The Hazards of Aluminum In Vaccines Is the Focus Of Intense Research

It should be noted that the placebo comparator in vaccine clinical trials is not an inert substance, it contains aluminum. Several independent teams of international autoimmune experts led by the internationally recognized authority of autoimmune diseases, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld of Tel Aviv University, Israel, and another group by Dr. Christopher Exley, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry, Keele University in the UK.

Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld

Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld

 Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, a world acknowledged expert on autoimmunity identified a syndrome for Autoimmune (Autoinflammatory) Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants — ASIA

The idea of ASIA as a new syndrome developed after some studies on Gulf War syndrome reported that soldiers who had not been deployed to the Gulf area were suffering from symptoms such as severe fatigue, cognitive impairment, myalgias and arthralgias. This raised the question of whether it was the vaccines administered to the soldiers that induced these syndromes. The most common adjuvants are silicone implants and aluminum in vaccines.”[1]

A Publication Saga Of Harassment Aimed At Suppression Of a Gardasil Vaccine Study In Mice

The study, Behavioral Abnormalities In Young Female Mice Following Administration Of Aluminum Adjuvants And The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Gardasil, by a team of researchers headed by Professor Shoenfeld encountered harassment from vaccine stakeholders who attempted to suppress the findings of neuroinflammation and “behavioral abnormalities following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the HPV vaccine Gardasil.”

The HPV-mouse study was first submitted to for publication to the Journal of Human Immunology where it was shelved for 8 months. It was published in the journal Vaccine in January 2016 but was ordered withdrawn by the Editor-in-chief. [Read about the dubious retractions by journal editors who have significant financial conflicts of interest in Appendix 9: Betrayal of Public Trust]

The study was revised, again peer-reviewed, and published in the journal Immunological Research (Nature-Springer) (2017).[2] The reported findings remained the same:

Vaccine adjuvants and vaccines may induce autoimmune and inflammatory manifestations in susceptible individuals. To date, most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant exposures can be toxic to humans and animals…It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes…

In light of these findings, this study highlights the necessity of proceeding with caution with respect to further mass-immunization practices with a vaccine of yet unproven long-term clinical benefit in cervical cancer prevention”.

  • The basis for these findings was deemed to be scientifically sound by three sets of peer-reviewers, at three different journals.

However, the refereed scientific soundness of the study did not prevent the vaccine demagogues from attacking two of its co-authors who are based at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic have been the target of extreme hostility every time they publish a report. Leading the pack of blogosphere attackers are Dr. Gorski (Orac), Dr. Offit and who engage in ad hominem personal insults and trash every non-conventional scientific study relating to vaccine safety. Dr. Tomljenovic and science journalist Christina England brought to light the transcripts of the secret meetings of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (1988-1992) that reveal government deception and cover-up. [Read Appendix 3]

Dr. David Gorski–Dr. Paul Offit

These zealous vaccine promoters whose financial interests are aligned with the pharmaceutical industry, are determined to prevent vaccine research whose focus is biological laboratory studies. This is a concerted effort to impose limits on the permissible parameters of vaccine research to (mostly) epidemiological studies that can never provide an answer about the cause of neurological damage following vaccination. They and the battalions of industry-backed front groups bring pressure to bear on journal editors to retract such studies – thereby discrediting the validity of the study and the tarnishing the credibility of the scientists.  It is a calculated strategy orchestrated by vaccine stakeholders whose aim is to disqualify scientists who veer from the approved mainstream vaccine science base.

In 2011, a study by Dr. Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic was published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry (2011). The editor of that issue was Dr. Christopher Exley. He indicated that the paper had been rigorously peer-reviewed by academic experts in environmental impacts of aluminum, and by a vaccine safety scientist formerly with the FDA:

“I recognized that the topic of this paper was potentially controversial, and it was essential that the research be reviewed by experts who were likely to be hostile to the findings. This paper went through a very tough peer review process, and the reviewers called for major revisions. But no one called for it to be rejected, and once the revisions were in, the paper was not inflammatory. The only thing left was science.”[3]

The paper states:

“Dysfunctional immunity and impaired brain function are core deficits in ASD. Aluminum (Al), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant, is a demonstrated neurotoxin and a strong immune stimulator. Hence, adjuvant Al has the potential to induce neuroimmune disorders. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, two key points ought to be considered: (i) children should not be viewed as “small adults” as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; and (ii) if exposure to Al from only [a] few vaccines can lead to cognitive impairment and autoimmunity in adults, is it unreasonable to question whether the current pediatric schedules, often containing 18 Al adjuvanted vaccines, are safe for children?”[4]

When asked to comment, Dr. Paul Offit stated: “the paper should never have been published.”

