From California to the New York Island This Land Was Made for the Vaccine Compliant
Stop and Shop and Drop

The BBC Files: Overwhelming Conflicts

image from www.rescuepost.comThis evening the BBC screens its documentary The Conspiracy Files: Vaccination Wars.  While vaccine program critics on both sides of the Atlantic have cooperated with this production do not expect any fair reporting: in fact the BBC long ago committed itself to the doctrine of false equivalence i.e. it does not matter how strong or rational the evidence is they will defer to the government-industry consensus. Even the use of the term "conspiracy" has slid into innuendo. Meanwhile, the documentary has been shared with the media but not the participants. Betrayal is their watchword.

Age of Autism's British editor, John Stone, writes:

Pre-publicity suggest the program makers will try to make out that commercial conflict is not an issue. Given such preposterous stance it is very hard to know where to begin or end.  Nevertheless, it might be instructive to post three submissions to UK Parliamentary bodies published by them.

PB 1584 John Stone’s response to letters from the Scottish Government and the JCVI

I hope it is in order for me individually to respond to the letters from the Scottish government and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation as supporting witness in Angus File’s petition.

The JCVI Secretariat (1) have now responded with a defence of Prof Pollard’s appointment which I would like briefly to answer from public documents.

The code of practice of 2013 (cited by Mr Earnshaw as current in his letter) states in section 42 (2):

If a member has in the last 12 months received, or plans to receive a financial payment or other benefit from a business or representative body relating to vaccines or any other product or service that could be under consideration by JCVI...including... holding a directorship or other paid position...the member must declare this interest... If this interest is specific to an agenda item and the payment or other benefit is connected specifically with the product under consideration, the member will be required to absent him/herself from the discussion and any subsequent vote.

Such a conflict does not hinge on receiving direct remuneration from a manufacturer. Prof Pollard is on record as having led the crucial discussion on whether to recommend Bexsero vaccine in the JCVI minutes of February 2014 but he is also Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group. According to a document about the business of the Group submitted by Oxford University to Higher Education Funding Committees’ survey REF2014 (3), closing date for submissions 29 November 2013 (4) , Prof Pollard had led the development of the vaccine since 2001. The introductory paragraph states:

Oxford University research has also led to the planned use of vaccines against serogroup B meningococcal disease, which have been licensed and recommended for the prevention of disease in high-risk individuals, and broader use is under consideration.

It does not mention that the committee which will consider this broader use is chaired by Prof Pollard himself. The next section begins:

Meningococcal disease is the leading infectious cause of death in children in the UK, and its prevention is a major objective of the Oxford Vaccine Group, directed by Professor Andrew Pollard. During the period from 2001-2013 more than 10,000 volunteers were enrolled in clinical studies in Oxford, mainly children, and the research provided new insight into the design, development and evaluation of novel vaccines for meningitis and specifically meningococcal disease...

The document also mentions patents, whether or not they were any longer current:

The design and development of new vaccines for serogroup B meningococcus by Oxford University have led to a number of patents on the candidate vaccines (based on various surface proteins including Opa, PorA and FetA 17), which provide a licensing position for the University as these vaccines progress through early phase clinical trials.

The position is therefore simple irrespective of any contracts for the Group’s work at the time Prof Pollard’s appointment the JCVI, or whether he was named on any of them: Prof Pollard was director of OVG and the business of OVG was meningococcal vaccines and Bexsero in particular. This ought, I believe, to have precluded him from chairing the JCVI or certainly discussing Bexsero. Irrespective of manufacturers like Novartis or GSK taking an interest in the product it is stated here by Oxford University in 2013 (the date at which Prof Pollard was appointed the JCVI) that the product is developed by OVG of which Prof Pollard is the director.

The Bexsero decision is controversial. Subsequent to the decision in London the PBAC in Australia (their equivalent of NICE) was still dismissive of the product, both of its effectiveness and value for money (5):

- The PBAC noted that the submission had not addressed the previous concerns of the PBAC in regards to the model, namely uncertain and optimistic assumptions about the extent and duration of effect and herd immunity. The PBAC was also concerned with the discounting rate applied in the model that considerably favoured the 4CMenB vaccine. The PBAC considered that none of the proposed program options were cost effective as presented in the submission.

