She’s Caught My Virus & I’ve Caught Hers

November, 26, 2018 | 20 Comments


  1. Very slippery. The people who criticise official government science are neither necessarily incompetent or ill-informed, wherever it is they comment. I have from the CMO, Dame Sally Davies, what her evidence base is for saying “we know MMR is safe” – it really does not bear examination – and I hope to publish within the next two days. All they have left is the appeal to authority.

    Of course some people will say silly things on the web. We had someone on Age of Autism last night claiming all infectious diseases were psycho-somatic – I let it pass but of course it is not really the flat-earthists that governments are worried about, it’s the people who have a better grip on the detail than they have.

    • IN MY VIEW: Not giving a child their jabs is a form of abuse…

      Until recently, we thought measles would soon join the ranks of the infectious diseases that, thanks to vaccines, have been all but eradicated — yet it would appear not.

      Already this year, there have been more than 900 cases in England alone, compared with 259 in 2017 and just 55 in 1998. By any definition, that is a steep rise: enough for Public Health England to declare a national measles outbreak.

      Measles is a highly contagious viral illness — infected particles can linger in the air for two hours after a person has sneezed. It starts with a high temperature, followed by a cough, runny nose, conjunctivitis and, by the third or fourth day, a widespread rash, initially on the face.

      Just before the rash breaks out, spots can be seen in the mouth that look like grains of salt — these Koplik’s spots confirm the diagnosis.

      But it rarely stops there. Measles temporarily suppresses immune response so, in 30 per cent of cases, another infection, such as pneumonia, can occur.

      There is also a risk of complications including corneal scarring, convulsion in infants and brain inflammation, which can result in lifelong brain damage. A deeply unpleasant, but rare, complication is subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, a progressive degenerative brain disease occurring ten years or more after the measles infection. It starts with personality and behaviour change, leading on to dementia and, finally, a vegetative state and death.

      In developing countries, the death rate from measles is 4 to 10 per cent of affected children — but, as measles is a virus, there is no effective treatment, just hope. And we escape none of the dangers of measles in a civilised society.

      But what we do have is easy access to the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine — two injections, given at 12 months and three years, to ensure protection from this disease.

      Yet, in England, take-up has fallen for the fourth year in a row. In my view, parents who opt not to let their child have the MMR are at best foolhardy and at worst guilty of neglect.

      Share or comment on this article:
      ASK THE GP: Dr Martin Scurr answers your health questions
      13 hours ago · … concerns in his weekly Good Health … the rest of my life? Dr Martin Scurr answers your health … VIEW: Not giving a child their jabs is a form of …

      In the Daily Mail, paper copy, the wording is:

      In my view…Not giving a child their jabs is a form of neglect …

      • As a medical doctor, Dr Scurr should realise that measles (and other childhood viral illnesses) are cyclical, meaning that they come around every 2 or 3 years or so, which has always been the case. So for him to quote a certain number of cases in a particular year and then related it to the 2 previous years, is not really a sensible comparison.

        Furthermore, as Dr Exley mentioned in his original letter, vaccine protection (if there is any at all in some people, as ‘vaccination does not equal immunisation’) wanes over time. The measles vaccine is thought to last about 20 years at best, so to achieve ‘herd immunity’ of 95% would mean that all the adults who had their MMR 20 or more years ago should have a booster MMR. But that doesn’t happen, so this mythical figure of 95% won’t be achieved until regular boosters are administered.

        Until vaccine safety is taken seriously by public health bodies, parents are going to continue to be cautious. Clearly there is an issue, which is why increasing numbers of parents who did vaccinate their child and saw adverse events with their own eyes, are now cautious and being labelled as ‘anti-vaxxers’.

        It isn’t some rumour spread by social media – I personally met a grandfather a few weeks ago whose grandchild was in intensive care following vaccination and he told me that 5 other children in the Emergency department at the time they visited had also had serious adverse reactions. However, the medical doctors never acknowledge these ‘coincidental’ temporal events as being a vaccine reaction.