In fact, a growing documented body of both scientific and empirical evidence confirms chronic, painful debilitating adverse effects similar to fibromyalgia following vaccination with Gardasil. These serious adverse effects include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).[5] The seriousness of these effects led Cochrane reviewers to file complaints with the European Medicines Agency deploring EMA’s dishonest HPV vaccine safety assessment.[6]

That very same sentiment was expressed by several public officials who were briefed at a closed-door meeting in 2000, about the findings of CDC’s Verstraeten-DeStefano study (1999). That study assessed the risk of degenerative and developmental neurologic disorders – including autism – for infants exposed to thimerosal–containing vaccines. The study documented a 760% increased the risk for autism for infants exposed to thimerosal during the first month of life. When asked about the risk of aluminum, Dr. Verstraeten acknowledged that:

the results were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum goes along almost exactly with the mercury one.” Dr. John Clements of the World Health Organization stated:” perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted, and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging…”

  • In fact, those disturbing CDC findings were never published in their original form; the data underwent four years of manipulation to eradicate the documented risk.
  • What’s more, CDC has concealed the data from this pivotal study.25 [Betrayal of Trust: Appendix 9 of L’Affaire Wakefield]

Despite the harassment and abuse hurled against them, Drs. Tomljenovi and Shaw have continued to explore the issue of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in children. In their report in the international journal devoted exclusively to the autoimmune disease, lupus, and related topics, they state:

Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic

      “Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity. In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations.

 According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic. Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs”. (Lupus (2012)

*A groundbreaking study published in Metabolic Brain Disorders (2017) by a team of researchers from the Imperial College of London and the University of Arkansas discovered a “paradigm shift” based on the evidence showing that aluminum appears to be pivotal to the pathophysiology of autism spectrum disorder and Alzheimer’s. The administration of aluminum “has the potential to induce pathology via several routes such as provoking dysfunction and /or activation of glial cells which play an indispensable role in the regulation of central nervous system homeostasis and neurodevelopment.”

An Academic Purveyor of Vaccine Propaganda & Coerced Enforcement of Vaccination Policies
Dorit Rubinstein Reiss
[7] is a professor of law at Hastings College of Law, University of California who has become the foremost, high profile, advocate for vaccines as a legal expert about the potential liability for parents who choose not to vaccinate. Reiss received an undergraduate law and political science degree from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a degree in jurisprudence and social policy from the University of California at Berkeley.  However, she is not qualified to practice as a lawyer.

Reiss dismisses parents’ genuine safety concerns as anecdotal and illegitimate, and argues from the perspective of public health officials who quantify risk on the basis of statistical probability. She trivialises the serious harms caused children following vaccination, as merely anecdotal. Parents have a conception of individual risk focusing on “what if my child is that one in a hundred thousand” whose immune system is destroyed by a cluster of vaccines?

Responsible parents are not willing to take a chance and gamble with their child’s best interest for the abstract “greater good”. Like public officials, Reiss is only concerned about quantifiable epidemiological factors – which cannot address the risk for an individual. Parents want to know what the underlying causes are for serious (even though rare) adverse vaccine effects – so that they can better gauge the likely risk for their child.

Reiss is an ardent vociferous supporter of mandatory vaccination policies. Her extremist views include the elimination of all exemptions from vaccination except medical exemptions. In Op-Ed pieces, journal articles, and in a barrage of posts on multiple social media sites, Reiss expounds her views about the dangers posed by parents who choose not to vaccinate their children. The sheer volume of those posts (at least a thousand) has led people to speculate that she is a paid professional who pens her name to PR propaganda. [A partial list of her publications and posts are listed on the Hastings website].

Reiss’ Underlying Consequential Conflicts Of Interest

 Reiss fails to disclose that her employer (UC Hastings College of Law) is in partnership with Kaiser Permanente, whose Vaccine Study Center (VSC) “coordinates clinical trials [that] have led to licensing of vaccines.

To make her case, Reiss most often cites articles by Dr. Nicola Klein, the director of the Kaiser VSC.[8] Two highly publicized post-marketing vaccine safety studies were conducted Dr. Klein at Kaiser’s VSC. Her research is funded by Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Pasteur, Pfizer, Novartis, MedImmune, and Nuron Biotech.  The MMR study, published in Pediatrics (the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) was funded by CDC.

  • The authors delivered both the finding and the message sought and paid for. The widely read abstract states: “This study did not identify any new safety concerns…This study provides reassurance that these outcomes are unlikely after either vaccine”.

The HPV study (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association) was funded by Merck.[9] The authors acknowledge that Merck “provided substantial input into the study design and analytic plan. In collaboration with the Kaiser Study Team, the sponsor reviewed data analyses and helped draft and revise the manuscript.”

  • In other words, Merck maintained tight total control over the design, the data analysis, and the draft, revisions of the publication.

In 2013, Hastings College of Law, and UC San Francisco and Kaiser Permanente formed a Consortium on Law, Science, and Health Policy offering students “impressive opportunities” in education, research, and clinical studies, including internships/externships with Kaiser Permanente and others.

