Nazism, COVID-19 and the destruction of modern medicine: An interview with Vera Sharav
Is Horror Film Come Play a Trick or Treat for Autism?

Adjuvants: The BBC's Fairy Dust Future

image from external-content.duckduckgo.comby John Stone

Two days ago I received at breakfast a magazine article from an outfit called BBC Future entitled Immune Respose: The Strange Ingredients Found in Vaccines by Zaria Gorvett (pictured left).That the BBC should supply such a bland and poorly informed article for the popular market is no surprise, but nevertheless my annoyance did rise at her account of the DPT affair, and I wrote to her:

Dear Ms Gorvett,

Re: Your article “Immune Response” this morning

Despite the opprobrium heaped on John Wilson the government discreetly paid out on 600 DPT cases within three years of the vaccine damage payment act of 1979. In a letter last year to BMJ (which I append)  I also pointed out the paper by Mogensen which found that mortality in DPT vaccinated infants in Guinea-Bissau (1981) was 5 times vaccinated. This is not a small matter.

I also point out that size comparison makes no sense when talking (about)  an active ingredient of a product and I forward the link to the recent article by Prof Exley “An aluminium adjuvant in a vaccine is an acute exposure to aluminium”.

It is not correct to say that there is no evidence when there is evidence and I think you ought to reconsider.

Yours sincerely,

 John Stone, UK Editor, Age of Autism

The Benefits of DPT

(BMJ Rapid Response)

Mara Kardas-Nelson [1] should also note that as result of DPT controversy and the UK Vaccine Damage Payment Act of 1979 there were 600 payments in the period 1978-81 (1978/9: 36, 1979/80: 317, 1980/1: 256) [2,3]. The rhetoric behind the legislation was that injuries were rare but this was not borne out by the record [2,3]. The act enabled the government to retrieve the reputation of the programme amid adverse publicity by acknowledging the principle of harm but no one knew how many awards there had actually been - and initially there were a lot. This would also not take account of any deaths.

According to Mogensen et al, the introduction of DPT to Guinea-Bissau in 1981 was associated with a 5 fold increase in the rate of death [4]:

"Among 3–5-month-old children, having received DTP (±OPV) was associated with a mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 5.00 (95% CI 1.53–16.3) compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children. Differences in background factors did not explain the effect. The negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (HR = 10.0 (2.61–38.6)). All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (HR = 2.12 (1.07–4.19))."

[1] Kardas- Nelson, 'Despite high rates of vaccination, pertussis cases are on the rise. Is a new vaccination strategy needed?', BMJ 2019; 366 doi: (Published 09 July 2019)

[2] Gareth Millward, 'A Disability Act? The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and the British Government’s Response to the Pertussis Vaccine Scare', Social History of Medicine, Volume 30, Issue 2, May 2017, Pages 429–447,

[3] 'Annex A - Vaccine Damage Payments claims received and award statistics',

[4] Mogensen et al, 'The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment', Ebiomedicine March 2017,

I forgot to mention that the old DPT contained 50 micrograms of life-enhancing ethyl mercury but not receiving  an answer I decided to forward it to her editor Amanda Ruggeri (below), who describes herself on her website as  “Journalist, Photographer, Traveler,  Historian,  Adventurer”, and obviously a very exciting person. She also has not replied. image from

What I did not know at the time that I wrote to Zaria was that before writing her amusing vaccine fairy story she had interviewed Prof Exley at length on the phone. Yesterday, he wrote to her furiously:

Dear Zaria,

This not about whether one 'likes' something or not. It is about your integrity as a journalist.

You contacted me by email to ask my advice. I was happy to help and even gave you my home telephone number since you wished to talk to me personally and not simply correspond by email.

We talked for about forty minutes. I shared with you a great deal of scientific, published, information on our expertise in aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines. I made sure that you had access to all the primary published research that we talked about. I also gave you some background on adjuvants generally. You gave the impression of both being very interested in the information I gave you and also of being grateful for my time and expertise. Afterall we are, arguably, the world's leading group researching the efficacy and safety of aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines.

