The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Conquering Measles

Conventional medicine claims that measles is one of its most important success stories. Conventional medical literature routinely refers to measles as 'a killer disease' that has been conquered, eradicated by the programmes of mass vaccination, developed for children from the 1960's onwards. As a result of this medical success measles is no longer a killer disease - thanks to the MMR vaccines.

This is the propaganda of conventional medicine - in a nutshell. However, even a cursory look at the history of measles, using official statistics, will quickly dispel this myth.

Epidemics of the 19th Century

Measles has been around for millennia. This has been described by the Los Angeles Times in 2015. It states that measles was first identified by physicians in Asia and North Africa during the 3rd to 10th centuries AD; that a Chinese alchemist differentiate measles from smallpox in 340AD; and it lists some of the early known epidemics, notably in 1492 when Christopher Columbus, and early European explorers, introduced it to native Americans. They had no resistance to the virus, and to many of the other infectious diseases that were introduced. Alongside these other diseases, measles had a devastating effect.

        "By some estimates, the native American population plunged by as much as 95% over the next 150 years due to disease"

Yet it is perhaps during the 19th century that measles epidemic attracted most attention throughout the world. In Britain the incidence of measles probably rose as a result of the Agrarian Revolution, which removed people from their village communities, and the Industrial Revolution, which deposited them in the new industrial towns.

So the measles epidemics of the 19th Century developed amongst populations that lived in poverty, in squalid overcrowded housing, poor working conditions, with extremely poor nutrition, amidst disease-promoting insanitary circumstances. Measles epidemics occurred regularly, on average about every five years or so during the first half of the century.

During all this time conventional medicine had no effective treatment for measles. Some comparisons have been made comparing Homeopathic and Conventional Medical Treatment for measles and other disease epidemics during this time, and without exception, it was homeopathy that was more successful in keeping patients alive.

Public Health Measures

As the 19th century progressed the importance of public health policy was gradually realised. These policies led to improved housing, improved sanitation, improved water supply, improved nutrition. Living standards improved, greater affluence was generated, and poverty was reduced.

Official evidence shows, quite clearly, that these measures brought about the decline in both incidence of measles, and mortality rates.

1900 to 1968 - the decline in measles continues

The decline in measles continued rapidly into the 20th century, during which time (although not wanting to repeat myself too much) conventional medicine had no treatment for measles, or any of the other infectious diseases - and of course no vaccine.

This graph demonstrates that between 1900 and 1968 (when the first vaccination programme was introduced) the decline in the incidence of measles did not deviate from its downward trend. It shows clearly that the vaccine made no difference at all.

Moreover, as this graph demonstrates, the deaths caused by measles had already declined by 99.4% between 1900 and 1968 - so mortality rates too was a trend that had started long before the introduction of the vaccine.

 

The Successful Use of Statistics as Propaganda

The introduction of measles vaccines did not alter either the incidence, or the deaths caused by the disease. Each graph continued to decline in much the same way that it had been doing for 100 years!

Perhaps it is time we recognised that statistics can be used to demonstrate or prove anything; and that the conventional medical establishment has been second to none in its brilliant promotional use of statistics. 

What they have achieved is truly remarkable. The pharmaceutical industry has taken credit for 'conquering' measles when the credit is due (almost entirely) to public health measures and increased affluence. Conventional medicine takes a year in the 19th century, when the incidence of, and death rates from measles are at their highest, compares it to the current situation, and then seeks to convince us that the improvement was caused entirely by vaccines. It represents a significant victory of fiction over fact!

The fact is that measles has not been a major 'killer disease for a very long time; that the MMR vaccines have not protected us from it; and (of course) the conventional medical establishment still has no treatment for measles.

Would you like to read more information about the propaganda myth surrounding the eradication of measles as a 'killer' disease? If so please read this brilliant and insightful book. It provides a comprehensive historical and statistical account of the decline of the disease in the years prior to the introduction of the vaccine.

Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History: Suzanne Humphries & Roman Bystrianyk. ISBN 1480216895.

Also read my other blogs on the Myths of Conventional Medicine.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Eradicating Smallpox.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Polio.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Whooping Cough (Pertussin)

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. The Covid-19 vaccines.

The MMR Vaccine. Less parents are getting their children vaccinated. And this is a problem both for conventional medicine, and our national media!

Professor Dame Sally Davis is an expert on health, Britain's 'top doctor', and the government appointed Chief Medical Officer. Or more accurately, perhaps, she is an expert in conventional medicine.

• There is an important distinction!

On 1st November 2018 her statement about the MMR vaccine made all the mainstream media. Her comments came, apparently, on the 30th anniversary of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine being introduced in the UK. The vaccine is given, free of charge, on the NHS, as a single injection to babies, within a month of their first birthday. They then have a second injection before starting school, aged three years.

The expert professor was bemoaning the fact that less people are now taking up the vaccine - only 87% in England when the target is 95%.

So let's see what she had to say, and how the media (and particularly BBC News) reported it.

               "The MMR vaccine has dramatically reduced cases of measles, mumps and rubella and saved about 4,000 deaths from measles, resulting in the UK being declared "measles free" by the World Health Organization last year."