As Christina Waldman, an attorney in New York reported on Age of Autism (2013):

there is a network of interests here which endangers public accountability. Dorit Reiss’s employer is not simply a school of law; it is affiliated to major promoters of the vaccine program and has a strategic role in developing health policy. Meanwhile Reiss, herself, seems to have great difficulty in perceiving any kind of conflict. In a 2011 paper Reiss advocated the benefits of agency capture…”

Reiss is an Uncompromising Supporter/ Promoter of Radical Pro-Vaccination Policies

She is a member of the board of directors of the industry-front group, Voices for Vaccines (VfV). VfV was launched as “an administrative project” of the Task Force for Global Health, a 33 year-old organization which is a partner of the Centers for Disease Control and the WHO. The director of both VfV and the Task Force is Dr. Alan Hinman, a CDC veteran.

  • The primary, controlling funding source of the Task Force, which funds VfV is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In 2013, the Gates Foundation provided $28.8 million to the Task Force.
  • Voices for Vaccines launched a petition against Jenny McCarthy on com, in an effort to ban her from “The View”.

Reiss is also a board member of Mothers Who Vax, and is a frequent contributor to SkepticalRaptor, one of the vilest cyber blog attack dogs. Reiss approaches the vaccination issue by sweeping aside all reservations about the safety of vaccines as non-existent. Her approach is much as a sales rep uses when delivering his pitch in an effort to persuade a potential customer that his (inflammable) product is superior to those of his competitors. Professor Reiss scoffs at those who raise “concerns that vaccines might cause harm,” or that vaccines “contain dangerous/toxic ingredients,” or that they “may overwhelm the immune system” of a vulnerable child. And she is disdainful of those who hold the belief that “natural immunity is in some way better.” She proclaims categorically that: “it is very, very clear that for every vaccine provided, the risks of vaccinating are outweighed by the risk of not vaccinating, by an order of magnitude”. (Hastings Law Journal, 2014)

Reiss argues against religious exemptions which (she claims) have been “abused” by parents whose real concern is safety – a concern that she regards as illegitimate. She acknowledges a political problem, but not a moral problem:

policing whether an exemptor has sincere religious beliefs can be trickyonce the exemption is in place, it creates its own constituency and may be politically more difficult to remove. But more difficult to remove is not impossible”.

Reiss further advocates for parents of unvaccinated children to be held liable for damages and the cost incurred by other children from an infection outbreak. And Reiss goes one step further toward fascism: she advocates for the government to use its police authority to enforce non-consensual vaccination.  [Reiss’ views on vaccination policy are prominently posted on the UC Hastings website.]

Reiss laments the negative connotation of the term “captured administrative state”. In Reiss’ view the relationship between industry and government regulators is beneficial. In her article, “The Benefit of Capture” in Wake Forest Law Review (2012) she expounds on the “benefits” as follows:

working with industry can substantially improve the impact of regulation; voluntary compliance is cheaper and can be more effective than enforced compliance, and industry can help regulator minimize negative unintended consequences”.

In her article “Responding to the Childhood Vaccination Crisis” in the Buffalo Law Review (2015) [a crisis that has never materialized] she states:

“[This article] sets out the legal framework governing childhood vaccination policies, highlighting the strength of governmental authority when the state’s police power to protect the public health and its parens patriae authority to protect the health of children and other vulnerable members of society converge, as they do in this context. After describing the phenomenon of nonvaccination, the reasons leading to parental refusals and the effects of those refusals, the article provides a menu of legal tools that can be used to improve vaccination rates.”

A Cache of Email Correspondence Between Dr. Offit and Prof. Reiss

Dr. Offit_Dr. Reiss

A recently obtained cache of email correspondence (dated 2013—2017) between Dr. Offit and Prof. Reiss, now posted on the website Natural News, reveals how the two plotted to silence those who raise concerns about vaccine safety because such concerns raise doubt and pose a threat to vaccination uptake rates. The correspondence shows how they conspired to fight against the court affirmed legal right of exemptions from vaccination. Reiss suggested:

“in practical terms, what the hospital should do is remove any exemption except medical. The grounds [validated by the court] are discrimination [sic] so the hospital can treat everyone equally and not grant any exemption.”

Two important caveats about the HPV vaccine that are rarely mentioned:

(a) the protective life-span of the HPV vaccine is not known; (b) the advanced age at which HPV-associated cancers occur. According to CDC, HPV-Associated Cancer Diagnosis by Age, the average age of a woman in the U.S. who is diagnosed with HPV-associated cervical cancer is 49. For all other HPV-associated cancer, in men and women, the age is between 60 and 68.

  • What then is the medical justification for vaccinating 11-year-old girls for a disease that may emerge in a small minority of women 38 years later?
  • What is the medical justification for vaccinating 9-year old boys for a disease that occurs in 1 man in 100,000 at age 60?

The Reiss – Offit correspondence shows that they use their teaching positions to inculcate a pro-vaccination dogma in their students rather than cultivate critical thinking, which is the raison d’être of an academic education. In an email exchanged dated 2016, Reiss stated:

My exam question is about a parent who did not vaccinate her child and the child got hurt… I hope I have no closet anti-vaxxers in my class who will have trouble coping.”

