MMR and the Crumbling Façade of the British State

By John Stone

April 2013

Truth is a hard game and when people start admitting it you scarcely know where it might end. Today, the BBC and the United Kingdom Department of Health tacitly admitted that a key finding of the GMC hearing against doctors Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch was false, that the Wakefield Lancet paper of 1998 was identical to a study commissioned by the Legal Aid Board: with that finding out of the way – dismissed as it was Mr Justice Mitting in the High Court in the appeal of Prof John Walker-Smith – then many of the other accusations against all three doctors crumble to dust.

This is the wording of the BBC report:

 Dr Wakefield's study considered whether there was a link between the three-in-one MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease.

It focused on tests carried out on 12 children who had been referred to hospital for gastrointestinal problems.

Dr Wakefield was also paid to carry out another study at the same time to find out if parents who claimed their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine had a case. Some children were involved in both studies.

Of course, this is still not true because the second study never took place, but the GMC panel insisted in its findings that the two papers were one and the same:

The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.

Obscenely, the GMC panel deliberated for three years over this falsehood and yet such is justice that it has only been over-turned in the case of one of the doctors. However, it really is time that manufacturers of these official deceits started answering questions. For instance, why - if MMR was safe - were such disgusting perversions necessary to protect its reputation?

 John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.


You have remember that Guardian newspapers sacked an editor in chief for allowing an accurate report of the rising autism numbers, and that they are presently in partnership with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


David Salisbury presumably follows the advice of Cochrane in both 2005 and 2012:

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

IE We have no idea on epidemiological footing whether MMR is safe or not, but jab on regardless.

Salisbury was wrong twelve years ago.

Nothing has changed.

He still is.


In today's Observer Catherine Bennett takes us through the MMR story and the quackery basically an idiot's guide. The motto of this article never let the truth get in the way it might spoil the story. Also I don't think she will be lining up for a New Year's honour.

Thanks John,

It is positive in a way to see at least there is some discussion about Dr Wakefield's et al study.

However, regardless of the bickering and semantics going one,at the end of the day our children have been damaged by vaccines-End Of!

Elizabeth Gillespie

Is this a trustworthy guy? Why should patients trust this man? Here, the director of vaccination policy in the UK gives unconvincing answers to the FOIA Centre (freedom of information):

The whole archive from 2007 (before the GMC trial of the Royal Free Three) makes interesting reading.

Why should doctors respect this man?

Salisbury is no match for Andrew Wakefield and he knows it. Whatever else, Professor (Sir) David Salisbury is not a man of courage or real conviction: there will be no televised debate between the two.
Andrew Wakefield gets the measure of the man, the director of vaccine operations at the Department of Health in London ... in this YouTube video.

You have to laugh ... as Andrew Wakefield does.

Divisive and destructive: the abuse of power was their stock in trade. David Salisbury reminds me of Sir Roy Meadow, the other less than gallant paediatric professor of the Thatcher era.

Autism Mothers gathered to show their appreciation to Dr. Wakefield the day that his license was revoked. Guess where this took place? It was announced to Andrew live on air on NBC during an interview outside in Rockefeller Plaza in NYC. Let me say that again, in Rockefeller Plaza. I was fortunate to get an interview with him directly thereafter:
The Independent published a 'timeline'. My comments challenging the accuracy of some of these statements were pulled, along with hundreds of comments on the Independent's other articles, including Dr Wakefield's statement. However, at least they were to prepared to publish this, when no other mainstream newspaper was prepared to stand up to the UK medical/political establishment. It seems The Independent has now 'caved in' to establishment demands to get rid of all our comments supporting Dr Wakefield.
Timeline: How the MMR scare story spread
From above:-
"December 2001
The Prime Minister Tony Blair is ambushed by Dr Wakefield’s supporters, who claim Mr Blair’s son Leo did not have the MMR jab. The Blairs initially decline to comment but later deny the claim."
WRONG -The Blairs have NEVER told us what vaccines Leo got. They just said he had been 'fully vaccinated', against Measles, Mumps and Rubella.

From above:-
"February 2004
An investigation by Brian Deer of The Sunday Times reveals that the Legal Aid Board funded the Lancet research and that many of the children were litigants."
WRONG The LAB did not fund the Lancet research.

Also, the timeline mentions the withdrawn vaccine, (Urabe mumps MMR component), but states it only caused 'transient mumps meningitis', making it sound far less harmful than it actually was, causing permanent damage in an unknown number of cases. At least one baby died after receiving this vaccine, but it was denied the vaccine caused the 'unexplained' death.

Wow. A bit speechless. So because tort suits are so difficult to undertake in the UK, it took this long for the falsehood to be processed, merely because John Walker-Smith happened to have legal insurance? And, given that so many top notch doctors in the UK do not have legal insurance and can't file suit, if Walker-Smith hadn't been insured, the truth would never have been conceded?

It's insanity. How will the spin doctors try to spin this industry defeat? This count against the defendants has been the central talking point of all generalized attacks on the vaccine injury theory of autism in the US and global press. What now?