Measles was a killer disease in this country during the 18th and 19th century, alongside the upheaval and poverty of the agrarian and industrial revolutions. The incidence of measles declined progressively and rapidly from the second half of the 19th century right up to the introduction of the MMR vaccine. Graphs that track the incidence of measles show that the introduction of the vaccine made no impact whatsoever on the continuing decline of the disease.

Did Sally Davis mention this? Was she challenged by the BBC? No, this was allowed to pass - as a factual statement.

The Professor went on to say that the MMR vaccine was safe, and had been given to millions of children worldwide. Yet the patient information leaflet that comes with the MMR vaccine contradicts this statement. I have listed the long list of serious known 'side effects' in this blog, written in 2013. The side effects include seizures, encephalitis, and death (yes, death!)

Did Sally Davis qualify this statement that the MMR vaccine was safe? Did the BBC challenge her about the claim? No, it was allowed to pass - as a factual statement.

So why are 13% of parents refusing to take up the offer of this free vaccine? A vaccine that protects against a disease that no longer exists (!) A vaccine that causes death? 

Well, Dame Sally had the answer. I was to blame, alongside the many other anti-vaccine campaigners, all of us presenting our 'misinformation', and 'fake news'.

• People who believe the myths spread by anti-vaccine campaigners "are absolutely wrong" she said.
• She urged parents to get their children vaccinated and ignore "social media fake news".
• She said myths peddled about the dangers of vaccines on social media was one reason parents weren't taking their children to get the MMR vaccine.
• "Over these 30 years, we have vaccinated millions of children.
• "It is a safe vaccination - we know that - and we've saved millions of lives across the world.
• "People who spread these myths, when children die they will not be there to pick up the pieces or the blame."

This was her message, her unchallenged message, the one that everybody heard. The voice of a medical expert, an authority on the subject, someone who is not to be challenged, by anyone!

So what has my mistake been? Why have I erred? Why have I been attacked on the media? I suggest my mistake, and the mistake of all anti-vaxxers, has been twofold.

1. We have read the evidence on the patient information leaflets and made the judgement that this level of child damage was unacceptable.
2. We have listened to parents who once had healthy children, but whose development was normal up until they were vaccinate (either with DPT or MMR), and who subsequently became seriously ill.

Clearly, according to Britain's Chief Medical Officer, we should not have done so either of these things. We should accept her word, her statements, just as the media has done - after all she is a medical expert!

So was Sally Davis's challenged at all by the BBC? And did they, in line with the BBC's editorial guidelines, give time to anti-vaccine campaigners to put their position? No, she was not challenged. And no, no one was allowed to put the contrary case - that the MMR vaccine was,  in fact, dangerous, and parent were right to refuse to subject their children to its known side effects.

Instead, Dame Sally was allowed to bemoan the fact that there had been too many cases of measles in England this year - a grand total of 903 so far (!) - and that young people had missed out on the MMR vaccine "who had been particularly affected".

Any statistics on that, Sally? So perhaps the BBC asked her how many of the 903 children had been vaccinated? Unfortunately, they did not bother to ask.

And then, of course, the usual nonsense, routinely trotted out by the media whenever vaccines are brought into question.

               "In 1998, a study by former doctor Andrew Wakefield incorrectly linked the MMR vaccine to autism. The research is now completely discredited."

Actually, Andrew Wakefield's research has been replicated many times now. But we cannot expect the mainstream media to mention this. So did they challenge the statement? No, of course not. The job of the media, as seen by the media, is to support the conventional medical establishment, to act as an Echo Chamber for anything they want to say, without challenge or question, whilst at the same time bashing anyone who holds a contrary view, backed by contrary evidence.

So the result of Professor Dame Sally Davis's interview, and the vacillation of the mainstream media, will be that more parents are absolutely certain about the importance of vaccination, and the safety of vaccines, who have no knowledge of the warnings on the patient information leaflet, or the experience of parents whose young children have been seriously damaged.

So much for informed patient choice!

BBC News refuses to report on MMR vaccine - Autism link

Any link between the MMR vaccine and the raging epidemic of Autism has to be a matter of serious concern, not least for parents who have to decide whether their children should have the vaccination. When a former Chief Scientific Officer makes these comments, it surely becomes a matter for national, indeed international concern.

• that there has been "utterly inexplicable complacency" over the MMR vaccine,
• that there are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere, who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves,
• that if it is proven that the vaccine causes autism "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".
• that he has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from around the world that the MMR vaccine is causing brain damage, and the parents had a right to see the thousands of documents in had seen over the years pointing to this."
• that he has had concerns about the MMR vaccine since 2001, stating that safety trials prior to the vaccine's introduction in Britain were inadequate,
• when he points to the "explosive worldwide increase in regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease in children", and to the growing scientific understanding of autism-related bowel disease, which have convinced him that the MMR vaccine may be to blame.
• that "clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children."

These are just some of the statements made by Dr Peter Fletcher, formerly Chief Scientific Officer at the UK's Department of Health (see Daily Mail Online article, published 29th March 2016). I wrote about his comments in more detail in my blog, MMR and Autism. "One of the greatest scandals in medical history".

Well, I can now confirm that BBC News does not believe that these comments are sufficiently newsworthy to comment on. When I wrote the above blog, I made a complaint to the BBC that they had not covered his story. They have not upheld my complaint. The story is not sufficiently current, unusual, or of public interest!

