Brian Deer: Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story

12 Oct

Brian Deer, the reporter who broke the story on Andrew Wakefield’s conflicts of interests, has a new story on his website:

Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story
In a newly-released judgment from England’s Court of Protection, a prominent anti-vaccine campaigner is branded a manipulative liar. Brian Deer reports

The story is quite sad. And while it presents an extreme case, there are themes here which have been seen elsewhere.

A British “mother warrior”, who claimed that the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is responsible for autism, fabricated accounts of injury to her son and persistently lied about his health, a London court has ruled.

The mother, “E”, who cannot be named so as to protect her son’s identity, concocted a story about how he reacted to an MMR shot in January 1991. She said that he became distressed with fever and then lost speech, eye contact and play immediately following his three-in-one at the age of 18 months.

She claimed that he screamed after immunization, and that this was followed by six hours of convulsions and vomiting, and then six months in a “persistent vegetative state”.

But in a landmark 45,000-word judgment, which entered the public domain last week from the Court of Protection, the mother was dismissed as a manipulative liar. It was found that she had made up the story so as to bring attention to herself and had plied her developmentally delayed son with a mass of sometimes bizarre “biomedical” interventions so as to gain “total control” over his life.

Mr. Deer’s story goes on (Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story) with more details. Many more details are in the court’s judgment which is linked to at the end of Mr. Deer’s article. I won’t copy it all here, I encourage you to read it there.

Here’s a paragraph from the judgment that goes to the evolution of the story surrounding the day in which the child received the MMR vaccine. The fact that the allegation of a vaccine reaction was not made until is important as this was 10 years after the event. Also worth noting is that this individual showed developmental issues well before the MMR vaccine.

After the allegation of an adverse reaction to MMR was eventually recorded in 2001, it became more dramatic in subsequent accounts. Thus, in 2001 the description was: “Distressed after injection. Had fever. Eyes glazed, dilated and fixed.” E’s account became more florid over time, with references to screaming, jolting, spasming and a persistent vegetative state. In her final statement she said that: “M died within six hours of the MMR.” In the witness box she gave a full account of the events on the day on which the MMR was administered and M’s reaction to it. E acknowledges in her final statement that she uses certain words and phrases in her own particular way. For example, for her the phrase “vegetative state” means “slipping in and out of consciousness, not responding and appearing lifeless.” And her use of the word “died” to describe what happened to M means “stopped breathing and lost consciousness”

I’d be very interested when “died” became part of the story. Reading the above I was very much reminded of Jenny McCarthy’s statement that her son died from vaccine injury. Ms. McCarthy was referring to her son’s very serious seizures. The timeline has never been made clear, but those seizures appear to have began a year or more after her son’s vaccinations. But her vague choice of words led many to claim that her son “died” shortly after vaccination.

As to “E”‘s experience taking her son to the Royal Free Hospital:

Throughout the hearing, E insisted that M had been given the diagnosis of autistic enterocolitis or leaky gut syndrome and alleged that some of the Royal Free medical records must be missing. I reject that assertion. I find that not even the Royal Free team, who at that time were leading the way and postulating the link between autism and a form of colitis, found any evidence in 2001 of significant gut disorder in M. In his case no diagnosis of autistic enterocolitis or leaky gut syndrome was ever made.

There’s a great deal more, in both Mr. Deer’s story and the 92 page judgment.

By Matt Carey

47 Responses to “Brian Deer: Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story”

  1. lilady October 12, 2014 at 06:08 #

    Thanks to Brian Deer, we have a report of a case where a U.K. court intervened to discontinue the guardianship of a young autistic man, by a controlling parent. I am working my way through the 92 page legal decision and it describes in exquisite detail how a self-centered, ego driven “warrior mom” (and her enabler…the adult child’s father), have tried to prevent their son from taking his place in society…away from the toxic family home.

    There is something decidedly wrong with these self-declared “warrior moms” and “warrior dads” and how they impose their conspiracies and their junk treatments on their vulnerable special needs children, while neglecting and denying them basic medical care. How dreadful, that abscesses in the young man’s mouth were not treated and he suffered unbearable pain for months, putting him at real risk for septicemia, before he finally received treatment…while the “warrior mom” used tin foil to block the non-existent, dangerous electromagnetic rays in his bedroom.

    The U.K. “Warrior Mom” is so similar to other self-styled “warrior moms”, who are lying liars, who blame their child’s autism diagnosis on vaccines, who plug into every conspiracy theory about respected scientists, doctors, journalists and anyone who promotes vaccines as the best way to protect infants and children from serious, oftentimes deadly, vaccine-preventable diseases.

    These “warrior moms” and “warrior dads” refer to their children as vaccine damaged and train wrecks and they worship at the altar of Andrew Wakefield’s ego while they provide financial support to that odious disgraced and discredited former doctor. Unfortunately, some of them irreparably harm their children and murder them…rather than allowing them to live out their lives with dignity and away from the family home and the parents’ smothering control.

    • Planet Autism Blog October 30, 2014 at 19:26 #

      Asperger’s syndrome (autism) can be misdiagnosed as narcissistic personality disorder: and with autism frequently being genetic, it is possible the mother actually has Asperger’s (which is not a mental illness) not the psychiatric disorders she has been diagnosed with. Even were she mentally ill, she needs support not criminalising and slating.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 31, 2014 at 03:56 #

        She needs to come clean and stop lying, whatever the reason.