This underlines how essential it would be for any decision to be completely beyond suspicion, particularly bearing in mind that the Secretary of State for Health was putting pressure on the committee over Bexsero before Prof Pollard was appointed. He wrote in a letter to the acting chair of the JCVI before the June 2013 meeting (6):

I would be grateful if the committee could make the recommendation at the earliest practicable time recognising the need for scientific rigour, a strong evidence base that includes an assessment of cost effectiveness, and proper reflection of the benefits, risks and uncertainties in the committee’s advice and recommendation.

There is, I believe, something terribly wrong here and JCVI Secretariat have reacted by defending it. Everyone in the vaccine business would have known that Prof Pollard had spent an important part of his career developing Bexsero and yet by February 2014 when it was back on the agenda at the JCVI he was there in person to chair the meeting which would decide its fate. The problem of how this happened should really be the subject of urgent investigation.

(1)Andrew Earnshaw, Secretary of the JCVI, PHE to Michael MacMahon MSP, Convener PPC, 7 January 2016

 (2)JCVI Code of Practice 2013





Age of Autism submission to the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee Inquiry into Fake News November 2017

Written evidence submitted by Age of Autism

John Stone, UK Editor Age of Autism

Age of Autism [1] is a United States based web journal founded in 2007 dealing with issues such as autism and vaccine injury, but also with wider issues to do with health and potential environmental harm – and ultimately of civil rights. Since 2008 I have published hundreds of carefully researched, fact based articles on the site [2], only two of which I have ever taken down -  and even in those cases not because of legal challenges. I write as a well-informed citizen and parent, not as a professional. The sources of my information come in the main from government websites, peer reviewed publications, industry websites and mainstream media - only often viewed from a different critical angle or simply just highlighted in a different context.

The view of Age of Autism is that having great bureaucracies working on behalf of governments and corporate interests deciding what is true – or even machines operating algorithms to decide it -  is a prospect little different from the world of George Orwell’s 1984. It is troubling in an era when the mainstream media cannot be relied upon to provide reliable information that attention and suspicion is being diverted to other sources on the internet.  The internet is presently a chaotic place, but that is infinitely better than the alternative which would be information controlled on behalf of governments and global corporations, which could never be held to account.

The present author remembers visiting a bookshop in East Berlin across Unter den Linden from the gigantic Soviet Embassy in the early 1980s: there were perhaps no more than ten different titles for sale. There were quite a lot of copies of each, although I do not know that anyone wanted to buy them. The East German population was then controlled by the notorious Stasi. Of course, we can have a pseudo pluralistic situation in which hundreds of different websites report from the same agencies but this kind of controlled reality is equally bogus and shallow. Unfortunately, no historical lesson seems to be learnt for very long.

It is, for example, not at all obvious that discussion of the effects of medical interventions should be controlled through government departments or industry public relations agencies such as Science Media Centre and Sense About Science. In 2005 a House of Commons Health Committee report on the influence of the pharmaceutical industry heavily criticised the Department of Health and the MHRA (the medicines licensing authority) for failing to keep any distance from industry [3], and twelve years later the situation has dramatically deteriorated, not least because the kind of over-sight provided by the 2005 Health Committee has never since been replicated.  Perhaps this present committee would do better to inquire into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the media, which would at least be lot easier to define than “fake news”.

At issue in this instance is not only freedom of information, but things like informed medical consent, or even consent at all. The possibility of becoming a pharmaceutical dictatorship, is not far off – in some respects already with us. And along with forced medication comes the removal from the public domain of open debate, suppression of information about harms, and a captive market for an indefinitely expanding group of products which citizens then have to pay for through their taxes.