That is no really surprise. During the last 15 years, the BBC has been at the forefront of British journalism that has refused to look at the performance of conventional medicine, at the reasons for the epidemics of chronic disease (including autism), in the harm that can be cause by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Instead, it is happy to toe the line of the conventional medical establishment - that all is well with the health services that dominate our NHS, and that good health is obtainable within the pills and potions we are being offered. Conventional medicine, they are keen to tell us, in winning the battle against illness and disease.

Yet it is not just the denial of the BBC that is worrying. It is the fact that they are not prepared to investigate the concerns that exist about conventional medicine, and the damage it can cause to patients. Therefore, I asked the BBC whether it felt any responsibility to answer some of the questions raised by Dr Fletcher's statement, namely,

• "Why isn't the Government taking this massive public health problem more seriously?"
• Whether it is true that "no one in authority will even admit it's happening, let alone try to investigate the causes." 
• "Why the Government is not investigating it further".

Thie BBC's response to my complaint exactly mirrors a similar complaint I made to the BBC in September 2015 about their non-coverage the Dr Thompson affair, where there was an admission that research into the MMR-Autism link had been falsified in order to demonstrate that there was no link. Not even this interested the BBC!  But the story is covered fully in my blogs, "The MMR-Autism Controversy, and the dishonesty of Medical 'Science'", and "MMR Vaccine, Autism, and the silence and culpability of the Political, Medical and Media Establishment".

My purpose in making these complaints is not to change their attitude and approach to health matters. The BBC are no impartial, and they will not change until they are forced to change. They act as a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical industry, and will not question the government, NHS line.

The purpose of the complaints is to ensure that they are 'on record' as denying these links, and failing to investigate tor report on them. Millions of parents agree to vaccinate their children on the basis that they are safe. Their doctors tell them they are safe, the NHS tell them they are safe, and BBC News merely confirms they are safe through their disinterest, their failure to investigate, and their refusal to report.

In doing so they will become culpable of misinforming the public when the link is finally proven, and cannot be denied any more - which is surely coming closer with each new revelation, and with every child who becomes part of the autistic epidemic.

Then, BBC News will have to answer the real question. Why did you not report? Why did you not investigate? Why did you fail to inform the British public? Why did you not carry out your editorial guidelines about impartiality? Why did you fail to fulfil your statutory duties?

The unfortunate thing is we are uncertain how long we have to wait for this, how many parents will subject their children to dangerous vaccines, how much longer the BBC will continue to insist that we remain ignorant.

Unlike other parts of the mainstream media, the BBC has no shareholders, no links on their board with pharmaceutical companies (not that this should be an excuse for their silence). It is the licence payer who owns, and pays for the BBC. Most licence payers are, have been, or will become parents. And the BBC is not serving us well.

MMR and Autism. "One of the greatest scandals in medical history"

The Daily Mail has reported an interview it had with Dr Peter Fletcher, formerly Chief Scientific Officer at the British Department of Health, in an article published on 29th March 2016. It is important that everyone, especially the parents of young children making the decision to vaccinate, or not to vaccinate, to read what he said. As far as I can see, his explosive comments have been ignored by the remaining British media, including (of course) the BBC!

• He talks of the "utterly inexplicable complacency" over the MMR vaccine, although he goes on to explain this complacency as follows:
• "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."
• He states that if it is proven that the vaccine causes autism "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".
• He said that he had seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from around the world that the MMR vaccine is causing brain damage, and the parents had a right to see the thousands of documents in had seen over the years pointing to this.
• He said he first expressed concerns about the MMR vaccine in 2001, stating that safety trials prior to the vaccine's introduction in Britain were inadequate.
• He pointed to the "explosive worldwide increase in regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease in children", and growing scientific understanding of autism-related bowel disease, which have convinced him that the MMR vaccine may be to blame.
• He says that this link between these diseases and the MMR vaccine were first made by Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998, 18 years ago.
• He stated that "Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children."
• He added that "... it is the steady accumulation of evidence, from a number of respected universities, teaching hospitals and laboratories around the world, that matters here. There's far too much to ignore. Yet government health authorities are, it seems, more than happy to do so."
• He asks "Why isn't the Government taking this massive public health problem more seriously?"
• He continued, "no one in authority will even admit it's happening, let alone try to investigate the causes."
• He further asks "Why is the Government not investigating it further - diverting some of the millions of pounds spent on advertising and PR campaigns to promote MMR uptake into detailed clinical research instead?"
• He goes on to point out that there has been "a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, which roughly coincided with MMR's introduction, and an extremely worrying increase in childhood inflammatory bowel diseases and immune disorders such as diabetes".
• As far as the conventional explanation for these rises, he says that there is no way that a tenfold leap in autistic children could be the result of better recognition, and 'definitional change'.
• His conclusion was that "It is highly likely that at least part of this increase is a vaccinerelated problem." 

The Daily Mail article goes on to say that his 'outspokenness' "will infuriate health authorities, who have spent millions of pounds shoring up confidence in MMR since Dr Wakefield's 1998 statement." This is no doubt true. The usual response of the conventional medical establishment is to discipline the speaker, to strike off the offending doctor, just as they did with Andrew Wakefield. But Dr Fletcher is retired, and so out of their reach. The other response is to ignore what has been said, in the hope that it might just go away. Given the usual complicity of the mainstream media this is certainly a possibility.