        She needs to make amends to the people she led into a life of self-incrimination.

        She especially needs to make amends to the autistic kids who would have received real medical care instead of treatments by “autism doctors” if it weren’t for her vociferous endorsements.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 31, 2014 at 16:25 #

        I skipped clicking on your link because I was fairly sure it was a waste of time. You link to a book, not a scientific article. Here’s the blurb from the webpage you linked to

        Asperger’s Disorder is often misdiagnosed as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), though evident as early as age 3 (while pathological narcissism cannot be safely diagnosed prior to early adolescence).

        In both cases, the patient is self-centered and engrossed in a narrow range of interests and activities. Social and occupational interactions are severely hampered and conversational skills (the give and take of verbal intercourse) are primitive. The Asperger’s patient body language – eye to eye gaze, body posture, facial expressions – is constricted and artificial, akin to the narcissist’s. Nonverbal cues are virtually absent and their interpretation in others lacking.

        Yet, the gulf between Asperger’s and pathological narcissism is vast.

        The narcissist switches between social agility and social impairment voluntarily. His social dysfunctioning is the outcome of conscious haughtiness and the reluctance to invest scarce mental energy in cultivating relationships with inferior and unworthy others. When confronted with potential Sources of Narcissistic Supply, however, the narcissist easily regains his social skills, his charm, and his gregariousness.

        Many narcissists reach the highest rungs of their community, church, firm, or voluntary organization. Most of the time, they function flawlessly – though the inevitable blowups and the grating extortion of Narcissistic Supply usually put an end to the narcissist’s career and social liaisons.

        The Asperger’s patient often wants to be accepted socially, to have friends, to marry, to be sexually active, and to sire offspring. He just doesn’t have a clue how to go about it. His affect is limited. His initiative – for instance, to share his experiences with nearest and dearest or to engage in foreplay – is thwarted. His ability to divulge his emotions stilted. He is incapable or reciprocating and is largely unaware of the wishes, needs, and feelings of his interlocutors or counterparties.

        Inevitably, Asperger’s patients are perceived by others to be cold, eccentric, insensitive, indifferent, repulsive, exploitative or emotionally-absent. To avoid the pain of rejection, they confine themselves to solitary activities – but, unlike the schizoid, not by choice. They limit their world to a single topic, hobby, or person and dive in with the greatest, all-consuming intensity, excluding all other matters and everyone else. It is a form of hurt-control and pain regulation.

        Thus, while the narcissist avoids pain by excluding, devaluing, and discarding others – the Asperger’s patient achieves the same result by withdrawing and by passionately incorporating in his universe only one or two people and one or two subjects of interest. Both narcissists and Asperger’s patients are prone to react with depression to perceived slights and injuries – but Asperger’s patients are far more at risk of self-harm and suicide.

        The use of language is another differentiating factor.

        The narcissist is a skilled communicator. He uses language as an instrument to obtain Narcissistic Supply or as a weapon to obliterate his “enemies” and discarded sources with. Cerebral narcissists derive Narcissistic Supply from the consummate use they make of their innate verbosity.

        The fact that you think a source that can say “Inevitably, Asperger’s patients are perceived by others to be cold, eccentric, insensitive, indifferent, repulsive, exploitative or emotionally-absent.” demonstrates to me that you don’t know much about autism. Whatever your blog may be called. Sure, he threw in “or”, but that string of stigmatizing terms is inaccurate and damaging.

        This, also, is an ignorant statement “They limit their world to a single topic, hobby, or person and dive in with the greatest, all-consuming intensity, excluding all other matters and everyone else. It is a form of hurt-control and pain regulation.”

        I can’t reinstate your link-spam. It’s deleted. I wish I hadn’t, so people could see you also think “the refusers” are a valuable source of information.

      • lilady October 31, 2014 at 16:50 #

        Asperger Syndrome and Personality Disorders are two completely different diagnoses and you are making excuses for this woman who inflicted grave harm on her child.

        She medically neglected her child (untreated for one year gum/teeth abscesses) which caused unbearable pain.

        She’s a pathological liar describing her child as being in a persistent vegetative state and lying about her child’s medical records.

        She’s no different than the crank bloggers and “warrior moms” here in the United States, who claim that their children are “vaccine damaged” and use their kids as human guinea pigs, subjecting them to invasive, painful, dangerous and not-clinically-indicated “treatments”.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 31, 2014 at 03:54 #

      link-spam deleted. Participate in discussions or go find another site.

      • Planet Autism Blog October 31, 2014 at 14:09 #

        I did participate in the discussion and I am not a spammer, if you would care to see my other reply to another respondent. It would appear that you are simply deleting anything that doesn’t follow your own opinion.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 31, 2014 at 16:09 #

        It may appear that way to you, but that’s rather odd considering I left other comments by you (including this on) that doesn’t follow my opinion.

        Or, to put it simply, you appear to be avoiding the message I left–participate in the discussion. Instead you appear to be concentrating on trying to discount my arguments by claiming I’m not ‘fair and unbiased’.

        I’ve seen exactly that tactic used for many, many years.

      • Planet Autism Blog October 31, 2014 at 14:16 #

        If the mother is mentally ill you are missing the entire point, she would be unable to see logic or reality in the same way as someone without those issues.

        Please reinstate my previous post with links if you are serious about listening to both sides of the discussion in a fair and unbiased way.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 31, 2014 at 16:05 #

        If you wish to leave a comment that is entirely links, no, that is not about discussion in a “fair and unbiased way”. It’s not discussion. You are welcome to take this seriously.

