Clifford G. Miller,
Lawyer & graduate physicist
Beckenham, Kent, BR3 3LA

Send response to journal:

Email Clifford G. Miller

Dear Sir,


Disease hysteria stories like this one 'Mumps cases rise among teenagers and young adults' (BMJ, Jul 2004; 329: 132-a.) about a small number of mumps cases with no reported serious effects are inevitably going to be used by government to promote vaccination, relying on 'FUD' ('fear, uncertainty, doubt').

Despite the misinformation, it is an known and accepted medical fact that vaccines cause serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including death and severe injury to children and adults. Whilst medical science also buries its head in the sand, it is further accepted in official channels that vaccination programmes can expose children to risk of various problems ranging from allergy to infection. This is even conceded by the US National Academies' Institute of Medicine ('IoM') Immunization Safety Review Committee (1). The IoM has been heavily criticised for its partisan stance on vaccination in the teeth of the evidence (2). The IoM have also confirmed (1) that reasonable theories exist to explain how too many immunizations can overwhelm an infant's immune system. The truth is actually far worse than the IoM admits, but the fact that even this partisan body has had to concede these points acknowledges there is more to this than anti-vaccination scaremongering by the unwashed and quacks. Testimony also to the official acceptance of the seriousness of the problem of vaccine damage is the existence of a number of (inadequate) government vaccine damage compensation schemes across the world.

The following also serves to show that vaccination is Russian roulette with a difference. With Russian roulette, there is only one gun and one bullet and you know that when you 'play'. With vaccination, no one knows how many bullets there are, nor how many guns there are, nor what the full scale of the consequences will be if any of them go off. Also, parents are routinely simply not told about the risks. This causes further complications for government credibility, because parents are asking 'why did no one say anything'. The problem for parents is not just that they are not being told, they are being actively misinformed of the risks.

That this is the case is demonstrated by a widely under reported but wholly astonishing occurrence in May 2004 in the US. It has considerable implications in the UK and throws into contrast and brings into question the misinformation being put out by the British and other governments about vaccination. Bizarrely, despite its significance and implications, this quite extraordinary event also seems to have gone unreported in the BMJ.

The event was a press release and letter (3) issued by the US Office of Special Counsel to the US Congress and Senate. It concerns formerly respected institutions like the IoM, US National Institutes for Health ('NIH'), the US Centre for Disease Control ('CDC') and US Federal Drug Administration ('FDA'). All of these institutions have recently been under continuing political fire for the roles they have been playing, inter alia, in the suppression of evidence of serious harm from pharmaceuticals and/or conflicts of interest, including, in some instances, financial ones (4).

The US Office of Special Counsel is a legal Counsel appointment made directly by the White House, which is an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency and operates as a secure channel for disclosures of whistleblower complaints and abuse of authority. The OSC, frustrated by a lack of jurisdiction to investigate, requested the US Congress and Senate investigate. The following are quotes from the US Office of Special Counsel's letter concerning the recent February 2004 IoM report and other evidence put to it about these US agencies. The full text appears at the end of this commentary (5). The OSC concluded:-

there is ".....a substantial likelihood of a substantial and specific danger to public health.....";

and "....serious continuing concerns about ...... the government’s ...... inadequate response to .... scientific research on the public health danger...."

and that ".....the science is inconclusive....”

and there are “......equally qualified experts on both sides of the ...... debate."

So much for the British Goverment's and health officials claims that there is no scientific evidence that MMR and vaccination is a risk factor for autism.

Regrettably, also, the scale of the problem of vaccine ADRs is just not known. That is where the problem lies for the government's previous and forthcoming FUD campaigns. No one is counting vaccine ADRs either properly or at all. The majority of all ADRs are just not reported. There is also no database correlating cause of death with medication administered in the time leading to death. And the Wakefield affair supports the proposition that it is safer for medical professionals not to report or to report uncontroversially, than to report any association with, say, a recent vaccination.

What is worse for the government is that the people who are supposed to be counting ADRs seem intent on keeping drug safety data safely out of the public view. A 1996 Dutch pilot showed that direct patient telephone reporting of ADRs (6) can give up to 15 months earlier warning of problems than reliance on substantially under reported ADRs from medical professionals and coroners. Despite this, the MHRA appears to be attempting to bury direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (7) as part of its allegedly 'independent' review of the dissemination of 'Yellow Card' data (the latter being something which the MHRA appears to be angling in effect to restrict mainly to drug company funded researchers). It is simply not a good idea to put the MHRA in charge of the very information which will enable it to cover up its failures and which will enable it to keep key data secret which could otherwise reveal more drug scandals. That is, however, what the MHRA appears intent on achieving (8).

Even if government started trying to count ADRs properly, categorisation is an interesting problem. It is not just the problem of who is going to be brave enough to be the first to make a new correlation between a suspected ADR and the administration of a vaccine. It is the problem of getting people even to consider that a symptom is an ADR. How many ADRs go unrecognised and remain unassociated with the pharmaceutical responsible?