Yet the Daily mail article brings out one further point about the MMR cover-up, and the government's duplicity in this.

          "He called the sudden termination of legal aid to parents of allegedly vaccine-damaged children in late 2003 'a monstrous injustice'. After agreeing to be a witness for the parents, he received thousands of documents relating to the case. 'Now, it seems, unless the parents force the Government to restore legal aid, much of this revealing evidence may never come out."

And this is just what the conventional medical establishment wants. The Daily Mail article is to be congratulated on reporting on what Dr Fletcher has said, but as usual, it gives the last word to the Department of Health.

        "MMR remains the best protection against measles, mumps and rubella. It is recognised by the World Health Organisation as having an outstanding safety record and there is a wealth of evidence showing children who receive the MMR vaccine are no more at risk of autism than those who don't."

Well, that alright then - there is nothing to worry about it would seem. We just have to cope with the rising tide of autistic children, and the lack of resources available for their care. The vaccine is vindicated. We are all, now, expected to be as quiet and compliant as the BBC, and the rest of the mainstream media is likely to be!

Note. This interview with Dr Fletcher follows closely to the admission by a lead scientists in an important 2004 study that reported there was no MMR vaccine / Autism connection that the evidence had been rigged to obtain this result.

So what parents now have to decide is whether they believe what they are being told by the conventional medical establishment. Would they buy a second-hand car from these people? Will they allow their young child to be injected with a vaccine that could have such negative consequences?

BBC News is not interested in fraudulent medical research. They refuse to tell us about it.

In my blog, dated 14th December 2015, "The Refusal of BBC News to report important information", I told you about my complaint to the BBC.

It concerned the issue of whether the MMR vaccine was a cause of Autism, the 2004 study which said there was no link, and the 2014 revelation that one of the co-authors of that study had reveal that the research have fraudulently omitted important data that would have proven there was a link, particularly with black children.

For a concise explanation of the back of this situation, watch this 'Truth in Media' video, which is one of the best descriptions of the situation I have found.

This is the latest email response I have received from the BBC.

          "Thank you for contacting us again about MMR Vaccine link to Autism. In our last response, we informed you of our editorial position, after having flagged up your complaint with senior staff at the News. We said that nothing which has been said or published since then has caused us to alter our view and gave you a link to a comprehensive list of Q&As on the subject. We’re sorry if you still feel we’ve not helped you with your concerns."

          "We’re sorry to tell you that we’ve nothing to add to our previous reply. We don’t believe your complaint has raised a significant issue of general importance that might justify further investigation. We will not therefore correspond further in response to additional points, or further comments or questions, made about this issue or our responses to it."

If you watch the video, and then read this response from the BBC, you will be able to judge for yourself the enormity of the cover-up and the censorship being practiced by the mainstream media on behalf of the conventional medical establishment!

In this the BBC are not alone. I am not aware that any other organisation that can be construed as part of the mainstream media, in the UK, in the USA, or elsewhere, have carried this story. This does not surprise me. It is typical of the approach adopted by all large media organisation when dealing with the conventional medical establishment - see no evil, hear no evil.  Or perhaps, do no evil to the pharmaceutical companies. Allow them to continue doing evil to the public!

I have now written to the BBC Trust to take my complaint further. I have not only repeated my concern that if there is any doubt whatsoever that vaccines can cause autism the public should be told about that doubt.

This is particularly so for a public service broadcaster. The BBC does not receive income from advertisers, including drug advertisements. The BBC does not have drug company representatives on their board, and vice versa. Most viewers, listeners, readers of BBC News would expect to hear news that is impartial, not censored. BBC licence payers would expect that they are being told, openly and honestly, about health issues - including the harm that drugs and vaccines can do to our health.

If there is any doubt, whatsoever, that the MMR vaccine might be a linked with the epidemic of autism, parents should be told about that information, they should have the evidence, they should know before they decide whether to submit their children for the vaccination.

If the BBC had been honest enough to provide the information beyond the 2004 study, even if they had informed us that the 2004 study was fraudulent in 2014, as they could have done, how many children would have been able to develop normally, without the handicaps caused to children within the autism spectrum?

Every family in Britain, especially those with autistic children, should be demanding an apology from mainstream news organisations, but particularly the BBC, who have a very specific responsibility to inform the public about important issues like this.

Anyone who wants to complain to the BBC about their censorship of this issue should click on this link, and ask why they have failed to inform them about this fraudulent research.

The refusal of BBC News to report important health information

On 8th September 2015 I made a formal complaint to the BBC. The complaint concerned the link between the MMR vaccine and Autism, and more specifically, the BBC's failure to inform the public that an important piece of research, reported in 2004), that has subsequently been used to deny the link between the vaccine and the disease, has been found to be fraudulent.

Please look at these previous blogs for further information about my complaint, and the circumstances which gave rise to it.

• For more information about my complaint and the censorship of the BBC and the mainstream media generally.
• For more information about the fraudulent research, and the admission of one of its co-authors that some data had been left out, and destroyed, in order to dismiss the link.

These are important issues. Many parents since 2004 have vaccinated their children on the basis of this research, and many more continue to do so. They have not been told that the denial of the autism-vaccine link is based on fraudulent 'science'.