Dr. Offit: “I find that the students (undergraduate and graduate) are generally pretty good on the subject. Haven’t found any closet anti-vaxxers. Maybe you have to be a parent before you become unreasonable.”

Purveyors of Industry-Filtered “Science” Who Pose as Reliable, Independent Sources:

Sense About Science (SAS) is a UK industry front group that purports to be a “charitable trust to promote an evidence-based approach to scientific issues in the public domain”. However, it is shown – by Source Watch – to be financially indebted to the pharmaceutical, biochemical and biotech industry, such as: the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), Royal Pharmaceutical Society, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer.

SAS dismissed Dr. Hooker’s reanalysis of the fraudulent CDC study as “anti-vaccination claims” that are incomprehensible “for a reader to make an informed decision as to its validity”. SAS issued an editorial Media analysis (2015) recommending that the media ignore the entire issue by not reporting it:

Should the media cover anti-vaccination claims? Conventional reporting would probably do more harm than good if it did so by just reporting both sides and creating the impression of equivalency between [the] weight of evidence and false claims.”

SAS acknowledged: “But what if the latest claim is a complex statistical analysis—and a senior CDC vaccine researcher appears to back it up? But the one-two punch of a peer- reviewed study and a credible whistleblower [whose] statements seemed to confirm that government was manipulating scientific datahad just given the anti-vaccination movement an enormous boost.

“Thompson’s statements seemed to confirm that government was manipulating scientific data, a robust meme on the right thanks to climate change; they seemed to confirm longstanding claims of a government-CDC-pharma conspiracy…and perhaps worst of all, they came after a summer of screw-ups at CDC involving anthrax contamination, flu viruses, and, notably, the agency’s stumbling response to Ebola.

The entire controversy over vaccination, and its consequences—diminishing vaccination rates—has been produced by people refusing to accept ‘trust me, I’m a scientist and here’s the consensus’”.

This articulated SAS position goes a long way to explain why the purveyors of vaccine propaganda – in mainstream medicine, mainstream media, and internet trolls – have been so ferocious in their condemnation of the documentary VAXXED.[10] The film exposes the entire documented saga of how government scientists manipulated and destroyed data to conceal an MMR-autism risk for African-American babies. This SAS editorial sheds light on why industry-front groups have gone to great lengths in their effort to suppress the film’s airing worldwide.

Science Media Centre (SMC) a media briefing center founded on the back of the MMR scandal by Tony Blair’s wife in 2001, hosted by the Royal Institution, enjoys close links with the British government. Its Board of Trustees includes a former President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. SMC is now based at the Wellcome Trust in London which through a series of mergers created GlaxoSmithKline (2000).

Source Watch lists the following “sister bodies” of Science Media Center, all operating under a “unified charter”: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Japan. SMC claims that there are “over twenty Science Media Centers around the world — either in operation or being established,” including the SMC of the US

A description of SMC by Connie St. Louis, President of the Association of British Science Writers in the Columbia Journalism Review (2013):

“[SMC] has cast biased press briefings such as one on GMOs, funded by Monsanto and invited unwitting and time-starved journalists. The results have been catastrophic. The quality of science reporting and the integrity of information available to the public have both suffered, distorting the ability of the public to make decisions about risk. The result is a diet of unbalanced cheerleading and the production of science information as entertainment.

“Perhaps the greatest tragedy, or item of public interest, has been the complicity of successive scientifically illiterate UK governments, which have donated nearly half a million pounds of public funds to this dishonest endeavor.”

Newly Minted Industry Front Groups Pose As Authorities On Social Media
European Patients Forum – is a group funded by the European Commission and by a pharmaceutical industry consortium, as well as individual pharmaceutical companies.

The European Health Parliament (EHP) was created in 2017 and is situated in Brussels. EHP presents itself as:

A set of 55 rising stars in healthcare below the age of 35 representing patients, industry, healthcare professionals. An ambitious group who want to raise Healthcare’s game. A group who are not confined by old ideas. A group who will lead European healthcare in, and into, the future.” First on its agenda: “EHP: First impressions and Vaccination plans on the spotlight.…”

EHP’s function is to spread vaccine propaganda on social media platforms. EHP is affiliated to  Johnson and Johnson, Google, POLITICO, the College of Europe, the European Patients Forum – its major source of funding is from most of the major pharmaceutical manufacturers; and Euro40 (a group of Euro Members of Parliament under the age of 40).