When we finished our conversation, you promised to send me a link to your article. You did not do this and reading your article, I can understand why.

Not only did you not mention my contribution to your article once but when opportunities arose you chose to write what can only be described as blatant lies.

For example, even though you knew that what you had written was untrue you still wrote;

There is as little as 0.2mg of aluminium in a typical vaccine dose, which is equivalent to less than the weight of a single poppy seed. There is no evidence that any of the adjuvants currently in use lead to side-effects.

Apart from being factually incorrect the comparison with a poppy seed is absurd at best.

What happened to your editor's mantra concerning BBC Future;

We believe in truth, facts, and science. We take the time to think. And we don't accept — we ask why.

I told you everything you needed to know about how much aluminium is used in vaccines. I even shared with you some of our new research in this field about to be published in the BMJ. I pointed out to you that there are serious adverse events caused by aluminium adjuvants and I also informed you as to where you could find this information, no lesser document than the patient information leaflet provided with every vaccine.

Your writing about DPT is completely false and while we did not discuss this you could have checked this information with me at any time. You clearly chose not to check your information.

I told you the story of Glenny and the 'discovery' of aluminium adjuvants.

I also made sure that you understood which aluminium salts were used as aluminium adjuvants. Instead you wrote lies again about this;

To this day, the aluminium in vaccines is always in the form of salts. These include aluminium hydroxide (commonly used as an antacid to relieve indigestion and heartburn), aluminium phosphate (often used in dental cement) and potassium aluminium sulphate, which is sometimes found in baking powder.

You decided instead to write complete scientific nonsense in your descriptions of aluminium salts used in vaccines, why is beyond me when you had access to the correct information. What were you trying to do, make the aluminium salts sound benign by comparing them wrongly to household products?

I told you that the main reason why aluminium adjuvants are effective is because they are toxic at the vaccine injection site. I spoke to you at length about this and I pointed you towards the relevant peer reviewed published scientific literature. Your reference to uric acid at this point did not come from me and has no relevance.

This article is very shoddy journalism. It seems to have been primarily informed by a Chinese scientist working on vaccines in China. As the world's leading researcher on aluminium, I have no knowledge of this scientist only that they have no expertise in aluminium adjuvants. Why you chose to only follow their advice is insulting.

If you and your editors do truly 'believe in truth, facts, and science', then I would expect a right of reply to this inaccurate and scientifically inept article. To not do so would suggest that the written lies therein have an alternative agenda.

Yours sincerely

image from






Professor Christopher Exley PhD FRSB

So far, at the time of writing, Prof Exley assures me he has heard neither from Zaria Gorvett or her editor Amanda Ruggeri (which is I suppose what you would expect from the modern BBC). Perhaps as their next assignment these two geniuses can set themselves to working out why Autism Spectrum Disorders have reached 7% in Belfast schools (I have had an identical figure just quoted me by personal communication for the first year in-take of a Welsh comprehensive school). All brought to you by the BBC’s responsible journalism.

Post Script

Prof Exley has now received a succession of letters from the BBC which does not make their position any more satisfactory:

Dear Professor Exley,

Thank you very much for speaking with me the other day. I am sorry that you do not like the article. I have cc'd my editors.

Best regards,



Dear Prof. Exley,

Thank you for raising your concerns with BBC Future. We’re sorry that you feel your time in the interview was wasted; we seek information from a wide range of sources, and there is no guarantee when we do interviews that any given interviewee will be quoted or mentioned in a piece.

We’ve gone through the claims you make below and remain confident in the accuracy of our reporting. Thank you again for your time.


Amanda Ruggeri


Dear Professor Exley,

I’m the Editorial Director for the BBC’s international news and features output.    Amanda has passed your complaint onto me.

Let me echo Amanda’s apology for the fact that you feel your time was wasted.    We speak to a lot of people in the course of our research and are grateful to anyone who gives up their time. 

The article was amended on Thursday to clarify two points:

The weight of evidence is that adjuvants do not lead to serious side-effects.