A response came back within a couple of weeks. A totally inadequate response!

          "We understand you're unhappy with the BBC's news service, as you feel there hasn't been any coverage of a report into the links between the MMR vaccine and Autism in a study carried out in 2004. We note you feel the BBC has failed in its duty by not affording any coverage to this matter.

          "We realise that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover and the prominence given to them. These are subjective decisions made by our news editors, and we accept that not everyone will think that we are correct on each occasion.

The letter went on provide a routine explanation of the BBC's criteria for choosing news stories!

          "For example, whether the story is new and requires immediate coverage, how unusual the story is, and how much interest there is in the story. These decisions are always judgement calls rather than an exact science and the timeframe available will always be a factor too, we can only apologise you feel this issue has been overlooked in our news coverage.

I wrote back on 17th September 2015 expressing my dissatisfaction, giving several reasons why this particular news story was important, and why their response was inadequate.

          ".... I have noted the factors BBC News takes into consideration when deciding whether to use a news story, and in line with them, I have the following observations, questions, about this matter to further develop my complaint.

• The co-author of an important study, published in 2004, has admitted, 10 years later in 2014, that he lied, and that the study ignored key pieces of data that would have changed the findings of the 2004 study.
• The 2004 study concluded ‘conclusively’ that there was no connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism.
• On the basis, and largely based on this study, the BBC, alongside other news agencies in Britain, decided that there should be no further discussion about the link between vaccines and Autism. The BBC and other news agencies has not allowed any discussion now for over 10 years.
• This means that parents have been subjecting their children to the MMR vaccine for over a decade on the basis of a fraudulent medical study, a study accepted fully and without question by the conventional medical establishment, by the BBC, and other news agencies.
• During that time, and before, the incidence of Autism has reached epidemic proportions.

I then went on to highlight the reasons why the story was important, and how much 'interest' there would be in it.

• A senior medical scientist, with the full knowledge of an important medical agency (the CDC) in the USA, has admitted lying and concealing information.
• If these lies and concealments not taken place, the connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism would not have been ‘conclusively’ dismissed, as they have been ever since. The public debate, initiated by Dr Andrew Wakefield, would have continued. Parents would have based their decision to vaccinate their children, or not, on this ongoing debate. 
• The BBC, and other new agencies, have been duped into taking a position on the Vaccine - Autism debate by lies and concealment as they have believed the validity of the CDC study. As a result, you have been instrumental in stifling debate on this important issue.
• Since Dr Thompson’s admission of fraud, in August 2014, many millions of parents have continued to take their children to doctors for vaccination, believing it to be safe, with very few knowing anything about the dishonesty to which they have been subjected for over 10 years.

On 20th October, the BBC wrote saying they required more than 20 days to respond to my complaint. At least, I thought, this meant that they were taking my complaint serious. This was over-optimistic! On 27th November 2015 the BBC sent me the the briefest possible response - a mere 75 words! The main paragraph forms the bulk of the response, and states:

     "We  have a comprehensive Q+A here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22173393 which sums up our position editorially. Nothing which has been said or published since then has caused us to alter our view".

If you have a look at this Q+A page you will find something taken straight out of the textbook of the conventional medical establishment, and in particular, the pharmaceutical companies. It could have been (and probably was) written by the vaccine manufacturers!

Yet this response highlights the BBC's attitude and approach to health issues. If this article is how the BBC responds to health news, no wonder they were not interested in this major news story!

Measles
The BBC'S description of measles comes straight from conventional medical text books that owe more to history that to current experience of the disease. Measles is "highly contagious". After describing to usual symptoms of the illness, it continues by going into the 'complications' that can arise.

          "In a very small number of cases, inflammation of the brain (encephalitis) may follow. This is extremely dangerous, as 25% of those affected are left with brain damage. The most severe complication of measles - occurring in only one in 100,000 cases - is a slowly-progressive brain disorder which does not normally show until some time after the original infection, causing seizures and even death."

Whilst this is certainly what measles could do in the past, notably in times following the industrial revolution, when people lived in extreme poverty, suffered poor nutrition and inadequate sanitation, and squalid housing and environmental conditions. But this experience of measles is historical. Measles statistics clearly demonstrate that the incidence of these serious side effects began to fall in late Victorian times, with improved living and working conditions, and continued doing so throughout the 20th century. By the time the MMR vaccine was introduced the disease was more benigh, and these more severe symptoms were extremely rare. Since the introduction of the MMR vaccination, the incidence of measles has not changed significantly. But the BBC articles continues

          "Globally, measles is still one of the biggest childhood killers. The World Health Organization estimates there are 430 deaths from measles every day. It is thought that between one in 1,000 and one in 3,000 of those infected will die."

These statistics do not refer to the UK, or to the developed world generally, but to countries in the so-called '3rd' world where people are live in condition of poverty, with poor diet, et al,. In other words, in conditions commenurate with post-industrial times in the UK!

The MMR Vaccine
The BBC article then goes on to tell us what the MMR vaccine is, and whether there is any need to be worried about it. Again, it could have been taken from a conventional medical text book, written by the vaccine manufacturers! It describes the controversy about the MMR vaccination from 1988, when the Lancet raised the possibility that the vaccine might be linked to autism and bowel disease. It relates that as a result people became worried, and vaccination rates declined.