More than a measure of dishonesty
The circle of predatory propagandists operates with the financial support of the vaccine industry and its government partners; they mobilize as soon as an independent scientist’s study raising vaccine safety concerns is published. They cite one another’s spurious critiques as supposed proof that each study that raises concerns about vaccine safety has been “debunked”. Their latest strategy is to delegitimize the small, specialized, open access, scientific journals that publish independent research studies, declaring them “bad journals”.[11]

Dr. Offit derided the journals that published critical reports that raise questions about vaccine safety as low impact factor, predatory “pay-to-play” journals”.Dr. Offit trivializes serious adverse effects following HPV vaccination claiming there is no basis “because the issue has been looked at again and again”. In light of the accumulating reports documenting empirical evidence of harm, Dr. Offit’s dismissive disregard for the health of girls and young women, is more than likely an indication of the priority he places on his commercial interests. Dr. Offit made a false declaration on the Medscape website in which he concealed his very substantial conflicts of interest by stating: “Paul A. Offit, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.” His failure to acknowledge his financial conflict of interest  is tantamount to professional dishonesty.

Mainstream Media & Ripped Katie Couric
Even if a popular journalist, such as Katie Couric, “America’s Darling”  asks “the wrong questions”, she can expect to be attacked just for asking the question. In December 2013, a 17-minute segment on ABC’s Katie show aired, in which Katie Couric interviewed two mothers reported about the serious harm suffered by their daughters – one died following vaccination with the HPV vaccine Gardasil, the second mother who was accompanied by her daughter, stated that she suddenly suffered deteriorated health.

  • By the time the show aired, Gardasil had generated close to 30,000 adverse vaccine reaction reports to the U.S. VAERS including 140 deaths.[12]

In September 2013, a French court decision held Sanofi (the distributer of Gardasil in France) 50% liable for causing Marie Bourguignon, a 15-year old teenager, permanent injury – i.e., multiple sclerosis.[13] Is that not sufficient reason to examine the issue from other than vaccine stakeholders’ perspective? Katie Couric was lambasted for balanced reporting.

Couric also featured Professor Diane Harper, MD, Chair of Family and Geriatric Medicine at the University of Louisville, who had been a primary investigator of the HPV vaccine prior to its marketing but has criticized the company for over-marketing the vaccine. Dr. Harper affirmed the importance of Pap tests – as does the National Institute of Health, the American Cancer Society, and CDC. But solid medical advice is not what Merck’s objective was. *[Disclosure, Dr. Harper is one of |the exemplary professionals selected for the AHRP Honor Roll]

Another doctor who was interviewed in the segment was Dr. Mallika Marshall, the CBS medical journalist who defended the vaccine. Balance in reporting is not tolerated when vaccine issues are considered. Seth Mnookin, author of The Panic Virus which purports to be “a true story of medicine, science and fear” but was written prior to the High Court adjudication of all the evidence; its irrevocable decision determined that there was no evidence to support the claim that Dr. Wakefield’s 1998 case series was in any way disreputable.[L’Affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus] Mnookin accused Katie Couric of employing “false balance” by presenting parents and doctors who expressed concerns about the safety of the HPV vaccine. Matthew Herper, the science and medicine reporter for Forbes, noted that NBC’s website posted only Dr. Marshall’s pro-Gardasil views. By deliberately omitting the safety concerns NBC avoided “false balance”.

  • Of note, pharmaceutical advertising on television and magazines has soared: from $3.8 billion in 2011 to $5.2 billion in 2015. NBC ranks third among the networks. (STAT News, Nielsen)

The instantaneous media and cyber attacks against Katie Couric – especially by the politically liberal media, such as The Los Angeles Times, Slate, Politico, Salon, The Blaze – demonstrates how thoroughly the pharmaceutical industry controls the news outlets, ensuring that reports about vaccines provide only favorable information. The blog garnered more than 5,000 comments within 8 days of the airing of the HPV segment.

Alexandra Sifferlin, writing for Time Magazine, was one of the first to publish an accusatory hit piece: Is Katie Couric The Next Jenny McCarthy? A former Playboy Bunny spreading misinformation is bad enough

“There is no ‘HPV Vaccine Controversy.’ At least, not when it comes to the injection’s safety. And yet, that was the title of the lead segment on Katie Couric’s daytime talk show.  The damage a former Playboy Bunny has been able to do is bad enough. But Couric’s misdeeds are all the worse given that she’s taken much more seriously than Jenny McCarthy”.

The accusation, Katie Couric Puts The Anti-Vaccination Movement Into The Mainstream, by Michael Hiltzik, a veteran business reporter for the Los Angeles Times, was particularly bellicose:

“The anti-vaccination movement has long since become a public menace. It’s responsible for the resurgence of numerous serious diseases that were on the decline, including measles, mumps, and whooping cough. Now the movement has been given a big booster shot by Katie Couric, who devoted a large portion of her daily talk show Wednesday to some highly emotional and scientifically dubious claims by critics of Gardasil, a leading vaccine for human papillomavirus, or HPV.   

…[the problem with the ] show was its portrayal of HPV vaccination as “controversial.” Couric led the segment off by declaring that “some people say the risk (of the vaccine) may outweigh the benefits, and there are claims that it could be dangerous or in a handful of cases, even deadly….We want to keep our kids safe, but is the vaccine the way to go?”   