        I listen to all sources. That’s why I am aware of the sources in the links you provided.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 31, 2014 at 16:16 #

        No, I am not missing the point. Even a person with a mental illness can make amends for the harm s/he has caused.

        I agree that she needs support and treatment. Instead her community group are raising funds for her appeal.

        “E” was a leader in a movement that has caused a great deal of damage. She needs to make amends. Those who helped her cause this harm need to make amends.

        Now you are straddling the fence. She may not be mentally ill/she is mentally ill and needs support.

  2. Narad October 12, 2014 at 10:06 #

    Thirdly, they assert that the Official Solicitor, far from representing M properly in these proceedings, has used them as an opportunity to pursue an agenda of undermining the prospects of future litigation about the MMR vaccination and to that end has deliberately chosen experts (Dr Carpenter and Professor Williamson) whose views are known and who have been involved in similar cases in the past. They assert that the Official Solicitor and the local authority have attempted to attract political favour by bringing the MMR issue into this litigation.

    I had been hoping that John Stone would have connected the seamy dots between China, BioMed Central, Rupert Murdoch (or something), and the Hooker retraction by now, but perhaps this will produce an early-season cardoon.

    • herr doktor bimler October 14, 2014 at 03:41 #

      The word “cardoon” is sadly underutilised.

      • Science Mom October 14, 2014 at 04:59 #

        Sigh. I thought it was a typo for “cartoon” and sadly, I still don’t get it.

      • Chris October 14, 2014 at 05:17 #

        It is a relative to the artichoke. It looks like four foot tall celery.

      • Chris October 14, 2014 at 05:18 #

        The wiki:

      • Chris October 14, 2014 at 05:19 #

        And not understanding what Narad means is fairly common.

  3. Chris October 12, 2014 at 21:45 #

    I have gone through about a third of the full court document. I liked this part: “Mr (formally Dr) Wakefield”

  4. John Bundock October 13, 2014 at 04:02 #

    Another case of an autistic kid being treated with all kinds of woo. The kid deserves sympathy for what he has had to put up with from his parents, and quackery pedlars.
    249. ………Suffice it to say that nothing has emerged in the course of this case to undermine the prevailing view quoted above that the overall evidence clearly indicates no association between the MMR vaccine and autism.

    253. The critical facts established in this case can be summarised as follows. M has autistic spectrum disorder. There is no evidence that his autism was caused by the MMR vaccination. His parents’ account of an adverse reaction to that vaccination is fabricated. The mother has also given many other false accounts about M’s health. He has never had meningitis, autistic enterocolitis, leaky gut syndrome, sensitivity to gluten or casein, disorder of the blood brain barrier, heavy metal poisoning, autonomic dysautonomia (which, in any event, is not recognised in any classification of medical conditions), rheumatoid arthritis or Lyme disease. As a result of E maintaining that he had these and other conditions, she has subjected M to numerous unnecessary tests and interventions

    • lilady October 13, 2014 at 08:47 #

      The mother of that young man was evaluated by psychiatrists who determined she has a narcissistic personality disorder and features of a histrionic personality disorder, both of which are intractable to treatment (apologies for the link to a psychiatric counseling service):

      Such a sad story for any child to have such a parent….and even sadder for this young man who was held captive in the grasp of this smothering parent, and his father who was the enabler in this situation.

      I’ve actually “engaged” some of those JABS parents on science blogs, whose children were part of Wakefield’s study. The show stopper is when I pose questions to these parents, who now claim total devotion to Andrew Wakefield, about their reasons for not testifying on behalf of Wakefield during the GMC Hearing.

    • Planet Autism Blog October 30, 2014 at 18:41 #

      Just to point out that autonomic dysautonomia is PoTs, which is commonly part of Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, a connective tissue disorder which many people with autism have. I don’t know the facts of this case and I’m not commenting either way, but there have been cases of cover-ups before as well as “lost” medical records.

      • lilady October 31, 2014 at 17:02 #

        I know exactly what autonomic dysautonomia is:

        I suggest you read the entire 92 page document before you post comments here defending this abusive parent.

      • Planet Autism Blog October 31, 2014 at 22:51 #

        @Sullivan, sorry to disappoint you but I’m not a “last word” type of person. If there is something to answer, I will answer it, unless it’s clearly futile for a variety of reasons. You say I have made assumptions, but I haven’t, I have just offered alternatives. I would like to point out the assumptions in your last post to me however:

        (1) that I am “a guy”
        (2) that I was responding to you when I quoted the term “abusive” (it was actually lilady, as this is a term she used)
        (3) that the description “anyone talking to you will eventually perceive you as cold…insensitive…repulsive…? Fine. If you find that an accurate depiction of yourself, that’s great.” applies to myself (you missed the point entirely, which was that she could have been misdiagnosed, lilady was describing her as having untreatable mental illnesses)

        Why you are saying I have made any assumptions I can’t understand, along with giving alternative options I have just described the strength feeling against the mother shown in comments on here. Why you also are nitpicking about the difference between the words “debate” and “discuss” is beyond me too, they boil down to the same thing – or is “discuss” only when the people discussing are agreeing with you?

        Thank you for reinstating the links, here are more:


        Clearly you are unwilling to discuss further or to consider alternatives (TBH it has just about reached that point of “clearly futile” that I mentioned now anyway), so I will make this my last post. Especially with the threat of “banning” hanging over me (ooooh!)