  2. The BBC is too arrogant and self regarding to respond in a mature manner to even somebody who works of the level of Chris Exely. They use the same techniques on an expert in the field as anyone else who just can be fobbed off and give the run around. The ‘here are the routes to make a complaint if you are not happy’ is insulting. Chris E and others don’t need advice about where to make complaints. Often these presenters seem more like actors than serious journalists – switch the sound off and watch them pen waving, making angry faces at those they disagree with, cutting in .even down to wearing clothes ‘appropriate’ to the part they are playing safari suits, sparkly outfits etc – they have obviously rehearsed the part but still carry the script with them..

    It will likely be worth viewing PANORAMA BBC1 tonight 8.30pm

    The Great Implant Scandal – ‘Deborah Cohen investigates an Industry where some patients are treated like human guinea pigs then abandoned when things go wrong’. Rings a bell…

    The MHRA is the body responsible for overseeing the safety of both drugs and medical devices – they are a disgrace.

    on website – ‘MHRA is an executive agency of dept of health and social security responsible for ensuring medicines and medical devices work and are ACCEPTABLY safe’. The weasel word is as unacceptable as the MHRA itself.

  3. John Read


    BBC Radio 4. ALL IN THE MIND. Tomorrow (Tuesday) 9pm. Myself and one of the bloggers trying to discredit our review on withdrawal from antidepressants. He called withdrawal an ‘atypical’ response. Same minimising as for benzos in the 70s. Hope I represented reality well enough.

    John Read Retweeted

    James Moore

    25 Nov

    Peter Gordon is living proof that psychiatry can be practised morally, ethically, responsibly and free from bias. It is hugely sad to see him resigning. Psychiatry is not only shunning patients that challenge its ethos, it is turning on its own.

    13 Replies to “My formal instruction of resignation as a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists”

    Aye, Peter …

  4. The Junk Safety Science Which Underpins UK Government MMR Vaccine Policy

    By John Stone

    I recently wrote to Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer of England and to the British government, asking her for the basis of her statement to the BBC regarding MMR: “It’s a safe vaccination – we know that”, and was a lucky enough to receive a reply (letter of 12 November, from which I extract):

    Specifically in relation to whether MMR vaccines may be a cause of autism, a substantial body of population-based research has found no evidence to suggest a causal association. This evidence (not just for MMR, but other types of vaccine) is available for review in the published medical literature, and was summarised in a meta-analysis in 2014 which is free to download (

    In relation to vaccine safety monitoring more generally, I can assure you that systems are in place to keep safety under review. This includes continual review of suspected adverse reaction reports (such as those submitted through the Yellow Card Scheme), evaluation of GP and hospital-based health records linked to immunisations, review of worldwide data and close collaboration with international health authorities.

    It is noteworthy that the “meta-analysis” by Luke E Taylor is identical to the one cited by Thomas Insel to a US Congressional committee in 2014, but it constitutes no more than a bureaucratic fig-leaf. Dame Sally – who is the UK’s leading government adviser on medical matters – ought to be able to do a lot better than this if every child is to be subjected to these products. It is, if anything, a rather naive response citing a shallow collection of studies which were published under political pressure decades after the policy was introduced. I have since attempted a conscientious and detailed reply:

    21 November 2018

    Dear Dame Sally,


    Thank you for your letter of 12 November. I would point out that though you are quite right I am concerned about the rise in autism I specifically asked about the evidence base for MMR safety. That said it is reasonable to point out autism for a whole host of reasons is a much more serious problem in modern Britain (and elsewhere) than measles. When the DHSC last surveyed this problem in 2004-5 the overall ASD rate among school children was ~1% which was 5 times higher than the rate for those young people born between 1984-8 mostly before MMR was introduced, as reported in the equivalent 1999 survey. Since then your department has neglected to look at the issue (apart from a couple of failed adult autism surveys) as everything manifestly got worse, year on year [1,2].

    As it is, a recent survey carried out by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland showed that the rate had risen from 1.2% in 2009 to 2.9%, while in Belfast it was as high as 4.7%. Moreover, 60% are educational Stage 5 [3], ie the most severe level of disability, so these are not cases that could previously have been missed because somehow subliminal. Educational data from across the nation and reports of collapse in educational services in the media testify that Northern Ireland is not an isolated case, but just better documented [4].