And we added detail about the link between the pertussis vaccine and encephalopathy and corrected the statement that the vaccine had been administered for decades without incident.

Best wishes,


Mary Wilkinson, Head of Editorial Content,  BBC Global News  Ltd

Of course, no one actually says sorry for their actions, and all three are guilty of deliberately misleading the public by failing to report that they had consulted him and received  information of substance (existing in the form of peer reviewed studies in respected journals)  which stood in contradiction to the claims of the published article. If they were professionally fearful of the consequences of publishing this information then it might have been better not to publish at all. Plainly none of them have the expertise to discard Prof Exley's evidence and there is no explanation of why they chose to do this except expedience.


John Stone

Michael Boddington

I think your letter was probably pretty annoying. Christopher Exley has spent an awful lot of time explaining himself and his science, so if you go back to him as if he has never taken the trouble it might just appear that you are being unreasonably bothersome. You have come back to tell us how nice you are when originally you came to grind an axe. Well and good!

Michael Boddington

I am very happy that Chris Exley forwarded our correspondence to you, John Stone. I hope that he also sent you the piece that I was writing and which I forwarded to him (in a lesser form than it has now achieved) in which I wrote strongly positive things about him. If not, and if you can write to me with your e-mail address, I can also send it to you. I should be happy for you to circulate it to any other of your correspondents who wishes to have it.

It is a strange thing that I see me, you and your readers - and Chris - being on the same side of the fence, yet, in the discussion on this page, I feel a sense of hostility.

You suggest that my letter, asking for information from Chris, was 'crass'. I should be pleased to know which particular bit of it. I thought that it was very friendly, warm and civil.

Kind regards
Mike Boddington

John Stone

I would like to make a personal apology to Irena. Irena made a perfectly innocent joke: one of our readers got their wires crossed and mistakenly took offence. The comments from 'For Irena' should never have been posted. I am sure that on reflection the author of the 'For Irena' comments will realise that nothing was intended by her.

John Stone

Prof Exley has forwarded his correspondence with Michael Boddington (which is perfectly reasonable given that MB has referred to its contents). I cannot see any evidence of discourtesy or high-handedness - I think perfectly reasonably CE asked MB to read the published material. If I was going to approach a leading scientist I would expect to do some reading first and then ask questions. Maybe a BBC journalist has to be indulged a little more. My own guess in retrospect is that Ms Gorvett started out trying to do an honest job and was over-ruled i.e. the BBC will not report a non-consensus scientific position even if the facts support it. In effect the BBC formalised its position as a scientifically Fascist organisation when it quietly endorsed the Jones report in 2011 (as I reported at the time).

John Stone

Michael Boddington

Maybe the problem was that you did not pay sufficient attention first time.

Michael Boddington

Thank you for all the responses to my comments in this thread. Please forgive me if I do not mention each one by name - though I think that I have the main points in my head.

Chris Exley is very upset because he spent 40 minutes on the telephone to journalist Zaria Garvett, giving her all the information that she could possibly want and offering her his home telephone number in order that she would be able to get back to him and check out further issues, only to be completely ignored, have misleading and erroneous statements made in the article and not to fulfil her offer to let him have a preview of the article.

I had the benefit of some interaction with Chris in what I do in sending out a monthly newsletter to quite a big list. My September issue quoted some of his work, as a result of being introduced to it by a friend of mine, Sara Davenport, who produces a fortnightly health blog. I got some flack for that, from some of my addressees, and I decided that I would put out a mid-month episode to deal with it - something I almost never do. I sent the comments to Chris and he, very kindly, offered me some guidance, whilst saying that the comments were inane. I sent him an early draft of the response and he replied saying that it covered all the bases. It included several mentions of him and his work, in a very positive light.

As I came to finalise it, I realised that there some additional questions that I needed information on - as set out in my previous comment. Thus I wrote as I did. It came as something of a strong rebuff to get his reply.

