles. Give the full information underlying this number and then allow individuals to decide if such could be a factor or not. "

There is something really weird going on with these UK measles figures. There seems to be one set of lower figures submitted to the WHO, which declared the UK measles free during 2017, but this only applied to the endemic population and settled migrants. So is the rise in measles cases in England, due to recent migrants and visitors? ....or is Public Health England misleading the WHO? They are certainly misleading the rest of us. ( Scotland, Wales and N Ireland had very few measles cases during the same time period).


Hans Litten

Please feel free to let the scoundrels at the BBC know how you feel about their lies at :



Misinformation, Lies, censorship, news blackouts, faked discussions, anything but the truth basically.

A corporation is disgrace.

Hans Litten (BBC reporter)

"I am the world’s leading expert on human exposure to aluminium."

Well I am ever so sorry Professor Exley, but the BBC begs to differ on your inflated opinion of yourself.
The BBC is resolute in the belief that Dylan from the Magic Roundabout is the world’s leading expert on human exposure to aluminium. And we will not be persuaded otherwise !

Jenny Allan

From the BBC's reply to Dr Exley:-
"All medicines have side effects. However, vaccines are among the safest and the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the risk of side effects.
When you're considering a vaccination for yourself or your child, it's natural to focus on the potential side effects. But a better approach is to try to balance the benefits of having a vaccine against the chances of harm."

How sickeningly patronising, and guaranteed to annoy even the most pro vaccine parents. To state 'vaccines are among the safest' tacitly acknowledges they are not always safe, and completely fails to address lingering parental concerns over MMR and HPV vaccines. How on earth are parents supposed to weigh up the risks versus the benefits of a vaccine, when they are not even given copies of the vaccine inserts?

In the UK, children over the age of 12 are considered old enough to consent to vaccines themselves, regardless of parental wishes. The vaccinations are administered in schools, which receive financial rewards for the use of the premises. The pressure on these children to be vaccinated is huge, particularly on girls, who are told the HPV vaccine will prevent cancer, although as yet there is no hard evidence to back up this assumption. The girls are just part of a huge experiment; they are effectively being used as guinea pigs.

The UK 'catch up' MMR vaccine programme, aimed at teenagers, has been a huge failure. The youngsters, whether previously vaccinated or not are shunning the vaccine. Yes, older children can legally consent to vaccines, but they are also old enough to think for themselves and decide to refuse them!

bob moffit

John .. I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughtful assessment of BBC complaints director Colin Tregear's response to Prof Chris Exley:

"The tenor of Tregear’s reply was essentially that the BBC only has to listen to health official, the WHO etc.: in other words they have bureaucratic concept of truth. He defends the reporter who declared the doubts expressed in social media as being a "virus". Fundamentally this is hate talk. It is not to be condoned if people who have different experiences want to talk about it, if people - many of them well educated - want to read and comment: these people are themselves apparently a disease to be eradicated."

The use of the word "virus" is .. indeed .. "hate speech". History is replete with examples where efforts to "eradicate" entire segments of the population began by government directing the "hate speech" towards the targeted population to be "demonized" .. such as .. calling them 'cockroaches" .. "vermin" .. or in this instance .. a "virus". It should not be "condoned" nor "minimized" by anyone who engages in the despicable tactic .. especially someone representing the BBC.

As for Tregear's excuse for presenting an obviously biased pro-vaccine program .. absent any effort to even present opposing argument in any form .. is eerily reminiscent of Saddam's public information officer .. infamously known and remembered as Baghdad Bob .. who .. absent ANY personal .. professional responsibility .. to truthfully inform the Iraqi people .. only listened to Saddam and spewed whatever propaganda Saddam wanted disseminated to the Iraqi people .. and .. we all know the consequences of Baghdad Bob's betrayal of the public trust he had been given.

In any event .. what happened to the BBC is no different than what has happened throughout western democracies in a "globalized world" .. where information is truly KING .. and .. the media's greatest sources .. and .. their dedicated enablers .. GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT, TWITTER, etc. .. use their media power to IGNORE or deliberately MISINFORM.

In my opinion .. that is the most dangerous threat to our world today.

Grace Green

My first reaction to this is to send love and prayers to Del Bigtree and family from over here in Scotland. I haven't yet had time to read the substance of the article, but I have a feeling I'm going to be angry beyond words, on behalf of Professor Exley and all of us in this mission.

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.)