    Regarding the meta-review by Taylor ‘Vaccines are not associated with autism’ [5] which you cited I note that there are just six MMR related studies included all of which have major problems. Three of the studies show apparent protective effect of MMR vaccines against autism (Madsen 8% [6], Smeeth 14% or 22% [7] and Mrozek-Budzyn 83%!!! [8]) which suggests bias. Of the Madsen paper Cochrane 2005 warned [9]:

    “The follow up of diagnostic records ends one year (31 Dec 1999) after the last day of admission to the cohort. Because of the length of time from birth to diagnosis, it becomes increasingly unlikely that those born later in the cohort could have a diagnosis”

    It remains troubling that as with a number of studies from this Danish group the co-ordinator on behalf of US Centers for Diseases Control, Poul Thorsen, is wanted for financial fraud from the CDC, though not extradited to the US now after nearly 8 years [10].

    Of the De Stefano paper Cochrane commented [9]:

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

    And indeed in 2014 the paper was repudiated by one of the leading authors, William Thompson [11]:

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

    The study by Smeeth [7] is compromised by its patchy data source, the General Practice Research Database where the autism rate represented is perhaps only one tenth of cases diagnosed [12]. Cochrane commented [9]:

    “In the GPRD – based studies (Black 2003; Smeeth 2004) the precise nature of controlled unexposed to MMR and their generalisability was impossible to determine…”

    It remains problematic whether the unvaccinated in this study were genuinely unvaccinated.

    Of the Uchiyama study [13] Cochrane commented [14]:

    “The cohort study of Uchiyama 2007 was potentially affected by a different type of bias, considering that the participants were from a private clinic and that definitions of applied Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) diagnosis and of methods used for ASD regression ascertainment were not clearly reported.”

    And the Uno study [15] will suffer from similar issues since the cases came from the same clinic. Moreover, in both instances the studies were far too small (904 persons and 413) to necessarily provide any clear result even if they had been better controlled.

    Nor can the Taylor meta-analysis [5] cover up the entire absence of pre-marketing studies. In 1988-9 when the British government was persuaded to introduce Pluserix, MMR2 and Imravax there were no safety studies at all, and successive governments have been forced into the defence of a policy which they had embarked on without safety evidence.

    As to the robustness of the yellow card reporting system I note the recent correspondence in the columns of BMJ On-Line regarding monitoring of Pandemrix vaccine from Wendy E Stephen and Clifford G Miller [16], which has serious implications for how the MHRA monitor all products. The MHRA has, of course, the ultimate conflict of being entirely funded by the manufacturers. It may be mentioned that in 1992 the Pluserix and Imravax vaccines were withdrawn not apparently by the British Government concerned about patient safety but by the manufacturers catching the government on the hop [17].

    We are confronting a catastrophic situation among our young people with chronic illness replacing infectious illness as the main issue and cost to the state, and laying the emphasis on infectious diseases (with endless hate campaigns in the media against critics labelled “anti-vaxxers”) is a distraction, and a distortion of policy. It would be unfortunate if ministers were being advised about the safety of the programme on such a threadbare and inadequate basis. Re-examining the policy is both essential and urgent.

    [1] John Stone, ‘Response to David Oliver I (The Indisputable Rise in Autism)’, BMJ Rapid Responses 28 August 2018,

    [2] John Stone, ‘What about autism?’ BMJ Rapid Responses, 21 August 2018,

    [3] Information Analysis Directorate ‘The Prevalence of Autism (including Asperger Syndrome) in School Age Children in Northern Ireland 2018’, published 10 May 2018,

    [4] Responses to Viner RM, ‘NHS must prioritise health of children and young people’,

    [5] Luke E Taylor et al, ‘Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies’, Vaccine 2014,

    [6] Madsen et al, ‘A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism’, NEMJ 2002,

    [7] Smeeth et al, ‘MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study.’ Lance 2004,

    [8] Mrozek-Budzyn et al, ‘Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.’ Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 2010,

    [9] Demicheli et al, ‘Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.’, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD004407.