Chris says that he is unable to easily give me answers to my questions because his knowledge comes from decades of work. Well, that is precisely why I would expect him to be able to do so. He declares himself to be 'the world's leading researcher on aluminium'.
David Carr - I think - wrote and kindly suggested that I watch a 60-minute documentary with Chris in which he offers ALL the answers to my questions. So, Chris has ALL the answers at his fingertips, it seems.

He is willing to extend his 'work' to speak with Zaria Garvett on any such issues, but not to me, despite the fact that I have done him the courtesy of letting him see what I was writing and for him to note that I have written positively about him.

Someone, was it John Stone? suggests that I am lazy and not prepared to do the work necessary to understand Chris' researches and papers. Yes, true. Please understand that I am trying to understand a very broad range of issues about COVID-19, from the nature of the virus, its epidemiology and so-forth, through to the range of policies that have led to huge numbers of people being put out of work and, increasingly, their house and home. There is just me. I very much try to put out material in these monthly epistles that is both radical and reliable I thought that Chris could offer me the ability to do that with regard to the matter of vaccines and adjuvants (about which I have long had reservations), which form one small part of the landscape I am reviewing. I am not concerned with adjuvants in autism alone, as one contributor suggests, but what we do not generally understand, or those things that we do know and which are being hidden or ignored in pursuit of commercial objectives.

No doubt, the attractions of collaborating with Ms. Garvett appeared superior to those available in cooperating with me. I understand that that has gone awry and she now appears as the enemy. Those of us working to lay out the truth in all such matters should not get into battle with one another: there are too few of us.

Thank you for allowing me this space.
Mike Boddington


It's amazing to me just how many reporters who claim to be journalists apparently slept through their college courses that taught honesty* and integrity*, but excel at propaganda. I didn't realize that propaganda was even offered as a course.

*Oh wait a second, maybe its not even taught, just expected to be part of one's character to be a good journalist.

For Irena

So very sorry; I misunderstood. I thought you meant the DPT not the vaccine caused the five times death rate. I did not catch the typo.
Thank you for pointing out what you meant to a very slow person.



"For Irena" completely missed the point. There WAS an error in John Stone's letter to Ms. Gorvett — I noticed it too.

John referred to a paper by Morgensen which he says "found that mortality in DPT vaccinated infants in Guinea-Bissau (1981) was 5 times vaccinated." This makes no sense.

What he surely meant to say was that mortality in DPT vaccinated infants was 5 times the mortality in the UNvaccinated infants, as you rightly pointed out.

Jenny Allan

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence (NOT), that Prof Exley gets not one but three responses from the BBC following John's AoA article. This demonstrates the power of internet resistance to the MSM rubbish and censorship we are all having to put up with. In the UK, the huge anti-lockdown demonstrations in the UK and Europe are hardly mentioned in our press and media, but Del Bigtree is very busy putting over the real news. (Thanks Del).

UK censors can do nothing about US based internet sites, so thanks AoA.

Jenny Allan

Thanks for publishing your replies from Zaria et al. We both have collections of similar BBC responses to other complaints, and yes we are all familiar with the kind of 'cut and paste scripts' they use to defend themselves. It won't wash with us and these days even 'teenage girls' are waking up to the ways they are being manipulated. I hope you won't mind me repeating what we both wrote at the start of this thread, but I think it sums up the way a totally 'bought' MSM operates:-

My comment:- "I am not blaming 'pretty woman' Zaria Gorvett for this shallow misleading rubbish. She would NEVER have been permitted to publish the truth, but had to be seen to be 'going through the motions."
John's reply:-
Jenny-"I guess it is science "life-style". They are actually perfectly nice photographs but the message is that they these are the people who are really cool - and they are not. I suppose it is for teenage girls."


You know what?
That shameful and absolutely unprovoked attack is totally unwarranted!
I will not be contributing to Age of Autism anymore until I see a formal apology!
Until then - Get Lost!

John Stone

Just to mention Prof Exley has forwarded me three replies (1) from ZaraGorvett (2) from Amanda Ruggeri and (3) from Mary Wilkinson, Head of Editorial Content,  BBC Global News  Ltd. Obviously, these replies do not change anything of substance or put their actions in a better light.

Tim Lundeen

@Christopher Exley -- thanks very much for all your work!

David Carr

Michael Boddington wrote: "I was very taken aback by this reply:
1. Given that he claims 193 peer-reviewed papers on the matter, surely he can answer these very simple questions in a moment?
2. As an academic, employed from the public purse, it would seem that his work is to answer such questions.

I feel that his academic record and the subject of his studies is very important, and never more so than at this present time. My estimation of him and his work has considerably diminished as a result of this response that I got from him."

In response I can state that I watched a 60 minute video on Professor Exley's website that answers ALL the questions raised by Mr Boddington very clearly and concisely and in terms that any layperson could easily assimilate.

So my conclusion is that Mr Boddington is lazy and very quick to voice doubts!

Christopher Exley

Michael Boddington thinks that the questions he asked me are simple and could be answered by me in a moment. They actually cover decades of research. However, they have been addressed in both my medical blog ( and in the myriad of information available through my website ( I do my very best to disseminate high quality science as widely as possible and in a form that all can understand. I receive several similar requests to Mr Boddingtons every day of every week. Much as I would like to spend my time answering all such questions personally it is simply not possible. Most people understand this. Such questions are of course why I wrote me book, though as with all the resources I try to provide, you do have to invest some time in reading them.

Angus Files

And if your a paid pharma journo shill now seems the time to get yourself a story out...

Dr James Cusack, head of research charity Autistica, said: “It’s disgraceful that these private practitioners misinform parents in this way.

"They are selling ineffective tests and treatments that have zero scientific credibility and that could be distressing.”

He advised parents rely on trusted sources such as the NHS, the National Autistic Society or the Autistica website.

When we asked Amet about her claims, she told us: “You have ulterior motives to affect people who can make a real difference to the lives of these children. So obviously you’re here to attack me at the highest level and to totally undermine my work.”

Read More

Pharma For Prison


John Stone


I doubt if we can wait for time.

John Stone


Very cute!


Dear John Stone,
I think you meant to say "DTP mortality is 5 times the UN-vaccinated"
Thank you!


Thank you John Stone and Professor Chris Exley.
Time will resolve it! as it always does !
In the meantime /

Johnny Thunder- Loop de Loop YouTube

John Stone

Michael Boddington

OK, so you wrote Prof Exley a crass letter asking him to explain his life’s work rather taking the trouble to read for yourself, and you annoyed him.

Jenny Allan

Michael Boddington
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are looking for answers pertaining to aluminium links to autism, very relevant to this thread and an area which Prof Exley is attempting to research. I am sure you are aware of all the establishment push back attempts to discredit Prof Exley and starve his research of the finance required, including GoFundMe refusing to pass on donated funds, instead retuning the money to donors. Most of us then simply donated directly to his department, although it is fair to say Keele University was not helpful.

Yes, Prof Exley is employed as a researcher, but it is wrong to state he is paid entirely out of 'the public purse'. In the UK, research funds come from a variety of sources, including from industry -and dare I say Bill Gates, who funds vaccine research and development, but certainly NOT researchers who dare to find anything which might dent the huge profits made by this industry, or dent public confidence. Private donors provide a significant contribution, allowing for at least some independent research and conclusions.

Most of your questions concern Alzheimers and I enclose a couple of links. There are many more. It took me a few seconds to google them and a few minutes to read them. I won't clutter up this thread by quoting from them, but to summarise-Yes there is a link to Alzheimers and aluminium in the brain.

Grace Green

If these two young ladies are as busy as they seem to be with so many activities perhaps we could take a guess that they don't have children. No experience of childhood vaccines, and no need to worry about them.

Michael Boddington

I have had some helpful correspondence with Professor Exley on the subject of vaccines and, especially, adjuvants containing aluminium. I send out a monthly newsletter, a part of which these days is devoted to COVID-19.