The question, “is the [HPV] vaccine the way to go”? prompted LA Times reporter Michael Hiltzik to take  an unabashed censorship position declaring: Merely to ask the questions is to validate them.” (Emphasis added).This unyielding dogmatic attitude has undermined journalism at its core. Couric responded to the criticism with a humiliating statement in the Huffington Post, a week after the broadcast. The show was suddenly terminated on Dec. 19th. But the denunciations against Couric did not end there. A battle raged on Couric’s website between families of injured children and a mob of many Australian “skeptics” who ridiculed the families – an estimated 12,000 comments were posted. Among them was a most peculiar barrage of more than a thousand posts by Dorit Reiss criticizing Couric.

The suggestion, in January 2016, that President-elect Trump would convene a commission “on vaccine safety and scientific integrity,” sent shudders through mainstream medicine and vaccine stakeholders. The Atlantic reported that the following statement by Robert Kennedy Jr. elicited grave concern: “Everybody ought to be able to be assured that the vaccines that we have … [are] as safe as they possibly can be”.

”Doctors say even the hint that patients need such “assurance” is toxic.” Furthermore, “most mainstream doctors say the vaccine question is beyond settled: Vaccines are some of the safest and most important preventive-health measures around. There is no evidence they cause autism or any other health problem.” (The Atlantic, January 2016)

Daniel Summers, a pediatrician who looks to the American Academy of Pediatrics as his trusted source of assurance about the safety of vaccines, wrote an Op Ed in the Washington Post, which encapsulates the fear generated within mainstream medicine by the possibility of a genuine debate about the science and safety of vaccines. Dr. Summers wrote:

“Robert Kennedy Jr. caused grave concern by saying ‘we ought to be debating the science’. Kennedy’s implication that any real debate exists is genuinely troubling…I know there is no actual debate. …The mere creation of the commission, meant to investigate a question that has already been asked and answered many times over, is ominous.”

John Illman

In June 2016, The Press Gazette[14] ran a feature article by John Illman titled: “Why Balance In Science Journalism Can Distort Research, Create Bogus Controversy And Even Contribute To Deaths[15] in which he argued for self- imposed journalistic censorship:

The quest for “balance” is incompatible in a world where there have been more advances in medical scientific knowledge in the last 50 years than in the previous 2,000 – since the era of Hippocrates. We are living through a head-on collision between two of the biggest drivers in contemporary life – science and preoccupation with risk… Some scientists have maintained that the MMR story should not have been published at all. There is much to commend this idea…

…the Department of Health [sic] kept below the media parapet, knowing that reporters would balance any Department press statement with a statement from Wakefield or the strident anti-MMR lobby… Their research showed that any coverage about MMR, good or bad, resulted in a decline in vaccination levels. This alone underlines why journalism needs to re-think balance.[Highlight added]

This is a rallying call to medical science journalists to dispense with balanced reporting standards, because a balanced presentation might raise doubts about vaccine safety, and that would “result in a decline in vaccination levels”. Scientists whose research findings deviate from the accepted “ideology of faith-based certainty” are declared “strident anti-vaccine lobbyists”. Their views and their research findings are off-limits for journalists. The author of this article, who urged science journalists to report only authorized vaccine information – i.e., “consensus science” – lest their balanced reports create controversy that might reduce vaccination rates.

John Illman, the chairman of the UK Medical Journalists’ Association, voluntarily endorses journalistic constraints, such as those mandated by authoritarian government regimes – e.g., Soviet/Russia. This radical endorsement of censorship may be understood in light of Illman’s relationship with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) for whom he produced a booklet titled The Expert Patient to steer patients toward becoming consumers of Pharma products.

Further undermining the integrity of the profession, Illman received the UK Medical Journalists’ Association “Feature of the Year” award in 2016

Media Fact Watch reports that Wikipedia medicine and health science pages have been hijacked to support industry interests. In 2013, Wikimedia Foundation issued an unprecedented statement acknowledging that its Wikipedia site is being manipulated by paid spin doctors and “sock Puppets” who use false online identities and numerous user accounts to skew or falsify its pages for commercial and other motives. “It looks like a number of user accounts – perhaps as many as several hundred – may have been paid to write articles on Wikipedia promoting organizations or products.[16]

David Gorski is said to be the stealth author of several savage pieces, such as the savage review of the film Vaxxed.[17]

Rupert Murdoch’s paper, The Times, ran a story attacking Polly Tommey, the founder of the not-for-profit, Autism Trust in the UK and the US: “Autism Charity Chief At Forefront Of ‘Dangerous’ Anti-Vaccine Campaign”(February 2017). Her crime is the belief that “the MMR vaccine caused her son’s autism.” The vaccine “hit squad” went into action instantly; they put up a petition calling on the UK government and the Charity Commission to: “Investigate Autism Trust Charity For Promoting Unregulated Products and Pseudoscience.

I detect shades of the Salem (1692) witch hunt hysteria. That hysteria was fueled by a ruling class whose covert motivation, was then as it is now, their collective intersecting business interests.  The current witch hunt is a well-financed, coordinated propaganda campaign in full swing aimed at discrediting – almost instantaneously – every study that suggests or supports a possible link between vaccines and developmental abnormalities, including autism spectrum, following vaccination.