    [10] Office of Inspector General, US Department of Health and Human Services, Fugitive Profiles,


    [12] John Stone, ‘An old story: the GPRD does not provide credible autism data’ 11 February 2014

    [13] Uchiyama et al, ‘MMR-vaccine and regression in autism spectrum disorders: negative results presented from Japan.’ J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Feb;37(2):210-7.

    [14] Demicheli et al, ‘Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.’, Cochrane Systematic Review – Intervention Version published: 15 February 2012,

    [15] Uno et al, ‘The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia’, Vaccine. 2012 Jun 13;30(28):4292-8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.01.093. Epub 2012 Apr 20.

    [16] Responses to Godlee, ‘A tale of two vaccines’ BMJ 2018,

    [17] Report, BMJ 26 September 1992,

    When your government, the BBC or the mainstream media tell you that MMR is safe, this the best that the British government can do. After three decades of pure bluster they need to go back to the drawing board.

  5. Best of luck to Peter G. his humanity is inspirational. Each individual has to decide when enough is enough ,and for sure we have had more than enough of the coll of psychs. It might have been hoped that the college would change at least some of it’s spots over the years but they have grown even more cancerous.
    A useful, unusually honest insight into how the college developed is given in the interview by Rob Poole and Catherine Robinson of Bangor Uni dept Health and Science , with Vanessa Cameron ex CEO when she retired in 2016.

    BjPsych Bulletin 2016 Dec 40(6):341-345 published courtesy of college of psychiatrists

    ‘PROFILE: Vanessa Cameron – 36 years at the royal college of psychiatrists’.

  6. Re the apparently ‘increasing scepticism’ about vaccination, Emily Maitlis asks “Have we had enough of experts? Or do we genuinely believe science is now up for debate?”[1]

    The answer is yes Ms Maitlis, more discerning citizens have had enough of conflicted ‘experts’ and we do think that biased and often industry-funded vaccination ‘science’ is up for debate.

    In regards to questioning of vaccination, Brian Deer hits it on the head in the Newsnight clip: “You get these messages rippling through society, completely unmediated by the traditional gatekeeper, the television producer or the newspaper journalist. And these messages are now out of control.”[1]

    The natives are getting restless and waking up to the gross exploitation that is going on under the guise of the blessed ‘vaccination’. But the self-appointed gatekeepers continue to expect citizens to be compliant and swallow the vaccine propaganda forced upon us by the mainstream media, including the BBC, a licence payer-funded institution which is failing utterly to critically analyse the increasing morass that is international vaccination policy.

    The BBC needs to stop pontificating on ‘vaccination’ and start investigating the plethora of vaccine products and revaccinations now pushed upon mass populations of children, and increasingly adults, and the conflicts of interest that surround the lucrative and burgeoning international vaccine market.

    Importantly, there are also emerging vaccine failures to consider, e.g. shorter term maternally derived measles antibodies being passed on to babies by vaccinated mothers. (In this regard see my rapid responses on the recent The BMJ article ‘Measles: neither gone nor forgotten’: )

    Instead, as we see in the Newsnight clip, Andrew Wakefield is wheeled out yet again as the whipping boy to obfuscate the issue.

    It was the corporate media in the shape of the Murdoch media empire that initiated the demonisation of Andrew Wakefield via Brian Deer and the Sunday Times, an initiative which has become the mainstay of shutting down discussion on vaccination.

    But has the Murdoch media any conflicts of interest to disclose? Are there any journalists at the BBC capable of investigating this matter? So far citizens have had to do this work themselves…

    For the information of Emily Maitlis, David Grossman and others featured in the Newsnight clip, the Murdoch family is associated with vaccine research and development via the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute located in Australia. This includes vaccine research funded by GlaxoSmithKline, a manufacturer of an MMR vaccine product.[2] Rupert Murdoch’s mother Dame Elisabeth Murdoch was involved in the founding of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute[3], and Lachlan Murdoch’s wife Sarah Murdoch is a Director and Ambassador of this institute.[4] Murdoch controlled media groups News Corp and Foxtel are ‘corporate partners’ of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.[5]

    How about the BBC start investigating the Murdochs’ conflicts of interest in being associated with an institute involved in industry-funded vaccine research and development, and at the same time the Murdoch media empire influencing the Australian political process with its protracted and vicious ‘No Jab, No Play’ campaign[6]?