We could well be wasting vast amounts of NHS resources on vaccinations without appreciating the true scale of serious illnesses that vaccinations are causing without being recognised as the cause. Even putting to one side the disturbing figures for the autism spectrum disorder ('ASD') epidemic, there are numbers of illnesses which are suspected as consequences of vaccination but which mainstream medicine dismisses. So we may be overlooking many other areas. Take as just one example the 1500 deaths per annum from the asthma epidemic (9). This outstrips the alleged 100 annual UK childhood deaths from measles which it is alleged would occur in the absence of vaccination. And this simply does not also count the numbers of our citizens who do not die but are debilitated by asthma, the corresponding loss to the economy, the drain on the public purse and NHS resources.

Even the 400 or so Sudden Infant Deaths ('SIDS') cases annually, which have been linked to vaccinations, beat the alleged projected measles deaths by a factor of 400%.

Horror of horrors, could it possibly be that it is safer to let nature take its course for well-nourished western society children than to vaccinate? Should we instead be developing and implementing other forms of treatment to prevent the worst effects of these childhood illnesses when they arise, instead of vaccinating? A pill that prevents a child dying of measles, and which only needs to be given to a sick child, now that would be an innovation.

For the drug companies, in contrast, it is a well-known self-evident truth that far more profitable are ailments requiring a lifetime of medication than ones that can be cured. So if vaccinations cause long term, so-called 'iatrogenic' ailments, the pharmaceutical companies are guaranteeing themselves a long and profitable future. We are already seeing the effects in other areas of the proliferation of 'lifestyle' drugs like anti-depressants, being promoted for alleged 'ailments' with no pathology like mental 'illness'. The absence of pathology is helpful in that new such 'ailments' can be invented all the time.

So, whilst we have these misinformation campaigns, at the same time the public and parents, are not being quoted figures for the UK disease risks. This is bizarre. It is extraordinarily difficult to get hard information on the facts as they apply in the UK. To the extent information is provided, it appears to be based on data from around the world, including the third world. This data just does not apply to well nourished children with good sanitation and living conditions. In short, there is scant reliable scientific data on the short and long terms risks posed by vaccination and the human and financial cost of it to the nation. There is simply no reliable scientific data to compare the risks of childhood illnesses in the UK with the risks of vaccination nor any source of information with any credibility that can be relied on. However, those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear and minds of our own know all too well what is going on. We have a government which routinely exaggerates the risks with overblown and vague statements and which engages in scaremongering, FUD and misinformation.


(1) IoM, Feb 20, 2002 Multiple Immunizations and Immune Dysfunction

(2) (a) The May 18 2004 report 'Immunization Safety Review, Vaccines and Autism', from the US Institute of Medicine (‘IoM’) has been criticised by US Congressman Dr Dave Weldon MD as premature and hastily drawn (May 18, 2004 Weldon Press Release). It is also not convincing. It uses phrases like:-

'the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism.'

(b) IoM Previously Heavily Criticised For Inaccurate Conclusions Without Evidence - The Committee were heavily criticised over their previous 2001 report and by an expert from one of their own number () for premature and inaccurate conclusions not based on the evidence. Walter O. Spitzer, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology at McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and a member of the Institute of Medicine since 1986 stated to a Sunday newspaper (  ) regarding that previous report:-

"As an epidemiologist who has been a Member of the IOM since 1986, I have been proud of IOM reports in my field that I have examined or co- authored. I am embarrassed by the process of this latest Report and would urge President Shine of the IOM to retract the Report until the message has been clarified. What was released, the IOM Report or the McCormick Position?"

According to Professor Spitzer, the previous report did not clear the MMR vaccine, and instead indicated that not enough evidence was found to make a conclusion either way and urged more testing before any conclusions could be reached. According to Dr. Spitzer,

"There was nothing in the Report or its executive summary to justify such a headline in a reliable national newspaper. I can only link the headline's 'off the hook as the cause of autism' to a public statement of Dr. Marie McCormick, the chairperson of the Committee. In the Institute of Medicine (IOM) press conference she stated: 'it [MMR] is as safe as a vaccine can get'."

The report concludes, "Conduct further clinical and epidemiological studies of sufficient rigor to identify risk factors and biological markers of ASD." At no point does it indicate that there is enough evidence to show that the MMR vaccine should be removed from consideration as a risk factor.

Dr. Spitzer, who is not a supporter of the theory of a link between the MMR and Autism, continued,

"I would be delighted if effective MMR were also demonstrated to be safe in scientifically admissible safety studies. But let that be the result of the kind of rigorous science that has been called for by the IOM, not unsubstantiated exoneration of MMR by one person."

The person referred to is the Chairwoman of the Committee then and now, Marie McCormick, who is also is the head of the Harvard Center for Children's Health. This "aims to foster a series of partnerships between researchers and between policymakers, the business community, the media, and children and their families." It is reported that among those in the business community are numerous pharmaceutical companies who in 1997 helped to contributed over $97 Million to the Harvard School of Public Health in the way of research grants and other funding methods. Whilst that was in 1997, and may not represent a conflict of interest today, Ms McCormick has raised her profile in her prior statements and needs to ensure her position is beyond any question in doing so.