Sharyl Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist who is vilified by both government and pharma industry-funded internet trolls is a target of vaccine propagandists. When she was the CBS science reporter, she had numerous reports about vaccines and autism killed by editors because they offended the industry.[18] In August 2014, Attkisson interviewed CDC Director of Immunization Safety, Dr. Frank DeStefano in a taped telephone interview in which he denied a causal relationship between vaccines and autism but acknowledged the possibility of a causal link: “I guess, that, that is a possibility. It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities”.

Dr. DeStefano is a seasoned CDC scientist who was instrumental in dispelling public suspicion about the safety of the MMR. He co-authored the controversial Pediatrics study whose data documenting an increased risk of autism following MMR vaccination for African-American baby boys, had been concealed according to CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson.25

Democrat/Liberal propaganda outlets founded by David Brock and John Podesta — Media Matters Network for America  (funded by George Soros) and its sister Center for American Progress — have vilified Sharyl Attkisson who has criticized the Obama administration’s massive surveillance programs, the housing crisis cover-up, obstruction, and lack of transparency. MMA refers to Attkisson as a “disgraced reporter”.  In 2016, she listed a brigade of bloggers aligned to the vaccine industry and government, who pounce on any scientist or reporter who dares question the vaccine mantra at What the News Isn’t Saying About Vaccine-Autism Studies,

The latest target for suppression that vaccine lobbyists have turned their ammunition on are the small, specialized scientific journals that publish independent research studies, which industry-funded propagandists have derided. A journal that has been repeatedly attacked by vaccine promoters is the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons:

“JPANDS strays far from the medical mainstream is in its explicit stand against mandatory vaccination and its call for a “moratorium” on vaccine “mandates.” JPANDS has been receptive ground for antivaccination articles, including, but not limited to, the Geiers’ publications linking autism with mercury in childhood vaccines. Going back to Medical Sentinel and proceeding to this very day, the AAPS has consistently viewed mandatory vaccination as a “tool of the state” and a threat to physician autonomy… Titles range from: Is Vaccine Dissent Dangerous? World Health Organization Vaccine Recommendations: Scientific Flaws or Scientific Misconduct?

Debate on Vaccines and Autoimmunity: Do Not Attack the Author, Yet Discuss it Methodically:

“Recently, the authors of many vaccine safety investigations are being personally criticized rather than the actual science being methodologically assessed and critiqued. Unfortunately, this could result in making vaccine safety science a “hazardous occupation”. Critiques should focus “on the science and not on the authors and on the scientists that publish reasonably high-quality science suggesting a problem with a given vaccine. These scientists require adequate professional protection so there are no [sic] disincentives to publish and to carry out researches in the field.”(Vaccine, October 2017)

To ensure that honest science of vaccines continues to grow, as well as to protect scientists who report vaccine injuries, a new website has been launched, Vaccine Papers: An Objective Look at Vaccine Dangers (

 Vaccine Papers Is Anonymous
This blog is anonymous for these reasons:
1) To avoid nasty “ad hominem” personal attacks and internet harassment.
2) To focus attention where it belongs: the science. Our goal is to encourage people to look at the scientific evidence for themselves, and anonymity furthers that goal.
3) “Argument by authority” is not respected here. What matters is the science, and nothing else.  

It states: Our perspective:
Like any other medical treatment, vaccination must be justified in view of an objective risk/benefit analysis. All risks and benefits must be considered. Any rational medical treatment must do more good than harm. This is universally accepted.

The problem with vaccines is that risks have been underestimated, and the benefits overestimated. In particular, the risk of brain injury from vaccines is much higher than commonly believed.

As long as public health and medical authorities continue to deny the mounting evidence linking serious injuries to vaccines, distrust in their pronouncements and resistance to vaccination will increase – as demonstrated by a report in Mother Jones:

While the number of personal-belief exemptions has plummeted, medical exemptions—which require the signature of a licensed physician—have risen… many physicians are wary of the CDC’s vaccination schedule, believing that giving kids too many vaccines at once may be dangerous.”(January/February 2018)

The final installment of L’Affaire Wakefield will be a partial bibliography of articles published in peer-reviewed journals that are cited in the government’s NIH library. [APPENDIX 11]


[1] Video Q&A: what is ASIA? An interview with Yehuda Shoenfeld, BioMedCentral, 2013

[2]Behavioral Abnormalities In Female Mice Following Administration Of Aluminum Adjuvants And The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Gardasil,”Rotem Inbar, Ronen Weiss, Lucija Tomljenovic, Maria-Teresa Arango, Yael Deri, Christopher A, Shaw, Joab Chapman, Miri Blank, Yehuda Shoenfeld, Immunological Research, 2017

[3] Vaccine Wars, Tom Sandborn, Columbia Journal, 2012

[4] Do Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants Contribute To The Rising Prevalence Of Autism? Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw, Journal of Inorganic Chemistry, 2011

[5] CDC acknowledges that between June 2006 and September 2015, “167 deaths were reported following vaccination against HPV for which there is no diagnosis that would suggest Gardasil caused the deaths.”  In light of the avalanche of adverse event reports following HPV vaccination, and CDC’s acknowledgement of 167 deaths, its position that the vaccine is safe – even as no explanation for the deaths is given, is hardly reassuring.