In this regard it is disquieting to look at the global campaign by vaccine lobbyists which reached these shores this summer advocating compulsory vaccination, having scored recent successes in Australia, Italy, France and parts of the United States. The British Medical Association jettisoned its traditional opposition to compulsory vaccination [4] – dismissed only a few years ago by a former chairman, Hamish Meldrum, as “Stalinist” [5] -   and called for the matter to be discussed. Just a few days before an article appeared in the on-line Spectator by the CEO of GAVI, a global agency promoting vaccination, calling for “anti-vaxxers” to be excluded from “social media”[6]. It must be emphasised that anyone remotely critical or informed about the vaccine lobby and its products, is placed under the general pejorative label “anti-vaxxer”: it is the vaccine/pharmaceutical lobby that polarises the debate – anyone who is not in favour of their entire open-ended agenda is subject to opprobrium and ad hominem attack. Complex health issues are being reduced in the mainstream arena to “Four legs good, two legs bad” type arguments.

Hot on the heels of this a Guardian editorial appeared calling for vaccination to be made compulsory because “antivaxxers” (who are all apparently very privileged people like Gwyneth Paltrow) were gaining influence – the comedian John Oliver was held up as an authority on “antivaxxers” and what bad people they are. Further, this was illustrated by a picture of demonstrators in Italy, who were in fact demonstrating in large numbers not against vaccination but against compulsory vaccination: without Italy’s new laws there would be no demonstrations at all, nor were most of the people in them anti-vaccinationist in any literal sense [7]. It could be said that this was both manipulative mis-reporting and an inappropriate way to deal with such a serious issue.

The reality, however, is that even with the alleged baleful influence of the eternally scapegoated Andrew Wakefield (who only suggested in this regard that parents may wish to split up the vaccines temporally) [8] there have only been four deaths from measles since 1992 in the United Kingdom according to government statistics, out of perhaps 13 million deaths from all causes. Ironically, the Italian health minister Beatrice Lorenzin, is recorded on youtube as stating that 270 children had died in London in a recent outbreak of measles, at the same time lamenting without irony the false information available on the web [9].

Meanwhile, GSK’s CEO in Italy boasted to a pharmaceutical website [10]:

Among the aspects, I also met with Minister Lorenzin and other members of the government who reiterated the sensitivity of the government towards those who invest, create jobs and opportunities for young people. In short, we started on the right foot.

Such sensitivity in the Roman palaces is not to be dismissed. As for us, Andrew Witty has asked for a few things: clear rules and stability in return for strong investment in advanced research and production equipment. We were of one intent.

What is at stake here? One thing is the crude and often abusive means by which any public debate has been controlled or in fact more or less de-legitimised, which does not suggest the moral high ground. It was notable that in the one mainstream public forum which remained open for tolerant comment during the summer of 2017, BMJ Rapid Responses, the proponents of compulsory vaccination absented themselves from replying to informed criticism despite many challenges to do so, pointing to a complete inability by them to argue their position on a level playing field [11]. The issues are not so straightforward as not wanting children to die from infectious diseases (who wants that?) but more a question of mushrooming rates of neurological disability – such as autism and attention deficit disorder – as well as chronic disease, which are certainly related to environmental influences, and may be in part be related to an expanding vaccine schedule, the effects of which are not being transparently monitored.

To give a concrete example, though the Department of Health has neglected to collect autism {ASD} data for children since 2004 when the figure was effectively frozen at 1 in 100 [12], the actual figures for schools have continued to rise year on year [13]. A recent news report from Northern Ireland gives the rate there as 1 in 40 [14] and a BBC report earlier this year from London suggested the figure in the capital for those waiting for a diagnosis, who will be mostly young children, has reached 1 in 10 [15,16]. Moreover, local authorities only recognise disability if they absolutely have to, because it costs huge amounts of money.

When such stories are reported they tend to focus on the lack of provision, not on why it is happening. This is damning public data and the Department of Health do not even want to talk about it – implicitly they connect it with vaccination. Ten years ago, when the Observer tried to highlight the issue, it was not only forced to withdraw the article under pressure from Science Media Centre and Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre, the editor lost his job [17]. No one in the British mainstream media is any longer willing to stick their necks out, which may be one reason why powerful interests are turning their attention to social media, where things may still be spoken.