    The Murdoch media’s No Jab, No Play campaign was obligingly adopted by Australian politicians of all persuasions, and enacted as the coercive No Jab, No Pay law in January 2016, i.e. a law mandating an ever-increasing schedule of lucrative vaccine products and revaccinations for children to access benefits and childcare. The ability to freely consider the risks and benefits of each early childhood vaccination and revaccination intervention, and make an informed decision about vaccination, has been trashed by the coercive No Jab, No Pay law.

    The floodgates are now open to forcing compliance to an increasing number of vaccine products without question. Citizens such as myself are demanding accountability on this matter.

    1. Newsnight 19 September 2018:
    2. Vaccine and Immunisation Research Gruop (VIRGo) – project funders include GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines and SanofiPasteur:
    3. Our History – Murdoch Children’s Research Institute:
    4. Sarah Murdoch – Ambassador and Director of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute:
    5. Corporate Partners – Murdoch Children’s Research Institute:
    6. See for example ‘Anti-vaxers, you are baby killers’ (Claire Harvey, The Sunday Telegraph, 21 March 2015) and ‘Anti-vaccination parents face $15,000 welfare hit under ‘No Jab’ reforms’ (Samantha Maiden, The Sunday Telegraph, 11 April 2015.)

  7. The BBC were at it again yesterday (with the help of the Office for National Statistics) confusing excess winter mortality with flu mortality:

    “There were around 50,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-18 – the highest since the winter of 1975-76, figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

    “The increase is thought to be down to the flu, the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine in older people and spells of very cold weather last winter.”

    A similar story appeared in the Mail and no doubt other FAKE NEWS sources.

    However, from the published data Table 1 I can only make out 40,600 excess deaths (11,500 circulatory, 17,400 respiratory, 10,800 dementia and 90 injury and poisoning)

    All this is possibly irrelevant since an earlier report from Public Health England (May 2018 hidden p. 21) had already stated that the total number of deaths from flu for the 2017-18 season in England was 320.

    Many will also remember that reasons for the hike in the death rate at the beginning of this year were controversial and not to be explained by the bad flu season:

    The government have been ruthlessly deceiving people about flu mortality for many years

    and any competent journalist ought to be able to tear them. In fact, all the work has already been done for them. The trust is gone (you can look at the comments on the BBC and Mail websites) and the public are to blame.

    As Brecht put it in his poem ‘The Solution:

    After the uprising of the 17th June
    The Secretary of the Writers Union
    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
    Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government
    And could win it back only
    By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And elect another?

  8. Hello

    I am a layman and would like to read a somewhat precise and credible description of the whole Wakefield story. Theres so much said in countless videos and documents so its a jungle to know whats up and down.

    Can anyone supply me with a link?

    Have David Healy written a somewhat precise story on the whole affair?

    Thank you in advance. Great blog!

    • That is a loaded question …


      2018: The story so far…

      Brian Deer’s Sunday Times investigation

      But as journalists queued to report on parents’ fears, Brian Deer was assigned to investigate the crisis, and unearthed a scandal of astounding proportions. He discovered that, far from being based on any findings, the public alarm had no scientific basis whatsoever. Rather, Wakefield had been secretly payrolled to create evidence against the shot and, while planning extraordinary business schemes meant to profit from the scare, he had concealed, misreported and changed information about the children to rig the results published in the journal.

      Invite Brian Deer to speak at your event

      Hear the extraordinary story of the vaccine scare, and how an investigative journalist unmasked the elaborate scientific fraud which lay at its heart

      Dr. Andrew Wakefield vs Brian Deer:

      The Real Fraud Revealed

      Destroyed Brian Deer’s Case Completely…

      Creates Fraud Himself…

      This thing crumbles right here…

      ”I think that Brian Deer is a Sociopathic liar”…

      BMJ, in response to John Stone – income from GSK …..

      • Thank you for both your links.

        Udo Ulfkotte, a former assistant editor from FAZ (Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung), has in an interview explained how some journalists operate in attachment with shadowy elements.

        See this interview:

        Its not implausible that the same methods are applied in the Pharma world.