      • lilady October 31, 2014 at 17:04 #

        That’s not germane to the case which is being discussed here.

      • Planet Autism Blog October 31, 2014 at 20:10 #

        For some strange reason, the “reply” link doesn’t show up on all the individual replies to my posts, so I am unable to address the respondents directly in relation to their posts. Clearly the respondents on this site are mainly close-minded individuals, who will not entertain any option outside of what they believe. I have not “defended” the woman concerned, I am not party to the truth of the case to know either way so I wouldn’t presume to. What I would presume to do however is to offer open-mindedness and alternatives.

        As to the “germaneness” of a link about medical records being falsified @lilady, if a person such as the mother in question, claimed that her son was diagnosed with conditions which he wasn’t and the only defence against this is absence of medical records confirming this was the case, who is to say that she was lying or incorrect? Were any of us there during her son’s medical assessments? Saying this is not defending her, it’s suggesting possibilities. Also @lilady, I don’t need to read research documents about dysautonomia, because I have it myself, so I suggest you consider all options before making such grossly assumptive comments.

        Do any of you know her personally to know she is abusive? Does it sound like someone spending money on alternative treatments is abusive or at worst possibly misguided? You call her a liar @lilady – so you know that for a fact do you? Or do you just like to spew hate at someone because of how it looks to you? I could find you many links of incorrect judgements and verdicts if you like. None of what I am saying is to excuse someone who may have done what you say, I don’t know the facts either way, but I will always stand up for the right to hear the other side, and to understand that there may be other alternatives. It’s far better to debate things logically than to be venomous.

        As for “coming clean and stopping lying” @Sullivan, that’s the whole point, which if you were more rational you would understand, a mentally ill person does not necessarily see that they are wrong or misguided, they therefore are not lying. Someone is lying when they are aware that what they say is untrue but they say it anyway. See the difference?

        As for deleting my links, had that been all I had posted here, you may have been entitled to that opinion (were it categorically true) but as I had posted other replies, clearly I was not spamming, but debating. Sometimes, less is more, which you don’t appear to understand. You are way too emotional and this emotion is preventing you from considering all options.

        As for “straddling the fence” you may call it that, but others would call it weighing up all possibilities and not closing one’s mind off to all but your own view.

        Regarding her purportedly abusive action of ignoring her son’s medical needs apopros the mouth ulcers, autistics can have very difficult behaviour which prevents adequate access to even see a problem exists, hence care homes will sedate autistics to keep them compliant. Would you like me to tell you the story of an autistic girl who was drugged so much for the sake of compliance that she suffered a faecal impaction that could have killed her, instead of investigating the side-effect of the drugs causing this faecal impaction causing her behaviour to deteriorate, they drugged her up some more to keep her behaviour manageable until the faecal impaction reached her chest. Not once was she checked for side-effects even though she was in pain. This was nothing to do with her parents, it was state care.

        As for “I’ve seen exactly that tactic used for many, many years.” perhaps that is because you are using the same emotional hate-speak, and those people responding are more correct than you realise. The truth remains the same.

        “The fact that you think a source that can say “Inevitably, Asperger’s patients are perceived by others to be cold, eccentric, insensitive, indifferent, repulsive, exploitative or emotionally-absent.” demonstrates to me that you don’t know much about autism.”

        Funny that. Because am autistic. As are both my children. Touche.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 31, 2014 at 21:54 #

        “Do any of you know her personally to know she is abusive?”

        I don’t know her. I didn’t call her abusive either. We do have facts in front of us in terms of a court document. From which we can draw conclusions. Do you know her? Are you telling us that in your personal experience that she isn’t abusive? Can you counter the evidence presented? If so, do so. Don’t play this game of “do you know her personally”. Participate in the dicussion at hand or go elsewhere.

        “Or do you just like to spew hate at someone because of how it looks to you? ”

        Right. How long was that court document? What are the conclusions of the judge? It is easy to dismiss the viewpoints of others as just “how it looks to you” but you are talking to people who have gone through every word of that lengthy document. It’s interesting how you toss around terms like “spew hate” so readily, by the way. And people you disagree with are “not rational”.

        Your links were not debating. First off–if you want to debate, go somewhere to debate. I don’t debate. I discuss. Second, putting a bunch of links with no discussion isn’t a debate.

        You can’t reply to a given comment because this version of wordpress stops after a few replies. Rather than indent forever, at some point they stop and you have to reply to a higher level comment.

        “Clearly the respondents on this site are mainly close-minded individuals, who will not entertain any option outside of what they believe.”

        Right on time with the “you are closed minded” response. Seriously, it is the next step in the type of discussion you are presenting. Discount the interaction of the others with whom you are discussing by claiming some sort of moral high ground as the one “open minded” person in the discussion.

        “As for “I’ve seen exactly that tactic used for many, many years.” perhaps that is because you are using the same emotional hate-speak, and those people responding are more correct than you realise. The truth remains the same.”

        Right. And now you move more and more from “just asking questions” mode to “attack mode”.

        Touche…point well taken. Don’t make assumptions. That is the trap you keep falling into. So, anyone talking to you will eventually perceive you as cold…insensitive…repulsive…? Fine. If you find that an accurate depiction of yourself, that’s great. Doesn’t match the autistics I know. And whatever you think of that, it doesn’t change the fact that the source you linked to is junk. Great, some guy wrote a book.