We are apart from anything else confronted with a care crisis of catastrophic proportions and discussing the causes has been placed outside the mainstream agenda: it really is a slippery slope if we are not even then allowed to talk about them publicly at all. At times of national peril the reasons for going to war are debated.  If governments, industry or self-appointed agencies need to clamp down on information it suggests that they cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny, and that is their own fault. Meanwhile, common-sense argues that if bodies are placed beyond public scrutiny this will abused. Indeed, the very purpose is abuse.



[3] House of Commons Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2005

[4] Katie Foster, France to make vaccination mandatory from 2018 as it is 'unacceptable children are still dying of measles, The Independent, 5 July 2017,

[5] BBC News, No jabs, no school say Labour MP, 11 May 2008

[6] Seth Berkley, Anti-vaxxers have embraced social media; we paying for fake news with real lives Spectator Health 28 June 2017,

[7] Editorial: The Guardian view on vaccination: a matter of public health, The Guardian 7 July 2017,

[8] Vera Sharav, L’affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus & BMJ’s Descent into Tabloid Science, Alliance for Human Health Protection (AHRP), October 2017

[9] John Stone, Re: Compulsory vaccination and growing measles threat - Prof Melegaro's response, BMJ Rapid Responses 21 October 2017,

[10] "Aspetti, io ho poi incontrato il ministro Lorenzin ed altri membri del governo che hanno manifestato la sensibilità del governo verso le aziende che investono, che creano posti di lavoro ed opportunità per i giovani. Insomma, abbiamo iniziato con il piede giusto. Una tale sensibilità non è da trascurare nei palazzi romani. Per quanto ci riguarda, Andrew Witty (AD della Glaxo) ha fatto poche richieste: regole chiare e stabilità in cambio di un forte investimento nella ricerca avanzata e nella produzione. Avevamo intenzione identiche.",

[11] BMJ possibly felt an obligation to host correspondence since its parent body, the BMA, was calling for the discussion. Not every letter submitted was posted: gaps can be detected by the way the letters are numbered that are posted on threads. The editors will always check references if the claims made are controversial, and they also tend not to post letters documenting conflicts of interest (in contrast to past policy). Relevant correspondence included:-

Rapid Responses for Doshi, US government website for collecting adverse events after vaccination is inaccessible to most users,

Rapid Responses for Moberly, UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination,

Rapid Responses for Arie, Compulsory vaccination and growing measles threat,

Rapid Responses for Cave, Debating the future of mandatory vaccination,

[12] Green H et al, Mental health of children and young people in Great Britain, 2004, Table 4.1 p.35.

[13] The figure for schools are published by various government sources: National Statistics, the Department of Education, the Scottish Executive etc. The January 2017 figure for England can be calculated at 1 in 67 and the September 2016 figure for Scotland 1 in 51, however the long term position is much worse since (a) these are 15 year rolling cohorts so the rates are much higher among younger children and (b) data for younger children is still incomplete since there are many who will still not be diagnosed.

The rate for English schools is derived by dividing the total number of pupils in school (8,669,085) by the number with  ASD diagnosis (128,948). The first number comes from the DoE publication, Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2017, p. 3 and the other figure extracted from National Statistics Special educational needs in England: January 2017,  & National Tables SFR 37/2017 table 8, and Additional tables SFR37/2017 table G

The number of pupils in Scottish was 684,415 and the number of pupils with an ASD diagnosis was 13,423: data provided by the Scottish Executive.

[14] Sarah Scott, New campaign aims to raise awareness about autism in the classroom, Belfast Live 5 November 2017,

[15] Jane Dreaper, Autism diagnoses 'could be reduced under NHS plan, BBC News 27 May 2017,

[16]  John Stone, Re: US government website for collecting adverse events after vaccination is inaccessible to most users, BMJ Rapid Responses, 29 May 2017,

[17] John Stone, Swept Aside: An Unpublished Submission to the Leveson Inquiry About Science Journalism,

Age of Autism Supplementary Submission the House of Commons Digital, Culture and Media Committee Inquiry into Fake News December 2017

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Age of Autism

John Stone, UK Editor Age of Autism

The following observations are occasioned by events too late to be considered in the original submission to the inquiry [1].