        Considering ‘The Franklin cover-up’, ‘Dutroux and the dead witnesses’, etc…not to mention false flag operations…nothing cant really surprise anymore.

    • There is also my letter in BMJ RR a few weeks ago. Like previous such letters it was not contested (though Brian Deer had earlier contributed to the same thread) :

      Re: A tale of two vaccines and the “spectre of Andrew Wakefield”
      The “spectre of Andrew Wakefield” certainly should not be allowed to deflect from this important issue [1,2].

      I wrote to this journal in February 2010 explaining why the GMC findings against Royal Free doctors were defective [3], and no one challenged me. The Wakefield Lancet paper had nothing to do with the Legal Aid Board commissioned protocol; investigations were carried out according to clinical need; the order of referral was a red-herring – all of which anticipated the views of the High Court judge, Sir John Mitting, when exonerating the senior clinician and senior author of the paper, Prof John Walker-Smith, two years later [4]. Mitting dismissed the central contention the of the GMC prosecution that the authors of the paper were executing the Legal Aid Board sponsored protocol (172/96):

      “Its conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to the Lancet children was in part founded upon its conclusion that the investigations into them were carried out pursuant to Project 172-96. The only explanation given for that conclusion is that it was reached ‘in the light of all the available evidence’. On any view, that was an inadequate explanation of the finding. As it may also have been reached upon the basis of two fundamental errors – that Professor Walker-Smith’s intention was irrelevant and that it was not necessary to determine whether he had lied to the Ethics Committee, it is a determination which cannot stand ….” [para 20]

      The case that Walker-Smith was undertaking research was dismissed:

      “..their case was that he was in fact undertaking research, which required Ethics Committee approval, without realising that he was doing so. This is an untenable proposition, as the analysis of the letter of 11th November 1996 above demonstrates. In consequence, not only was the panel invited by the GMC not to determine Professor Walker-Smith’s intention, it was also invited not to determine his truthfulness in his dealings with the Ethics Committee.” [Par. 18]

      “It is in its findings on the clinical issues in the individual cases of the Lancet children that the most numerous and significant inadequacies and errors in the determination of the panel occur. In no individual case in which the panel made a finding adverse to Professor Walker-Smith did it address the expert evidence led for him, except to misstate it. The issues to which this evidence went were of fundamental importance to the case against him. Universal inadequacies and some errors in the panel’s determination accordingly go to the heart of the case. They are not curable. Unless the remainder of the panel’s findings justify its conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct, its determination cannot stand.”

      Mitting rejects the idea that there was any misrepresentation over referrals:

      “This paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the panel. The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology. The words did not imply routine referral.”[par. 157]

      Finally, Mitting states:

      “For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion….The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.” [para.186-7]

      It remains concerning that the chairman (Surendra Kumar) of the fitness to practice panel in the case against the three Royal Free doctors sat on two MHRA committees and owned shares in GSK [5].

      All this time Cochrane has been far from clear about MMR, finding safety studies in successive reviews (2003, 2005, 2012) to be “largely inadequate” [6]. Nor do we seem to be able to rely on the MHRA and the EMA to guard the public’s safety – either with sufficient rigour or with sufficient distance from the industry.

      [1] Fiona Godlee, “A tale of two vaccines”, BMJ 2018; 363 doi: (Published 04 October 2018)

      [2] Philip Bryan, June Raine, Ian Hudson, ‘MHRA response to BMJ Editor’s Choice – ‘A tale of two vaccines’’, r 2018, 18,

      [3] John Stone, “The unexplained puzzle of the GMC verdict (and responses to Peter Flegg) 10 February 2010,

      [4] In the High Court between Prof Walker-Smith and and the General Medical Council,

      [5] John Stone, ‘Re: Financial conflicts -shock horror’, 22 October 2008,

      [6] John Stone, ‘Response to David Oliver II (Risks of Vaccines)’, 28 August 2018,

  9. My dismissal is scientific judicial murder. By Peter C. Gøtzsche

    Nogracias Retweeted

    Juan Gérvas

    My dismissal is scientific judicial murder. By Peter C. Gøtzsche. The HPV vaccines may cause serious neurological harms (but you must keep silent…).


Leave a Reply