        Go ahead. Get your last word in. At the risk of being found out again for bad assumptions: You are on the track of “I will get the last word or get myself banned and claim victory”, aren’t you? You started with the faux, “I’m just a reasonable guy asking questions” and quickly devolved into everyone else is “spewing hate” and “not rational” and using “hate-speak”.

        “It’s far better to debate things logically than to be venomous.”

        You are welcome back whenever you want to live up to your own terms. Until then, have fun with whomever wishes to respond to you.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 31, 2014 at 22:18 #

        Since Planet Autism wishes that I resurrect the comment I deleted, here it is from the email that wordpress sent me asking me to moderate it:

        Planet Autism Blog commented on Brian Deer: Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story

        Brian Deer, the reporter who broke the story on Andrew Wakefield’s conflicts of interests, has a new story on his …

        Rather than approve this, which is merely a bunch of links with no discussion I deleted it.

        Link 1: One can find a great deal of discussion about the appeal of John Walker-Smith on this site. Along with a lot of discussion about how this doesn’t impact Andrew Wakefield. Consider the fist charge found proved against Mr. Wakefield–that he made treatment decisions for some of the children at the Royal Free when his appointment forbade him to do so. By definition, Prof. Walker-Smith was not involved in those actions and, hence, his appeal has nothing to do with Mr. Wakefield’s guilt in the matter. This has nothing to do with the article above, or the fact that Brian Deer exposed multiple conflicts of interest by Mr. Wakefield.

        Link 2: Andrew Wakefield blameshifting for his role in reducing vaccine uptake in the UK and the inevitable outbreaks that followed. Using his strange argument about the Urabe mumps component. Mr. Wakefield ignored the mumps component question in favor of his own measles theory (which failed) leading to a closure of the UK MMR litigation. It’s heavily ironic that this is his defense. Also, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or even the comment quoted that Brian Deer exposed the conflicts of interest that Mr. Wakefield had hidden.

        Link 3: a discussion of the Mojabi case, claiming that this shows that the US Courts have compensated him for autism as a vaccine injury. The link fails to cite the decision whereby the family asked to remove their case documents from the public record because “Petitioners have made these requests because they have had the misfortune of being frequently contacted by members of the media who mistakenly believe they were compensated for their alternative autism allegation when Petitioners were actually compensated for a Table Injury encephalopathy.”

        So, the assertion in that linked article are incorrect. And, again, this has nothing to do with the article I wrote above, including the quoted statement that Mr. Wakefield’s COI’s were exposed by Brian Deer.

        Link 4: The BBC documentary “Hear the Silence”, about Andrew Wakefield’s time at the Royal Free. Released shortly before Mr. Deer exposed Mr. Wakefield’s COI’s. The video doesn’t address the COI’s and doesn’t have anything to do with the article above.

        So, I had good reason to not approve your comment.

      • Planet Autism Blog October 31, 2014 at 22:54 #

        Last link for good measure: (not spam, but to add to my last post, which contained comments).

      • Narad October 31, 2014 at 23:18 #

        Last link for good measure…. (not spam, but to add to my last post, which contained comments).

        Because you’re “not a ‘last word’ type of person,” you just feel as though nothing improves a low-rent link dump about which you have nothing intelligent to say than even more. Got it.

      • Chris October 31, 2014 at 23:51 #

        “Last link for good measure…”

        Those studies:

        1. That study was discussed on this website several years ago titled “Another weak study “proves” vaccines cause autism.”

        2. The less than adequate work by Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher A. Shaw have been discussed on this blog many times.

        3. The “study” by finance professor Gayle DeLong has also been discussed on this blog in the article titled: “Speech impairment and autism, inseparable?”

        4. That study is in this list:

        5. Ditto


        You get the drift. They are not what they are claimed to be. It is just you spamming this website with more nonsense.

  5. cannabisforautism October 13, 2014 at 08:10 #

    Reblogged this on Cannabis For Autism and commented:
    An interesting development in the UK. Many have been wondering how some parents are able to get away with inflicting ineffective and often harmful ‘Biomedical’ procedures? It seems they are not able to get away with it, and it’s only a matter of time before these parents are deal with by the courts of law.

    However, while cannabis remains illegal, our legal system is a joke. I can’t feel good about this ruling. I know it will galvanise the anti-vaccine contingent. I know it will be their ‘proof’ that even the UK courts are in on the vaccine conspiracy. Oh, and me too. #shillarmy

  6. Liz Ditz (@lizditz) October 15, 2014 at 15:46 #

    The UK Human Rights Blog has weighed in:

    This extensive and expensive series of proceedings also demonstrates the tendency of certain people to regard litigation as an opportunity to conduct an independent inquiry into some controversy or issue which is independent of the case before it. In this case, M’s parents actually requested that the court took steps to recommend an independent inquiry into the use in this country of the Urabe strain of the MMR vaccine. Baker J suspected that part of their aim in this litigation was to bring about such an inquiry.

  7. Roger Kulp October 31, 2014 at 13:42 #

    Autonomic dysautonomia and POTS go together because they are both signs of mitochondrial disease or dysfunction.

    • Narad October 31, 2014 at 22:58 #

      Autonomic dysautonomia and POTS go together because they are both signs of mitochondrial disease or dysfunction.

      You might want to check the order of the cart and the horse there.

  8. lilady November 1, 2014 at 17:27 #

    I commented that the mother’s behavior was abusive and medically neglectful.