[6] Report from the Danish Health and Medicines Authority for consideration by EMA and rapporteurs in relation to the assessment of the safety profile of HPV vaccinesSuspected Side Effects To The Quadrivalent Human Papilloma Vaccine. Brinth L, Theibel AC, Pors K et al., Danish Medical Journal, 2015; Orthostatic Intolerance And Postural Tachycardia Syndrome As Suspected Adverse Effects Of Vaccination Against Human Papilloma Virus. Brinth LS, Pors K, Theibel AC et al.  Vaccine 2015; Is chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis a relevant diagnosis in patients with suspected side effects to human papilloma virus vaccine? Brinth L, Pors K, Hoppe AG et al.International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination 2015; In May 2016, Dr. Gøtzsche, and colleagues, sent a scathing letter of complaint to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), challenging that institution’s very legitimacy. Earlier, in January 2016, pathologist Sin Hang Lee, MD, Director of Milford Medical Laboratory sent an open letter of complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Margaret Chan, charging professional misconduct

[7] Guest Post: No Liability For Failure To Vaccinate? The Case Has Not Been Made: A Response To Mary Holland

Harvard Law Blog (2013)

[8] Vaccines, Measles, and Rights, Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, The Wake Forest Law Review, 2015; Herd Immunity and Immunization Policy: The Importance of Accuracy, Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Oregon Law Review, 2015; Responding to the Childhood Vaccination Crisis: Legal Frameworks and Tools in the Context of Parental Vaccine Refusal, DR Reiss and Lois Weithorn, Buffalo Law Review, 2015

[9] Safety of Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Administered Routinely to Females  Nicola P. Klein, MD, PhD; John Hansen, Chun Chao, Christine Velicer, Michael Emery, Jeff Slezak, Ned Lewis, Kamala Deosaransingh, Lina Sy, Bradley Ackerson, T. Craig Cheetham, Kai-Li Liaw, Harpreet Takhar, Steven J. Jacobsen, JAMA: Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 2012;  Safety of Measles-Containing Vaccines in 1-Year-Old Children. Nicola P. Klein, Edwin Lewis, Bruce Fireman, Simon J. Hambidge, Allison Naleway, Jennifer C. Nelson, Edward A. Belongia, W. Katherine Yih, James D. Nordin, Rulin C. Hechter, Eric Weintraub,Roger Baxter, Pediatrics, 2015


[10]Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe’: Closer to Horror Film Than Documentary”  “7 Things About Vaccines and Autism That the Movie ‘Vaxxed’ Won’t Tell You, Ariana Eunjung Cha, The Washington Post; We Watched the Movie ‘Vaxxed’ So You Don’t Have To, STAT News; Anti-Immunisation Movie Vaxxed Is A Platform For Its Maker, Not Its Message, Sarah Gill, The Age; Vaxxed. Wikipedia [entry purported to be written by David Gorski – a.k.a. Orac]

[11]  Dr. Steven Novella of Science-Based Medicine. An expose of Dr. Novella’s integrity is posted on

[12] Vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS): usefulness and limitations. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Last updated Feb. 15, 2013.

[13] News of the Decision by the French Regional Medical Injury Court, Sept. 18, 2013, was suppressed by the media, lest the decision “scare” parents from having their teenagers vaccinated with Gardasil. The judge based the decision on the testimony of the girl’s medical records and testimony of two physicians, and her parents. Dr. Offit, in his guise as Skeptical Raptor, called the decision “ludicrous” because it failed to consider “the science” which shows no basis for holding the manufacturer (Sanofi –Merck) responsible: “It’s ignorant to use it as evidence that Gardasil causes harm… They were wrong scientifically, and that’s that.”  The decision translated into English is posted on the parent organization SaneVax.

[14] The Press Gazette is owned by Matthew Freud (Freud Communications) was married to Elisabeth Murdoch.

[15]  “This article first appeared in the British Journalism Review and won the 2016 Medical Journalists’ Association award for “Feature of the Year for a specialist audience. It was extracted from John Illman’s new book, Handling The Media: Communication And Presentation Skills For Healthcare Professionals. JIC Books”

[16] Wikipedia: We Have Blocked 250 “Sock Puppets” For Biased Editing of Our Pages, Jan Burrell, The Independent, 2013

[17] Hijacked by Pro-Vaccine Troll Dr. David Gorski, Wikipedia Circulates Deceitful Entry On VAXXED Documentary, Julie Wilson, MediaFactWatch, May 2017

[18] Sharyl Attkisson, Loyd Grove The Daily Beast, 2014