          "In the wake of the publicity surrounding the Lancet paper vaccination rates fell sharply. At its lowest, in 2003/4, fewer than eight in ten children were vaccinated - but in some areas less than half of children received the jab."

Then the BBC article brings in the concept of 'herd immunity', that in order to ensure a community is protected from a disease, 95% of the population need to be fully vaccinated. The concept of 'herd immunity' is one of the dafter, and least defensible ideas thought up by the conventional medical establishment. Basically, a child who is fully vaccinated child is not safe, not protected from the disease, unless other people are vaccinated! Yet however daft the concept, the BBC believes in it, does not question it, and is not prepared to investigate it.

          "Mumps, measles and rubella are all serious diseases, particularly measles. Many doctors were concerned that a drop in vaccination levels could leave many children at risk."

So, the BBC article asks, was there anything to be worry about the MMR vaccine? Their answer is inequivocal. "No"!

There is no uncertainty or doubt about this. There is nothing for the BBC to question. There is nothing for the BBC to investigate.

Even when it is known that an important piece of research, undertaken to discover whether a link between autism and vaccines, has been found to be fraudulent, there is nothing to be worried about, not to question, nothing to investigate.

It is not a matter of news interest as far as the BBC is concerned.

• It is not something that parents would want to know about when deciding whether to vaccinated their children. 
• It is not something that the growing number of parents with autistic children would want to know about as a possible cause.
• It is not something that raises questions about the honesty of medical research (indeed the honesty of the research they quote in their article).

Remember what the BBC told me in their 27th November 2015 letter. "Nothing which has been said or published since then has caused us to alter our view."

In other words, their article is the definitive truth, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, evidence which is, apparently, not newsworthy. There is no reason to be worried, there is nothing to tell us about. Everything is fine. There is nothing to examine, to investigate. No-one at the BBC will question this position. It is firm, final. The BBC are not willing to investigate go further. Anyone who thinks otherwise are presumably dismissed, any evidence disregarded.

The concerns about the MMR vaccine still exist but the BBC refuses to address them, or even to discuss them. They have taken a stance that reinforces the views of the conventional medical establishment. They refuse to acknowledge the strength of of the evidence that runs contrary to this orthodoxy.

This constitutes a fundamental breach of the BBC's alleged commitment to 'impartiality'.

Think what would be said about the BBC if they decided to deal with political issues in a similar way. Suppose they supported Tory party views and policies, and refused to publish the views and policies of the Labour party. "This is our position, and nothing has been said or done to change our mind"!

The BBC article takes up this position throughout its course. It overstates the seriousness of mumps, measles and rubella. It understates the concerns about the MMR vaccine. It overstates the increase in measles over recent years, not least the seriousness of the Welsh measles outbreak in 2012 (in a previous blog I have described this whole episode as 'a moral panic'. ) It dismisses the work of Andrew Wakefield, and fully supports the people who opposed him, making no reference to the legal proceedings now being taken against them. It states that Wakefield's work has not been replicated. It has! The article provides evidence that supports the BBC's position, but neglects the personal experience, and the scientific studies, that do not.

On all these issues, the BBC appears unable or unwilling to question the position of the conventional medical establishment in any of this, something which might be thought to be a normal journalistic function.

Health Freedom and 'patient choice' are important health topics. The dangers of conventional medicine, and particularly its drugs and vaccines, make it vital that people make informed choices about the safety and effectiveness of medical treatment. And in trying to make an informed choice people do this through the information they glean from the BBC, and other major mainstream news organisations.

Yet instead of providing a dialogue for people to make an informed decision about vaccination, the BBC has decided to believe everything they have been told by the conventional medicine. When they want an 'expert' view they invariably ask a conventional doctor. According to the BBC, conventional medicine is the only source of medical knowledge and expertise. There is no debate about this. There are no alternative views. Just the BBC's refusal to engage in the issues which genuinely importance and concern a large number of people. What our doctors tell us is not to be questioned.

This includes, of course, the evidence of a large and ever-growing numbers of parents who had a normal child prior to the MMR vaccine, and a damaged child thereafter.

Do we ever hear from such parents? When has the BBC ever done any news, or current affairs programmes that focus of vaccine damaged children?

And presumably the fact that a co-author of one of the 'authoritative' studies that fraudulently confirmed there is no link between vaccination and autism, when he has admitted hiding, and destroying evidence that would have led to a contrary view, none of this warrants the BBC "changing their view".

Whatever else this is, it does not constitute investigative journalism at its best!

Autism IS caused by MMR vaccine. Evidence of 'no connection' was fraudulent medical science

• The MMR vaccine causes Autism. 
• It is the major reason for the epidemic that has harmed children for many decades.
• Evidence that there is 'no connection' between the two is fraudulent.

Our Drug Regulators, the pharmaceutical industry, and conventional health professionals, have known this now for many years, and they have turned a blind eye, and failed to inform us about the harm they know they are doing to our children.

The mainstream media have known this now for about a year, but they have failed to inform us about the harm they know conventional medicine is doing to our children.

Our politicians now know this, but they continue to refuse to inform us about the harm they know conventional medicine is doing to our children.