(5) ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Special Counsel Scott Bloch’s letter to Congress -

May 20, 2004

The Honorable Judd Gregg United States Senate Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 428 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-6300

The Honorable Joe Barton U.S. House of Representatives Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: OSC File Nos.: DI-04-1399, et al.


The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is authorized to receive disclosures of information from federal employees, former federal employees or applicants for federal employment alleging violations of law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. 5 U.S.C. ' 1213(a) and (b). As Special Counsel, if I find, on the basis of the information disclosed, that there is a substantial likelihood that one of these conditions exists, I am required to advise the appropriate agency head of my findings, and the agency head is required to conduct an investigation of the allegations and prepare a report. 5 U.S.C. ' 1213(c) and (g).

I have recently received hundreds of disclosures from private citizens alleging a widespread danger to the public health, specifically to infants and toddlers, caused by childhood vaccines which include thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative. As you know, the vaccine program is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), over which you have oversight jurisdiction. Because none of the individuals making the disclosures are federal employees, former federal employees or applicants for federal employment, OSC lacks jurisdiction over these cases and can legally take no action on the allegations. 5 U.S.C. ' 1213(a)(1). I hasten to add, however, that based on the publicly available information, as discussed briefly below, it appears there may be sufficient evidence to find a substantial likelihood of a substantial and specific danger to public health caused by the use of thimerosal/mercury in vaccines because of its inherent toxicity.

Due to the gravity of the allegations, I am forwarding a copy of the information disclosed to you in your capacity as Chairmen of the Senate Committee and House Committee with oversight authority for HHS. I hope that you will review these important issues and press HHS for a response to this very serious public health danger.

The disclosures allege that thimerosal/mercury is still present in childhood vaccines, contrary to statements made by HHS agencies, HHS Office of Investigations and the American Academy of Pediatrics. According to the information provided, vaccines containing 25 mcg of mercury and carrying expiration dates of 2005, continue to be produced and administered. In addition, the disclosures allege, among other things, that some datasets showing a relationship between thimerosal/mercury and neurological disorders no longer exist, that independent researchers have been arbitrarily denied access to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases, and that government-sponsored studies have not assessed the genetic vulnerabilities of subpopulations. Due to their heightened concern that additional datasets may be destroyed, these citizens urge the immediate safeguarding of the Vaccine Safety Datalink database, and other relevant CDC information, so that critical data are not lost.

The disclosures also allege that the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration colluded with pharmaceutical companies at a conference in Norcross, Georgia, in June 2000, to prevent the release of a study which showed a statistical correlation between thimerosal/mercury exposure through pediatric vaccines and neurological disorders, including autism, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, stuttering, tics and speech and language delays. Instead of releasing the data presented at the conference, the author of the study, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, later published a different version of the study in the November 2003 issue of Pediatrics, which did not show a statistical correlation. No explanation has been provided for this discrepancy. Finally, the disclosures allege that there is an increasing body of clinical evidence on the connection of thimerosal/mercury exposure to neurological disorders which is being ignored by government public health agencies.

I recognize that Congressman Dan Burton, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, held hearings on CDC Activities Related to Autism most recently in April 2002 as well as from 1999-2001. During those hearings Dr. David Baskin, a Baylor School of Medicine neurologist, testified about his research and the serious consequences of exposure to mercury. Dr. Baskin concluded that even if the link to autism has not yet been conclusively proven, based on what is known to date about mercury as a deadly neurotoxin and because thimerosal is not an essential component to the vaccine, there is no reason to continue to purposefully inject it into the bloodstream of infants.

I believe these allegations raise serious continuing concerns about the administration of the nation’s vaccine program and the government’s possibly inadequate response to the growing body of scientific research on the public health danger of mercury in vaccines. The allegations also present troubling information regarding children’s cumulative exposure to mercury and the connection of that exposure to the increase in neurological disorders such as autism and autism-related conditions among children in the U.S. Indeed, the considerable scientific debate that continues to surround the issue of autism and vaccines in the U.S. is exemplified by the recent publication of an article in the National Journal, “Upping the Autism Ante,” describing some research which seems to show an association between exposure to thimerosal and autism, and a report released just yesterday by the Institute of Medicine that found no link between vaccines and autism. I have attached a copy of the National Journal article for your review.

Accordingly, because OSC lacks jurisdiction, we are closing our files on these cases. I am also available for any questions you may have, or to offer the services of this office to assist you with any inquiry.


Scott J. Bloch

Enclosures ______________________________________________________________________________________________

(6) BMJ 1996;313:530-531 (31 August) Can adverse drug reactions be detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. Toine C G Egberts, research fellow, Maartje Smulders, student, Fred H P de Koning, pharmacist, Ronald H B Meyboom, physician, Hubert G M Leufkens, associate professor of pharmacoepidemiology

(7) 'Yellow Fever' Private Eye 28th May 2004  

(8) 'Fatally Flawed Yellow Card Scheme'  

(9) Anaphylaxis campaign epipen training video

Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy