Dr David Salisbury
[The Fox in the Government hen house (Department of 'Health') so consequently chief hatchet man for Allopathy Inc. He was in on the approval (and giving Glaxo legal immunity) of the proven dangerous Urabe MMR after it was withdrawn in Canada (see). See minutes: [pdf 8 March 1988]. Which would go some way towards explaining his persecution of Dr Wakefield, see [2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words and his denial of MMR autism and bowel disease (read Silenced Witnesses Volume II: The Parents' Story). Also architect of Donegan persecution.]
"There is a pandemic of autism among children in the western world and it is spreading worldwide. ...... It has been caused by vaccinations of various kinds, but principally the MMR. This has been known to the pharmaceutical industry, the Western governments, and to the health and medical professions for decades but they have mounted one of the most slick and collusive denials and distractive tactics ever known."----Charles Pragnell
See: Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation
[2010 Jan] Read Silenced Witnesses Volume II: The Parents' Story and you will know MMR causes autism and serious bowel disease, while the governments have been lying through their teeth (as usual).
Lie of the decade from Department of Health: " The normal procedure for licensing was used for MMR and the vaccine was thoroughly tested before being introduced into the UK in 1988." MMR Top 10 truths and top 10 myths (This MMR vaccine, Trivirix/Pluserix was withdrawn in Canada (1988) after they proved it dangerous BEFORE they introduced it here! See: MMR timeline Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words).
Andrew Wakefield: More Questions for David Salisbury
[2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words
[2010 Jan] False Testimony Denies Lancet Doctors a Fair Hearing Dr. Salisbury gave misleading testimony regarding the safety of the MMR vaccine and concealed information material to its safety from the public.
[2009 Dec] Swine flu jab dilemma: Parents and pregnant women refuse it but experts insist it's safe... so who's right?
[2009 March] From the UK: The Betrayal of a Nation's Children By Martin Walker
Dr David Salisbury, UK Gov Vaccines Director - Ooops! Never Mind Me, I'm Basil
ONE CLICK RESPONSE David Salisbury Vaccine Litigation
Doctor Questions David Salisbury On UK Measles Data
So who now is the Basil Fawlty of the MMR controversy?
[13 August – 24] The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker
[2009 Jan] Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action
[Aug 2008] An open letter for the attention of David Salisbury from Alan Golding
[Media--Independent Feb 2002] MMR chief blames the media for jab 'errors'
[Media--Independent Jan 2002] Parents have no cause for alarm as this scare is based on flawed research By David Salisbury
See: 'Vaccines are Safe' lie Vaccine autism proven MMR Pluserix & Immravax (Urabe)
JOINT COMMITTEE ON VACCINATION AND IMMUNISATION
JOINT SUB-COMMITTEE ON ADVERSE REACTIONS TO VACCINES AND IMMUNOLOGICAL PRODUCTS
[6 Feb 1987] Salisbury, Miller,
[6 July 1987] Salisbury, Meadow, Miller
[2 Oct 1987] Salisbury, Meadow, Miller
[8 March 1988] [copy 2] Salisbury, McDevitt, HULL, Meadow, Miller, Rotblat,
[6 Oct 1989] Salisbury, Meadow, Miller
[17 Sept 1990] Salisbury, McDevitt Meadow, Miller
Quotes by Salisbury
The evidence on MMR is absolutely clear - there is no link between the vaccine and autism.---Professor David Salisbury, Department of Health 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7545151.stm
“They all only use benign placebos – we use the safest most pure vaccines as a placebo."---David Salisbury (source The Arnica Network)
"One of the first patients I saw [as a young doctor] was a 12-year-old boy who had come into hospital to die because his brain had been so devastated by the long-term effects of measles," he said. "And one of the first babies I had seen in the neonatal unit was one who had been damaged by congenital rubella. I don't need to see any of those again, but that will be the consequence of this drive for single vaccines."--Dr Salisbury
[Here is a denial classic.]
I asked you for evidence that demonstrated that
deaths were actually caused by the Urabe strain, and you have singularly failed
to provide any evidence whatsoever. You have provided media reports, opinions of
parents, and decisions of tribunals or courts. These are not evidence of
causality that implicates the Urabe vaccine.
Nobody would disagree that deaths have been reported after MMR vaccines. But deaths after vaccination are very different from deaths caused by vaccination.
Dr David Salisbury, director of immunisation, department of health, London 19.03.07  Parliament was given false MMR assurance
"This (MMR) is a safe vaccine."-------Dr David Salisbury, Government immunisation programme
Dr David Salisbury, national director for vaccines and immunisation at the Department of Health, said last night: 'The evidence is absolutely clear. No published study has ever shown a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. It is absolute nonsense to suggest otherwise.' New Health Fears Over Big Surge in Autism
Quotes re MMR Urabe that he approved:
"Up to 300 cases relate to this brand of vaccine - Pluserix - which was banned by the Department of Health in 1992 after being linked with meningitis. This was two years after an identical vaccine was banned in Canada."--Media
"In 1990, scientists from the Queens Medical Centre Nottingham found
some children developed a form of meningitis after receiving it. But despite this
the Government went on using it for more than two years. The Canadian
Government, also using the vaccine, immediately switched to a safer version. It was not
until September 1992 that the UK Department of Health issued pharmacists with emergency
supplies of a safer brand with instructions to withdraw existing batches."--Sunday Express
Quotes re Salisbury
The two of the three vaccine brands that were introduced in 1988 had to be withdrawn for safety reasons and yet Dr Salisbury in his statement to the GMC sums up by saying this is a vaccine with an exemplary safety record. Well, if that is his idea of an excellent safety record then we have a very different perception he and I of vaccine safety. [2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words question 1
Where dies it leave the GMC if you are not guilty?
Very good question on a very broad front. They have some tough decisions to
make. One on the level of the case itself, and have they misinstructed their
experts, are they going to have to retrench in a different set of charges. They
have to take time to structure those charges and get a response from their
experts. Are they going to be allowed to do that, I don't know, but it must be
becoming obvious to them now that much of the original information they were
given, was, had been, misconstrued, and basing their charges on that information
has been in error.
At another level they are under big pressure from the Department of Health, and David Salisbury in particular has been calling them on a regular basis urging them to prosecute this case more vigorously against me, be nastier, be meaner, throw more in, and I know this because we get sent the unused material, and so I took the opportunity (he didn't know this, I mean you get all the telephone conversations, all the conversation between people, all the draft reports which is an interesting advantage to us), so I was able to write to David Salisbury and was able to say I am now in a position to have read the unused material from the GMC, and I note your entreaties to them....He was furious, he contacted the GMC and said: "I didn't know they were going to get the unused material...you never told me, this is a disgrace!" And the wonderful thing about that is that we get the documentation of that telephone conversation as well (laughs).
So, you can see they are under a great deal of political pressure to prosecute this case and it is interesting in the public domain David Salisbury has said we don't want this to be seen as a vendetta on behalf of the Department of Health. So, mixed messages.
PART TWO. The other dilemma they have is who do they represent in the end? Because the GMC have historically stood for the patient, the patients rights, the patients protection from, for example, medical malpractice. Well, who do they stand for now because we stand for the patients. Everything we have done is in the best interests of the children. What they are representing and prosecuting is not on behalf of the children no parent ahs complained agaisnt us, but on behalf of the Department of Health, on behalf of the new kid on the block, 'the greater good.'
So here we have a body who has traditionally represented the patient, the victim, if you like, against the medical profession or againts medical malpractice. Now they are defending the diktat of public health against the rights of the individual.
S o they are in a real quandary, or if they are not they should be, about quite who they represent, because I know who I represent--the individual patient. [2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words Question 3
.Dr Alistair Torres who was from the Scottish dept of health, and Dr Torres
had been seconded onto the JCVI, effectively from Canada,
and he had been brought in, at least in part, to advise on the introduction of
MMR vaccine. The experience in Canada was that they introduced a vaccine
which contained a mumps component made up of a strain of the vaccine called
Urabe, which was originally generated in Japan and they had run into problems
with this vaccine. It produced meningitis in children (1:43). the
mumps virus was identified in the brain of the children and the vaccine was
pulled in Canada, it was pulled, it was stopped in 1997 (1:53), nonetheless this
was the vaccine that was intended to be introduced into the UK a year later in
They changed the name, but the vaccine was identical, so it had gone from Trivirix to Pluserix in the UK, an identical vaccine that had already been withdrawn for safety reasons, in Canada.
Now Torres advised the JCVI not to introduce this vaccine because it was not safe. He was overruled. He said if you are going to introduce it then you should have active surveillance. That is doctors or people going out and asking doctors--have you seen and cases of the following in the past month, not waiting for doctors to spontaneously report. Spontaneous reporting picks up 1-2% of those adverse reactions.....It is totally inadequate but they were totally overruled, not active surveillance (3:02). So they were going to intro a vaccine that has been withdrawn in other countries, known to be unsafe and they were going to have no active surveillance (3:08) for possible adverse events in this country. Now this was done, he said, for competitive pricing reasons. The strain of the vaccine that contained the dangerous mumps component was approx. 1/4 the price of the American MMRII made by Merck. There had been no reports of meningitis using the Merck vaccine which contained a strain of mumps called Jeryl Lynn....So what we had was a cheaper vaccine that was known to be dangerous (3:47), so when the vaccines were licensed or the proposal to licence these vaccines, the JCVI or members of that committee (4:0) went to SmithKline Beecham (SKB) and said we want your vaccine. SKB said we are not happy about it because this has already been withdrawn in Canada, it has got this mumps component in it which is dodgy
They said if we are going to do it then we want an indemnity, we want indemnity from prosecution for damage to children on the basis (4:27) of the receipt of the vaccine, and it appears that indemnity was granted, and Torres told us about this (4:33), and he said at the meeting, the girl there from SKB said we are immunising the children and the government is immunising us.
So the vaccine was produced, licensed, given, and cases of meningitis started to appear. they were recorded and documented in the minutes of the JCVI which are now available on line and have been obtained by us as part of our investigation. More and more cases began to be reported, the Scottish dept' withdrew this vax, certain health areas rejected the Urabe containing vaccine but still the JCVI continued with it. There was no withdrawal of this vaccine until finally a study was grudgingly done in Nottingham where they found a much higher risk of meningitis with this vaccine (5:33) than had previously been predicted by passive surveillance, and the vaccine was withdrawn overnight, and it was only withdrawn overnight because it was leaked to the press.
It appeared in a newspaper and suddenly the vaccine was pulled. So a dangerous vaccine, a knowingly dangerous vaccine was introduced and ultimately proven to be dangerous and had to be withdrawn (6:00) in 1992. [2010 April. Video] Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words question 1
On May 4th 1990, the minutes of the JCVI, headed by Professor Salisbury, contain reference to some concerns. One might expect these concerns to relate to the vaccine’s safety. Not so. The JCVI expressed concern that details of the vaccines dangers are to be published in the UK, thereby exposing the problem and causing a scare (JCVI Minutes 4 May 1990 Article 9.2g.) So, just to run through that one again, the JCVI members were concerned about the Japanese data being published and the public being warned, but apparently unconcerned about the fact they had licensed a vaccine that is associated with meningitis. [Aug 2008] An open letter for the attention of David Salisbury from Alan Golding
By 1993, parents seeking help with one aspect of MMR's adverse reactions, a novel new condition of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) followed by regressive autism, began to attend the Royal Free Hospital. As these children began presenting there, Dr Wakefield contacted the DH to inform the head of vaccine and immunology Dr David Salisbury that he considered MMR could be creating a public health crisis and asked for a meeting. It took Salisbury almost six years to arrange such a meeting. [2010 Feb] Counterfeit Law: And They Think They Have Got Away With It By Martin Walker
[Millions are spent by the government (taxpayer) so they can market the
products of the drug industry more effectively. See
Buchwald MD quotes re fear research.]
The other considerable matter which Salisbury onanistically droned on about was his department’s determination to understand public perception of the various vaccinations. He introduced this matter by suggesting that no one else (no other government) in the world was able to track the take-up and public perception of vaccines in the way that the British government could. The data on public perception of vaccine was massive, he said. The survey methods were infinitely sensitive, the government even knew what newspapers respondents read. In all, Salisbury and his colleagues had carried out 30 surveys into the public outlook on vaccination, costing millions of pounds.
Listening only lethargically to this ‘evidence’, one might be moved by it. ‘The government really is interested in the public experience of vaccination’, an observer might think. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. All this data, all these surveys, all these millions of pounds have been spent in order to advance the marketing of vaccines and to plan public relations strategies which will ensure that the public accept the vaccine programme without question. This is nothing to do with science, this is jury rigging. The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker
The refusal to cross examine might appear risky, in that it seemed to let
Salisbury off the hook with respect to important and simple questions such as:
‘Why did it take you two years to respond to Dr Wakefield’s first communication
with you, which warned the DoH of a public health crisis over MMR?’ and ‘Why did
it take six years for you to organise a meeting with Dr Wakefield to discuss his
ground breaking research?’ and finally, ‘Did you intend to suggest in your
evidence that Dr Wakefield was trying to blackmail the Department, by suggesting
he would precipitate a public health crisis unless you gave him money for
All the facts relevant to the charges against Dr Wakefield, Professor Murch and Professor Walker Smith will of course be given in evidence by the defendants themselves. If they remain accused. Dr Wakefield, in particular, will be able to inform the panel about the considerable evasion indulged in by Professor Salisbury and the Department of Health from the time that they were first informed of the epidemic of adverse reaction to MMR. The Utter Irrelevance of Professor Salisbury by Martin Walker
Whale large banners MMR Urabe Bowel disease Vaccines are adequately tested MMR deaths Vaccine autism proven