The Age of Autism have published this transcript of a statement made by Congressman Posey to the USA Congress on 29th July 2015. It is based on information provided by Dr William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who first reveal the extent of the fraudulent actions of the conventional medical establishment in August 2014.

THE SPEAKER. ........ THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR. POSEY, FOR FIVE MINUTES.

MR. POSEY: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I arrive today on matters of research and scientific integrity. To begin with, I am absolutely, resolutely pro-vaccine. Advancements in immunization have saved countless lives and have greatly benefited public health.  

     That being said, it’s troubling to me that in a recent senate hearing on childhood vaccination, it was never mentioned that our government has paid out over three billion dollars through a vaccine injury compensation program for children who have been injured by vaccinations. Regardless of the subject matter, parents making decisions about their children’s health deserve to have the best information available to them. They should be able to count on federal agencies to tell them the truth.

     For these reasons, I bring the following matter to the floor. In August, 2014,  Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention worked with a whistleblower attorney to provide my office with documents related to a 2004 CDC study that examined the possibility of a relationship between the mumps, measles and rubella vaccines and autism.  In a statement released in August, 2014, Dr. Thompson stated 

     “I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the Journal of Pediatrics.”

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the following excerpts from the statement written by Dr. Thompson be entered into record. (Now quoting Dr. Thompson):

     “My primary job duties while working in the Immunization Safety Branch from 2000 to ’06 were lead or co-lead three major vaccine safety studies—the MADDSP MMR Autism Cases Control study  was being carried out in response to the Wakefield Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome. There were several major concerns among scientists and consumer advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000 regarding the execution of the Verstraeten study.

     "One of the important goals that was determined up front in the spring of ’01 before any of these studies started, was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so that consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that presented our own goals and biases. We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR could lead to autism-like characteristics or features.  We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in ’03.  At the September 5th meeting, we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample.

     "At the bottom of Table 7 it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge. All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September ’02 not to report any race effects for the paper.  Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study.  The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.  However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office and I retained all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it’s our duty to ensure that the documents that Dr. Thompson provided are not ignored. Therefore I will provide them to members of congress and the house committees upon request. Considering the nature of the whistleblower’s documents, as well as the involvement of the CDC, a hearing and a thorough investigation is warranted. So I ask Mr. Speaker, I beg, I implore my colleagues on the appropriations committees to please, please take such action. 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

What this means is that the major concerns about the links between Autism and the MMR vaccine, raised by Dr Andrew Wakefield in the late 1990's, were correct; that the conventional medical establishment moved to counter these concerns; and that to do so, in 2004, they engaged in fraudulent activity that they presented to us as 'medical science'.

It was not medical science!

• It was an unprincipled conspiracy to defend and support the profits being made by the pharmaceutical industry selling the MMR vaccine. 
• The mainstream media were threatened into a deafening silence about the safety of vaccines that continues to this day. 
• Andrew Wakefield lost his job, and his reputation. 
• Millions of parents were given inaccurate and misleading information about the 'safety' of the MMR vaccine, making it impossible for them to make an 'informed choice' about whether to give the vaccine to their children.
• The epidemic of Autism was allowed to continue and grow, alongside denials of any connection to the MMR vaccine, and the conventional medical establishment using fraudulent research to defend their view.

Only these question now remains.

• Will the mainstream media now tell its readers, listeners and viewers the truth?
• Will the conventional medical establishment inform the public about the link between Autism and the MMR vaccine?
• Will our politicians instigate a thorough investigation into this matter, and hold those responsible to account through criminal proceedings?
• Will the pharmaceutical industry now withdraw the MMR vaccination, make appropriate apologies, and pay proper compensation to all their victims, and their families?

Or will the conventional medical establishment seek to ignore this information, try to keep it from becoming known by the general public, and carry on as if nothing has happened.

Autism, the MMR Vaccine, and Media Censorship

The Conventional Medical Establishment has been lying about the link between the MMR Vaccine and the epidemic rise of Autism, and has been doing so for at least 10 years. What is now clear is that there is a link. And the evidence has been suppressed. A major fraud has been perpetrated on the public throughout the world.

• The news is all over the internet
• Yet the news is no-where to be seen in the conventional, mainstream media!

I am not going to repeat the news here. Basically, a leading scientist Dr William Thompson, working within the CDC (US Centers for Diseasse Control and Prevention) has revealed that the organisation suppressed evidence of the connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism, and instead published 'scientific' evidence that there was no such link. This is what he said.

          “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.” In other words, it confirmed the serious omission highlighted by Hooker.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the rest of the statement reads like something written by lawyers on behalf of a man afraid of professional reprisals. 

The details of this revelation can be read elsewhere, and here are just a few of the reports that have appeared on the internet during the last 2 weeks (since 27th August 2014).

• “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism” August 27, 2014 Press Release
• Agency hides data that reveals that the MMR vaccines causes Autism
• Whistleblowing CDC senior scientist goes public as new evidence is suppressed
• CDC scientific fraud: an update on Dr. Poul Thorsen who authored fraudulent study 'disproving' vaccine-autism connection and stole millions of dollars
• Moms of autistic, vaccine-damaged children mount wave of online protest against CDC research fraud.
• CDC Scientist Apology to Andrew Wakefield About MMR Causing Autism – Journalist Celia Farber Interviewed On Breaking This Story – Robert Scott Bell Radio Show

And there are, of course, many many more such articles, all discussing the enormity of this massive cover-up by the conventional medical establishment, led of course by the powerful Big Pharma corporations.