In the original submission I remarked on the 2005 report by the House of Commons Health Committee which criticised the Department of Health for being too close to the pharmaceutical industry. To quote briefly from the report [2]:

The Department of Health has for too long optimistically assumed that the interests of health and of the industry are as one. This may reflect the fact that the Department sponsors the industry as well as looking after health....

The consequences of lax oversight is that the industry’s influence has expanded and a number of practices have developed which act against the public interest. The industry affects every level of healthcare provision, from the drugs that are initially discovered and developed through clinical trials, to the promotion of drugs to the prescriber and the patient groups, to the prescription of medicines and the compilation of clinical guidelines...

But even as I was writing it looks like the final boundaries between the state and the industry were being demolished with the creation of the Accelerated Access Partnership (AAP) with Sir Andrew Witty, lately CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, in charge. Of course, it is very easy to project this in the mainstream media – if it is mentioned at all - as good news. On the other hand we might wonder why having at least putative independence for pharmaceutical licensing and surveillance was thought to be good thing in the past. The mainstream media would be asking serious questions if it was alert, competent and independent. If…

About this departure two LSE professors have warned [3]:

Nonetheless, the proposal says too little on expected benefits for patients and wider society. Instead, several concrete pledges are made to industry, including a promise to establish a new commercial unit within the NHS to “immediately streamline the pathway for access discussions” and pave the way for “flexible and confidential commercial arrangements.” Why? Because innovators want it, according to the report.

Meanwhile, an international authority on infectious diseases, Tom Jefferson, queried the simultaneous appointments of Witty to head the AAP, Patrick Vallance head of R&D at GSK as Chief Government Scientist, and Jonathan van Tam – a figure with strong industry connections – as  Deputy Chief Medical Officer for emergency preparedness and pandemic planning. Jefferson writes [4]:

The lowering of regulatory and HTA [Human Tissue Act] standards is in full swing and its main driver is the pharmaceutical industry. The general rhetoric of rushing drugs and devices through to needy patients willing to accept substantial risk rests on very thin evidence of benefit and unclear public support.

Improving the quality of evidence is desperately needed as shown by the scores of examples of clinical trials that have been abandoned or distorted that have come to light in the last decade. Pandemic planning also requires some rethinking as the millions of pounds spent on a dubious pandemic with equally dubious fixes has shown. The close space of time of these “revolving doors” makes me wonder whether the government has objectively and properly overseen the decision making which has led to such important public positions being filled by senior industry figures. Can one walk away from leading industry, or rubbing shoulders with it, and perform an important public health function with impartiality? HM Government seems to think so, but if you are unsure (as I am) you may be given pause for thought.

What we have here are cosy arrangements between the government and the pharmaceutical industry which more certainly benefit the industry than the public, which completely escape serious comment in mainstream media and might easily get to be categorised as misinformation by the public relations machinery of the government and the industry if they came to be mentioned in social media. In the original response I wrote of a deal between Sir Andrew Witty as CEO of GSK and the Italian government which may have done a lot to undermine the Italian public’s trust in their government [1] and now he is to lead a body to fast track products under development when he was head of one the largest pharmaceutical manufacturers only months before.

In the light of all of this I was dismayed to see the comments of Samantha Bradshaw of the Oxford Internet Institute in the first oral hearing of the inquiry [5] talking about “undermining research” as an issue under consideration including prejudicial talk about “anti-vax campaigns” as if governments have a monopoly on truth: there may in fact be an awful lot wrong with government science which ought to be talked about. You cannot have an a priori view on that and believe seriously in freedom of speech.

It was particularly farcical to see the very day our original submission was published by the Committee the Daily Mirror run with the story Russian cyber units 'spreading false information about flu and measles jabs in the UK' [6] The article was couched in the most slippery language, spokespersons were quoted outside any clear context, and of course not a shred of evidence supporting the allegation was offered. Now this patently is “fake news” and targeted at an audience likely thought to have limited critical reading skills.

Amid all this it was encouraging to hear on Boxing Day a government minister, Jo Johnson, admonishing universities to tolerate free speech and diversity of opinions [7]. We can only hope that the government will think it through and get back to promoting a plural democracy in which dissenting voices are genuinely welcome instead of the menacing game we have at the moment.

[1] John Stone, Written evidence submitted by Age of Autism [DCMS Inquiry, Fake News],

[2] House of Commons Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2005 p.3

[3] Naci H and Mossialos E, Accelerated access to new drugs and technologies, BMJ 2017; (Published 22 November 2017)

[4] Tom Jefferson, The UK turns to Witty, Vallance, and Van Tam for leadership: revolving doors?, 6 December 2017,

[5] Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Oral evidence: Fake News, HC 363, 19 December 2017 Q38

[6] Russell Myers, Russian cyber units 'spreading false information about flu and measles jabs in the UK', Daily Mirror, 26 November 2017

[7] Nicola Woodcock, Universities warned over free speech by Jo Johnson, The Times, 26 December 2017

Given the prominence evidently given to Paul Offit in the program it is to be hoped that the not his chair at Pennsylvania University is sponsored by Merck.



Today on the UK news Northern Ireland and Scotland reaching imms targets but England failing. John
has posted articles about the numbers of children with educational special needs in N Ireland ,Scotland rising. Wonder if the two are connected ?

Grace Green

Yes, and the event was organized by the Huffington Post not the Tory Party conference! On the radio news this morning it was described as a "fringe event". Fringe ideas also!


As I suspected by the blatant obviousness of the way the BBC program was structured. This was the start of the first overture, to introduce the public to the ideology of compulsory vaccination, because the BBC posted this article yesterday:

Health secretary 'looking seriously' at compulsory vaccines for schoolchildren
Matt Hancock told an event at the Tory conference he had taken legal advice this week on how to go about it.

As he got his degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, is mental faculties will have been damage beyond repair. The NHS is doomed under is guardianship.


Watched the program yesterday. While it was infuriating at times, the very fact that they have to grasp at straws and fall back on ridiculous propaganda is actually a good sign. Fewer and fewer people are lapping up the official lies. It may end up a shot in their own foot.


Watched this BBC program. It came over to me, as programming the UK population to think and consider that the only way out of the “vaccine resistance” dilemma’ is to accept compulsory vaccinations.

Of course, to do this they had to resort to false hoods, half truths all joined together with logical fallacies. The real dilemma that parents face, got transposed to being no more than the result of non-scientific propaganda. Even Russian Bots got some of the blame.

Don’t think I would have been that aware, of the shear amount of misrepresentation being presented as being an insightful investigation, had I not followed the history and read the science for myself. Although Paul Offit did jump the shark, when he declared that pharma don’t make any profit from vaccines. I’d love to run a company that is this unprofitable.

A shortened version may get uploaded to YouTube in about 12 days time which may be viewable outside the UK.
I’ll keep an eye out for it and post the link.
Also noticed that the same day the BBC website ran an article:
Alarm as uptake drops for all routine child jabs
It finishes with:
Have you chosen not to vaccinate your child? You can get in touch with us by emailing….

Perhaps they are planing a follow up program and want to trawl for naïve ‘victims-of-preventable-diseases’ willing to be interviewed, for to add puffery to the next BBC prog made on behalf of the UK Gov and GSK — with BBC Licences payers money.
Finaly as an aside. Got an email from the Lancet medical journal.
“I am contacting you as an online reader of The Lancet and its family of specialty journals. We are conducting a short research study to see how best we can improve the services offered to you on Your input is vital to future developments on the website.” lancetsurvey@surveys.elsevie

And another one:
“We know you are incredibly busy, but we believe that your experience and comments related to will allow us to improve the website and the services and features currently provided. We greatly appreciate the feedback you are able to share.”

Well, they guessed the first bit right about ‘busy’ and yes, I think if they followed up on just ‘any’ of the many suggestions which spring to my mind, it would improve their sorry little journal (as that is what it has now become) immensely….. But would their advertisers and their owners Elsevie allow it? The BMJ in my opinion has gone down in quality too, after the editor Richard Smith left.


Medical ethics operating "off piste ,aye right off it "

Professor David Salisbury cb/Chatham House
Other Publications,
Translating vaccine policy into action. A report from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Consultation on the prevention of maternal and early influenza in resource -limited settings

Does our NHS qualify for a resource limited setting or not?
Oh What1 The normally usually well respected science sector resorting to "A cat's lick and and a promise strategy as Evidence based medicine ? Surely that type of strategy couldn't safely appraise a risk assessment for sitting it's own hin end the right way round on a bed ban ?

Publication Immunisation in Europe,with Martin RM , Van Damme P ,Lopaleo Pl.
Vaccines Sixth Edition Authors Stanly Plotkin ,Walter Orenstein , Paul Offit . 2013 P 1334-1353 .

Dry Bones Song -The Foot bone connected to the... Youtube

susan welch

John, this is excellent. It is so frustrating to see the obvious conflicts of interests and to know that 'they' know, but to have to watch the gradual brainwashing of the average 'person in the street'. To me, it is the epitome of evil.

A few years ago I never would have believed that governments, media and health authorities would combine together, with Pharma, to cover up disability/death caused by vaccine damage and, even worse, promote this carnage for future generations. Of course, I do realise that many doctors and people who work in health departments have been brainwashed by the lies and propaganda, but this makes it even more frustrating because they are unwittingly contributing to the decline in the health of this - and future - generation(s).

It is difficult to stay positive, especially knowing that, whilst pretending to be unbiased, I am sure the BBC will be using the documentary tonight to promote the 'experts', such as Paul Offit and Dept. of Health officials, whilst portraying families of vaccine damaged children as unscientific anti-vaxxers and, probably, slightly hysterical.

Thank you, John, for providing the information this week to counter their propaganda. I only wish we could get the publicity the mainstream media has.

As Bob says, 'and the band plays on'

Angus Files

The JCVI and vaccine manufacturers if it were cars they were overseeing the safety of we would all be in cars with elastic bands as seatbelt restraints and being told ,they are tested, no conflicts, nothing to see folks just move on the rubber elasticated seat belts are safe they will save you from death in a collision. The gun totting Mafia from the 60`s look like snow white compared to this lot. This bad lot dont even use guns to get their products on the shelves.

Nice work by Pollard couldnt have done it on his own. Blood on THEIR hands is an understatement.

Pharma For Prison


Hans Litten

Alarm as uptake drops for all routine child jabs
The idea of compulsory vaccination has been put forward and is under consideration.

But so far, the government has focused on working with social media companies to make sure misleading anti-vaccine messages are quashed and getting GPs to promote catch-up vaccinations for children.



Meningococcal disease is the leading infectious cause of death in children in the UK. Has this always been the case or is it possibly due to the aggressive vaccine schedule allowing invasive bacteria to become more dangerous

Jenny Allan

The following quote is from today's (26th September 2019) Daily Mail TV programme 'pick':-
Conspiracy Files
Vaccine Wars
BBC 2 9pm
"DESPITE all the evidence to the contrary, not only does the anti-vaccination lobby persist in believing that preventative injections are bad, but its ideas are actually spreading. This film looks at a dangerous phenmenon that has caused the UK to lose its measles-free status."

This is dangerous propaganda, which ignores all the official evidence of vaccine risks, including the vaccine manufacturers' own inserts. Added to this is a UK Government Health Minister who accuses those of us who publicly express genuine vaccine safety concerns of having 'blood on our hands'.

Hans Litten

The clearances of the UK is well underway.
With Gardasil at 83% uptake, and an unknown (by me) infertility rate caused by it.
The United Kingdom is fast fast asleep thanks to the BBC, the SNP , Labour (the party of the people haha), the Trade Unions, the Guardian aka GAVI. The London Times (Murdoch).

The crime of all centuries is going according to plan without a hitch.
We have been taxed and are paying for our own extinction.

If it wasn't for the Internet, mostly coming out of the US, none of us here would have a clue what is going on, such is the totalitarian level of state censorship.
Its so Orwellian in the UK, most haven't a clue to anything I am saying.
Fluoride , doh, that's really good for you isn't it what you hear ?

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.)