In preparing for this month's episode, I wrote to him as follows:
"Please forgive me for troubling you with one or two more questions – all of which would be available from your publications, I am sure, but which ones???
1. What is the chemical pathway for aluminium to take to the brain?
2. Is the Al a part of the plaque in an Alzheimer’s brain?
3. Does Al lodge in any other place than the brain?
4. How does the Al burden in an Alzheimer’s brain compare to a normal brain?
5. Do you find Alzheimer brains with no Al?
6. If so, what suggests that the Al has been the causative factor in those cases where Al is present?
7. What is the incidence of Alzheimer’s amongst those on the autism spectrum?

When Sara Davenport wrote about her father, in her 'Reboot the Brain' book, she said that he had been diagnosed with high metal content in his urine: mercury, copper and aluminium. My understanding from your work is that Al cannot be voided through the urine, except in combination with silicic acid. Do you think that this was a mistake in Sara’s book? If so, I shall take it up with her."

This was his response to me:
"Dear Michael, all the answers to these questions are available through my medical blog and my website. If you prefer then wait for my forthcoming book, published on November 24th. I am sorry but I cannot spend time answering your questions directly, I need to work!
Best wishes

I was very taken aback by this reply:
1. Given that he claims 193 peer-reviewed papers on the matter, surely he can answer these very simple questions in a moment?
2. As an academic, employed from the public purse, it would seem that his work is to answer such questions.

I feel that his academic record and the subject of his studies is very important, and never more so than at this present time. My estimation of him and his work has considerably diminished as a result of this response that I got from him.

Mike Boddington

John Stone


This is appalling - like a lot of things this should be having more publicity than it is. Everyone should fear where this ends.


i am sorry John Stone

Integrity is in short supply these hard days

I think that Covid is being used to suppress the vote in rural America

On Election Day in our county of 17,000 people there will be only four voting stations.

They are allowing us to start voting three weeks early though. Yes , they have one voting station
During that time

That averages out around 140 people coming to the court house a day to vote. They open half a day on Saturdays

We usual have over 30 voting stations on Election Day.

Times are dark indeed when you present facts.

They don’t want facts. They want what they want

John Stone

Science is pure

Such a lovely elegant rhyme (Humbert Wolfe, a hundred years), but I’m not sure whether it covers our time, when science correspondents mostly revel in pharma patronage.

Science is pure.

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British journalist;
But when you see what (s)he will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.


Jenny Allan
The BBC has been having trouble keeping up with people legally cancelling their TV licenses over the past few months. This just one of many reports I’ve been coming across recently:

90-100% of what you view is probable available quite legally on other services anyway. See “How to watch TV without a TV licence” for instance.

Jenny Allan

Hi Shelley- I belong to the generation which got molar teeth filled with mercury amalgam as soon as they emerged. I still have a few of these mercury filled teeth left, although my dentist has now covered them with white fillings. It's unusual for persons of my age to be denture free in the UK, but I prefer my own teeth, with or without the fillings.

I may be wrong but my gut feeling is the vaccine industries have quietly removed the mercury from the single dose flu vaccines. The thiomersal was used as a preservative and single dose vaccines do not need preservatives. John you are right, it's almost impossible to find out about vaccine manufacturing processes. Of course those multi dose vials still contain the stuff, and in the US this is still permitted, even for child vaccines. I suspect the UK would not hesitate to use vaccines containing thiomersal if there was a shortage of single dose vaccines. There is a huge 'push' for persons over 50 to get flu vaccinated during the Covid pan(plan)demic, and this has led to a shortage for the over 65s. Children are administered a 'live' flu mist up their noses. Mercury kills live viruses so none there.

However, this is all 'academic' since I have been refused the flu jab for the under 65s, and I will not have squalene under any circumstances. I caught flu last year on a cruise ship, so probably have some acquired generic immunity. (My vaccinated husband also caught flu same time as me!) Thanks for your concern. I appreciate it.


In answer to Jenny Allen's question "Does the BBC accept 'bungs' from industry...?", the answer is; yes, they do, from none other than the Gates Foundation, heavy promoter of vaccines in general, including the Tetanus vaccines found to be laced with sterilising agent in Africa (the T in DTP). Whether the bungs are for direct influence over specific content I cannot say, but alas, Gates shows up like a bad smell in rather too many places these days.