The mainstream conventional media that is ignoring this huge story includes the BBC news service. Unlike other news services the BBC is not owned and controlled by Big Corp. Nor is it dependent on the advertising of Big Pharma, and related industries. The BBC is a public broadcaster, paid for by licence payers, who are also, incidentally, patients of the National Health Service (NHS). Therefore, its culpability is censoring this information is more serious.

The BBC hase a duty and a responsibility to report health matters, especially when a vaccine, given to the vast majority of our young children, is causing Autism, and destroying the lives of thousands of children and families.

And their failure to report on this matter (some two weeks after the revelation, at the time of writing), indicates that the BBC are not only implicated in the cover-up, but are, at least in part, responsible for the thousands of children who have contracted Autism, via the MMR vaccine, during the last 10 years. Their silence seems to indicate that:

• fabricating medical research evidence is not a news event worthy of reporting.
• a major vaccine that has been given to our children since the early 1970's, and which is causing a major life-long health issue for increasing numbers of children, is not a news event worthy of reporting.
• the anger of parents, whose children have been diagnosed with Autism, is not a news event worthy of reporting.
• the BBC's ongoing and continuous libel against Dr Andrew Wakefield, is not something the BBC feels obliged to offer an apology.

And so the enormity of the cover-up by the BBC, and the rest of the mainstream media, goes on!

What should we do about it?  We must ask the BBC one important question. 

Why are you failing to report this important news?

And this is what I am asking everyone to do, right now if possible. Write to BBC News, and ask them this question. If necessary, make a complaint to the BBC about their censorship of important medical news. The simplest way of doing this is to use this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20039682

From this page you can either make a comment, and if you wish refer to this blog, asking why this news has not been published, why it has effectively been censored. And you can also go quickly to the complaints page too, if this is necessary.

Moreover, the BBC is currently renegotiating its Charter, so it is certainly appropriate to write to your MP, asking them to question why the BBC, and indeed the NHS Establishment, and the Government, have not seen fit to comment on these events.

The MMR Vaccine. Our GP's, the NHS and Big Pharma know it's dangerous!

How would you describe a vaccine that caused Seizures, Febrile Convulsions, Diabetes, Pancreatitis, Purpura, Arthritis, Myalgia, Encephalitis,  Guillian-Barre Syndrome, Meningitis, Retinitis, and DEATH? More to the point, would you take it? Or would you give it to your child?

These are just a few of the diseases that are apparently caused by the MMR Vaccine.

Your doctor, the NHS, and the Big Pharma companies tell us that the vaccine is safe. They urge us to ensure that our children are vaccinated. Many people within the Conventional Medical Establishment support compulsory vaccination.

And our Media, headed by the public broadcaster, the BBC, appear to support them in this, unreservedly, and without any serious questioning. Indeed, BBC News seems to go out of their way to urge us all to ensure that we, and our children, are fully vaccinated.

Jeremy Paxman, on Newsnight (9th April 2013) appeared incredulous that mandatory vaccination was not imposed in Britain. He interviewed just two people, both in support of vaccination, one in support of compulsorily vaccination. This is typical of BBC's lack of impartiality. Whilst Paxman clearly expressed his personal views, he (and the BBC) clearly have no knowledge that there are real and genuine concerns about the safety of vaccines.

But, I hear you say, how do we know that the MMR vaccine causes these diseases? Where is the evidence? Our doctors, the NHS, and the Department of Health would surely not approve a vaccine, or a drug, that can cause such dangers.

Well, according to this website, they DO know, and the information comes on the MMR package insert from the manufacturer. Merck lists the following adverse reactions on their package insert.

• Panniculitis 
• atypical measles 
• fever 
• syncope 
• headache 
• dizziness 
• malaise 
• irritability 
• vasculitis 
• pancreatitis 
• diarrhea 
• vomiting 
• parotitis 
• nausea 
• diabetes mellitus 
• thrombocytopenia 
• purpura 
• regional lymphadenopathy 
• leukocytosis 
• Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions 
• angioneurotic edema 
• bronchial spasms 
• arthritis 
• anthralgia 
• myalgia 
• encephalitis 
• encephalopathy 
• subacute sclerosing panencephalitis 
• Guillian Barre Syndrome 
• febrile convulsions 
• seizures 
• ataxia 
• polyneuritis 
• polyneuropathy 
• ocular palsies 
• paresthesia 
• aseptic meningitis 
• Pneumonitis 
• sore throat 
• cough 
• rhinitis 
• Stevens-Johnson syndrome 
• erythema multiforme 
• urticaria 
• rash 
• pruritis 
• nerve deafness 
• otitis media 
• retinitis 
• optic neuritis 
• papillitis 
• retrobulbar neuritis 
• conjunctivitis 
• Orchitis 
• DEATH 

The issue here is not just that this vaccine causes these diseases, it is that parents and patients are not being told about it, either by the Conventional Medical Establishment, or by the British Media.

So, we need to know from the Department of Health, the NHS, and our GP's, why we are not being told about this.

And we need to know from the British Media, including the BBC, why they are not fulfilling their duty to inform the public.