    From the 92-page decision of the Protection Court:

    “38. On 21st June 2012, M was taken by E for an emergency dental appointment at the local dental surgery. The family dentist – DC – was not present and M was examined by another dentist, Ms Malik. What transpired at this examination is a matter of controversy in this case and will be considered later. In short, however, it is Ms Malik’s evidence that from an x-ray examination she diagnosed that M had a periapical area behind one upper tooth indicating the possible presence of an abscess. E, on the other hand, denies that she was told anything of this sort and asserts instead that she was told that there appeared to be a problem with M’s sinuses. In an email dated the following day, E told Ms Haywood that “nothing has shown up on the x-ray, so I am told it is likely to be sinusitis causing teeth nerves to be on edge.”…..”

    (I made a mistake when I stated up thread that E medically neglected her son for a year…it was 14 months).

    M was next seen for a dental appointment and x-ray 11 months later; from the 92-page decision of the Protection Court

    “45. On 23rd May 2013, M was taken to another dental surgery, known as the Tooth Fairy Holistic Centre. Further x-rays revealed the presence of a cyst, consistent with what had been allegedly seen by Ms Malik some 11 months earlier. M was referred to an oral surgeon, Mr Norris, who on 6th June informed the Tooth Fairy Surgery that it was quite clear that one or possibly two of M’s upper teeth had got periapical areas, suggesting pulpetic and abscessed teeth. Mr Norris indicated that surgery under general anaesthetic would be required. On 7th June, E emailed Ms Haywood and recounted the meeting with the oral surgeon, Mr Norris, stating, inter alia:

    ‘Although this was not picked up on the x-ray M had last summer, it was clearly there and appears to have grown at least twice the size that we can now see and is just that and not a swelling of the sinuses as interpreted last summer. It is likely to have killed one if not two tooth nerves and, whilst doing so, would have given M intolerable pain over a period of months, reaching a crescendo which would have been excruciating for him.’

    Fifteen months after the June 21, 2012 dental x-ray indicated “the possible presence of an periapical abscess of one upper tooth”, M finally underwent surgery to remove two abscessed teeth; from the 92-page decision of the Protection Court

    “50. On 5th August 2013, M underwent surgery under general anaesthetic in which the two teeth were removed. The hospital notes for this admission reveal that, in summarising M’s medical history, E said that he had “tested positive for Lyme disease.” The two teeth were subsequently given to E, who stored them in her home freezer with a view, it is said, to send them for testing in America by Mr (formerly Dr) Wakefield. In a further email to Ms Haywood dated 11th August, E spoke graphically of the implications for M of the delay in treating the abscesses:….”

    • Planet Autism Blog November 3, 2014 at 00:12 #

      @ lilady: So, this is the mother you described as “neglectful” and “abusive” and this is to all other respondents slating the mother…I did bother to read the whole judgement and saw something very different to what you saw. Many comments as my post goes on, are directed at the judge.

      “For the first 18 years of his life he lived at home with his parents – his mother, hereafter referred to as E, and father, A – where he was by all accounts generally looked after very well. His parents were and are devoted to him and have devoted much of their lives to his care. He attended local special schools and enjoyed a wide range of activities.”

      The mother cared for her son very well and took him for dental appointments and vaccinations (even though vaccinations are not obligatory) This is a mother who had no problems until she came into contact with the LA:

      “Until his late teens the family had no contact with the local authority. At that point, however, social services became involved because his parents were looking for a residential placement where he could continue his education. There is no evidence up to that point of any conflict between members of his family and those professionals with whom they came into contact. From that point, however, the picture changed and there has been almost continuous conflict, in particular between M’s mother, E, and the local authority. M’s parents assert that they have been subjected to a malicious campaign aimed at removing M from their care. The local authority asserts that M has been subjected to a regime characterised by excessive control exercised by E over every aspect of M’s life. More seriously, the local authority alleges that E has fabricated accounts of M’s health problems and subjected him to unnecessary assessments and treatments, as well as imposing on him an unnecessarily restrictive diet, with a range of unnecessary supplements.”

      It is unlikely that the mother would invent that she was told by the GP that she was an over-anxious mother, she also was calling doctors for help with her son’s difficulties – signs of abuse and neglect? I think not.

      “It is the parents’ case that the mother told their GP that he had had a bad reaction to the MMR but was told by him that she was an over-anxious mother and must be imagining it. When E called the GP a second time and said she was calling the emergency services, she was told not to do this, but went ahead because M was going in and out of consciousness. The paramedics and the GP had arrived at the same time, at which point M’s temperature was 104. The GP had told the paramedics to leave. Before going, they had told her that this was a case of meningeal encephalitis. The GP had been verbally abusive to E. The above account, given to Dr. Beck, a psychologist instructed as an expert witness in these proceedings, is similar to that given by the mother to a variety of professionals.“

      There was no record made of what the mother says she reported to doctors regarding the MMR – this does not mean she did not report those concerns. I have personal experience of doctors and other professionals not only failing to record information given, but actually making false reports of consultations and other matters. Have you also not heard of confirmation bias? If a doctor does not believe MMR causes autism, and especially if there is incentive for them to give the vaccination, they will be unlikely to record adverse effects, especially if they were reported verbally and they responded verbally to tell the parent that they disagreed there was a connection, because the scientific community has stated there is none. Here is just one study, easily found which states that many more nurses submit yellow cards regarding vaccine reactions than do GPs or hospitals:

      The judge admits that despite a doctor advising tests none were referred for:

      “Dr Baird thought it appropriate to consider his problems under the general heading of “autistic learning difficulties”. She suggested that he undergo a range of tests but observed that, if all proved negative, there might well be a substantial genetic component to his developmental problem. I note in passing that Dr Carpenter, in his examination of all the records in this case, found no test results following this assessment and was unclear how far the genetic component to M’s autism was explored with the parents.” So with that lack of care happening it’s not so unlikely that verbal reports by E were not recorded – especially as professionals never like patients (or their relatives) questioning them or being well-informed, so would have likely not respected anything she said or taken offence at her directness.
      The judge states: “In none of the records prior to 2000 is there any account of an adverse reaction to the MMR.” but none of the doctors listed are specialists in vaccinations and subsequent ill-effects – why would for instance an audiologist have anything to say about the MMR, it’s not their discipline? So the mother would logically not have reported it to those specialists.

      Regarding Andrew Wakefield, he has said on record that he did not advise parents they should not vaccinate, only that they should have the vaccinations individually instead of combined.
      It was the hospital themselves who recommended the gluten and casein free diet: “He was put on a gluten and casein free diet and prescribed liquid paraffin and Picolax for his constipation.” So why was E criticised about this?

      “According to Dr Carpenter, however, there is no record in the GP notes or any other contemporaneous complaint that M had suffered a gut disorder during this 10 year period.” Do you know how many people suffer gastric discomfort and problems? They don’t all go back and forth to the GP when they can get OTC remedies to deal with the constipation, so the lack of gastric issues being recorded in that period means nothing.

      “In the following years M continued to receive assessment and treatment from a variety of alternative and complimentary practitioners, including auditory integration and sensory intervention therapy and sound therapy, as well as being treated for routine illnesses by the GP. He was not, however, permitted to undergo any further vaccinations. In 2004, E had refused to give consent for M to receive immunisations for tetanus, diphtheria and polio. In addition, M’s diet was increasingly restricted and he was given an increasing number of supplements.”

      Clearly the mother was in no way neglectful as she was taking her son for GP appointments as required. It is a parent’s right to decline vaccinations, as already stated, they are not obligatory. Is it now a crime to alter diet to find the best one for someone with gastric problems? Or to give vitamins and supplements? I think not! Clearly, the supplements being given were recommended by hospitals also “By this point, according to a list prepared by E and A, the range of biomedical interventions being supplied to M included a probiotic, six vitamin supplements, four mineral supplements, five trace elements, fatty acids, amino acids, enzymes and a range of homeopathic remedies. E and A said that this combination had been arrived at through the advice of the gastroenterology department of the Royal Free Hospital, the Autism Research Unit at Sunderland University, the Autism Treatment Trust in Scotland and a privately funded naturopath.” How does this translate as snake-oil salesmen or the actions of an unbalanced mother (quite apart from the fact that vitamins and supplements are every day items – not abuse!)?

      The parents asserted, as is their right to do “The medical profession does little to recognise the chronic medical disease that autism truly is “… It is for this reason that we have consistently adopted a biochemical intervention approach and engaged a variety of privately funded specialists, all of whom have made a tremendous difference to the improvement to M’s quality of life and proven that autism is a treatable medical condition. Due to the constant rejection and dismissal of our conviction that we have continually faced, we have chosen only to tap into the NHS for diagnosis of secondary medical complications of a more general nature, local dietary advice and, where specialist expertise was available, in the form of Dr Andrew Wakefield.” Does this sound like neglectful and abusive parents? No, it sounds like parents with their own views who are perfectly entitled to have them and views which are shared by thousands of others in the autism community. They have been vilified for not conforming to the tick-box mentality that the state would have them do.

      I see parents who tried their hardest for their child, planned for his future in the face of obstructiveness from the state – as many parents of autistic children find they have to do, tried to get things right for their son, wanted everything right for him. The Government claims that parents are experts in their own children – clearly that only applies so long as the parents are in full agreement with the state.

      Does this sound like a neglectful or abusive parent? “E made a series of complaints about the standard of care given to M, including that he suffered repeated episodes of ringworm, other fungal infections, conjunctivitis and ear infections, including a burst eardrum. As a result, E spent three weeks staying in a nearby hotel to provide support for M.” No, it sounds like a parent wanting the best for their disabled child.

      A dentist who claims E was informed of the presence of an abscess but there was nothing in writing to say that this is so. Where is the “controversy”? E emailed the dentist the following day saying “In an email dated the following day, E told Ms Haywood that “nothing has shown up on the x-ray, so I am told it is likely to be sinusitis causing teeth nerves to be on edge.” so WHY did the dentist not challenge this at the time if she knew it to be an abscess and in requirement of urgent treatment? A GP prescribed antibiotics for the sinus problem E believed her son had “…and was examined by another dentist at a surgery near to Z House. Nothing abnormal was detected, although the notes of this examination produced in the course of the hearing indicated that E requested that no x-rays be taken. When seen by the oral hygienist at the family dental surgery on 4th September 2012, no signs of an abscess were detected. It was said in evidence that a hygienist would not be in a position to make such a finding.” So she has taken him for several appointments, there is no explanation as to why she purportedly requested another x-ray was not given, but we know that too many x-rays are bad for you and perhaps she had trusted what the previous dentist had told her. So accusing her of leaving her son in pain for 14 months, when she had been the one taking him for the check-ups and the dentist didn’t follow up when the mother put in writing she had been told it was sinusitis?