John Stone


I think the position in the UK is that there is “no added mercury” so it is not an official ingredient but it may be used in preparation and be present at a sort of 1 microgram level. Whether this is true of all the several brands I don’t know but they cover themselves with the statement. Plainly, if there was absolutely no mercury they would say so.

Shelley Tzorfas

Hi Jenny. From my understanding there is no such thing as a "Mercury Free" Flu shot. The definition of Mercury was changed so that if it is below .5 MCG they are allowed to say its Mercury free. I used to be able to google it under "Ca. Thimerosal Law" which I can no longer find. People who understand homeopathy know how a small amount of a substance can have a large effect. Hopefully you are not really taking it.

Jenny Allan

" I suppose it is for teenage girls." Scary-but John Stone is right. Everything these days has to look 'cool' in order to appeal to the young. The teenagers, boys and girls, are all lined up in UK schools to get the HPV vaccine. All they are told is it 'prevents cancer', although we won't know that for many years, since cervical cancer is mainly a disease of middle aged and elderly women. Yes, it has been linked to prostitution and promiscuity, when it affects younger women, but these are life style choices. I see no justification to mass vaccinate the boys, for the occasional oral or throat cancer. the lads can choose for themselves as adults. They don't have cervixes.

John Stone


I guess it is science "life-style". They are actually perfectly nice photographs but the message is that they these are the people who are really cool - and they are not. I suppose it is for teenage girls.

Bob Moffit

Right up there with the greatest power of the press is their power to ignore .. is their equal power to deliberately distort and mis-inform those who read their dis-information as truth and fact.

How do these people continue to be considered professional "journalists"?????

John Stone


Very nicely put.


Angus Files

Its like catching out a 4 year old the most fantastic story and believable.When people are not convinced adults compare what could have happened .Only then this utterly genius of a fib is exposed the fib falls flat on its face.The 4 year old never thought for one minute that adults would talk to one another and compare stories and draw a conclusion..but in this case we have a pro-pharma liar caught out.Whilst her, Conscience and Morality are off on another exiting adventure paid for by the sickness of our kids-shame on her.

Thanks John and Prof Exley

Pharma For Prison


Jenny Allan

I'm afraid the BBC has become just another pharma promoting TV channel. Banned from advertising commercial products, (and vaccines are a VERY commercial product) , they claim to be 'following the science' , and of course this is all done in the name of healthy living. Does the BBC accept 'bungs' from industry for these types of promotions? If so they are no better than those commercial channels financed by paid advertising. Worse, we are not told what inducements the BBC is given to blatantly promote what might turn out to be dangerous, not properly tested products. We are FORCED to pay a BBC license fee in the UK, ridiculous in this day and age with so much paid for choice.

Take squalene for example. I had an ironic smile when I read this substance, obtained from sharks' livers would result in a mass slaughter of sharks as a result of Covid-19 vaccines. Only the conservationists were making a fuss. The GSK -Sanofi vaccine uses this stuff as an adjuvant. Perfectly safe they tell us, similar to the natural squalene in our own bodies. That's the problem of course. Our bodies can produce an auto-immune response attacking the squalene in our bodies, as well as the vaccine ingredient. Squalene adjuvant was involved in the 2009-10 H1N1 flu vaccine Pandemrix, produced by GSK, which caused widespread child narcolepsy.

Two years ago someone had the bright idea to put squalene into the flu vaccines for over 65s in the UK. Not for me, although I offered to accept the nice mercury free single dose one available to the under 65s -refused. Now we oldies are all being lined up for a pre Christmas jab of the Oxford Covid vaccine, as yet neither proven effective nor safe. A vaccine trial by the back door. Who cares about our safety? A few less pensioners would help the huge covid deficit, still to be paid for.

I am not blaming 'pretty woman' Zaria Gorvett for this shallow misleading rubbish. She would NEVER have been permitted to publish the truth, but had to be seen to be 'going through the motions.'

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.)