      She also sent an email to Ms Haywood saying@ “”This would not only explain the excruciating pain that [M] has experienced, and possibly on/off since October 2011 … that would have been horrendous for [M] to have had to cope with over the last year and just unbearable without intravenous pain relief.” so clearly it was not her fault the delays happened and she had ensured he had regular pain relief whilst stating that she knew something was wrong.

      It was at this meeting that the chief executive of X College – MH – first suggested that E’s behaviour was akin to “Munchausen by proxy”. So a very rare psychiatric condition, that is disputed to exist by some experts, is “diagnosed” but some admin manager!

      “E seemed agitated and told the social workers that she had been giving M a hand and foot massage, although the social workers saw no signs of this on M.” Is this for real! Who has “signs” of having had their hands and feet massaged. “E told them that they should not have visited; they should have made an appointment.” This, along with many of the other comments, about her monologuing, to me, says that she has Asperger’s syndrome straight off, in view of her parenting style as well. So tell me how court psychiatrists instead found her to have personality disorders. This is shocking and clear evidence of female presentation of ASC yet again being misunderstood and discriminated against in breach of the law (Equality Act 2010).

      “No examination or assessment should be carried out without permission by his new GP.” GPs are known to be autism ignorant, hence the RCG has instigated plans to address this and many parents of autistic children struggle to even get referrals for ASC assessment let-alone any co-morbid condition or health issue. Studies have shown that people with ASC struggle to get health problems recognised and treated.

      “E stated that she is a very precise individual and passed on the information in a way that ensured clarity.” Another sign that she has Asperger’s.

      “At the outset I was told by E that she had problems with communications attributable to a long-standing neurological condition.” She may have all the symptoms of the condition but not been assessed or diagnosed, but be self-diagnosed, that doesn’t make her a liar. What she feels is down to a neurological condition is easily down to ASC.

      “I found it difficult during the hearing to keep E on the point when she was cross-examining witnesses.” Again, sounding like Asperger’s.

      “It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation.” I don’t believe that court is the place for inferences – that is assumption based on what it looks like, but what it looks like isn’t always what it is!

      “Eighth, it is not uncommon for witnesses in these cases to tell lies, both before and during the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons – such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress – and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything – see R v. Lucas [1981] QB 720.” This ALSO applies to witnesses from the LA, clinicians etc.!

      “…during the hearing I had the clear sense that she was relishing the opportunity to put across her case about which she plainly feels very strongly.” Again, Asperger’s trait, but one the judge has misinterpreted!

      “I have no doubts that E adores her son and her daughter, and that she has devoted much of her life to her children and, in particular, to getting the most that can be achieved for her son. Her devotion is not, however, selfless. On more than one occasion she said that this was case was about her and, although she was quick to retract that comment, when I pointed out that it was actually about M, there was no doubt that she felt she was the main focus of the inquiry. She was the centre of attention and, in my judgment, at times obviously enjoying the experience.” It WAS about her too – it was about removing her parental rights, her rights to continue caring for the son she raised for 24 years! “enjoying the experience?” that is a subjective and biased comment which has no place in court.

      “It was E’s case that she had suffered from a neurological condition – vestibular neuritis …In her oral evidence she had no difficulty apparently recalling detailed events from many years ago. I have already observed that she showed no difficulty in communicating. Mr Bagchi submits that her suggestion that she had a memory problem was just a crude cover story to avoid criticism for her secret recordings. I agree.” If she has Asperger’s then the judge has a lot to understand about ASC communication. Someone can be very high-functioning and verbally superior even, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have deficits in communication, problems with working memory, difficulty focusing during verbal communication etc.

      “E used a number of tactics to avoid answering questions and ensure that the interview was focused on materials she considered important, including talking a great deal and without allowing interruption, providing emotive impressions which lacked concrete detail, and jumping from one topic to another. Dr Beck reported that she felt on occasion as if E had embarked on a monologue and she found that she had to be very firm and to interrupt her, and when she did interrupt her, E sometimes apologised and at other times protested, but invariably continued talking about whatever she wanted to talk about, without apparently being influenced by Dr Beck’s interruption. Dr Beck had the impression that E was keen to control the interview and that, if she reflected on this with her, E’s apologies were not genuine and she did not generally change her behaviour as a result.” Yet again, hyperfocus is an Asperger’s trait, difficulty focusing during verbal communication is again, as is monologuing. The doctors opining on her presentation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

      “I can well understand why his family feel so strongly about him and want to do whatever they can to ensure that he gets the most out of life.” And yet you will allow psychiatrists who likely have no understanding of ASC to brand her as having personality disorders, and claim she is a risk to him because she doesn’t fit into the LA tick-box?

      “Dr Carpenter observed that most of the dietary and nutritional therapies given to M are ones that he has experienced with other patients over the years. He has not objected to them being used in most cases. He also observes that E appears to have normally sought professional help when using therapies; that she has not devised treatment protocols without advice.” Yet you still made it a problem…
      “Dr Carpenter also criticises E for failing to question the reason and purpose of any of the therapies or interventions used or seek unbiased evidence about their effectiveness.” Yet conversely, patients are not expected to question medical treatments, which many times turn out to have bad side-effects?

      “It is the quantity and intensity of the supplements given to M that causes concern for Dr Carpenter rather than any single supplement.” Really? So what if it was traditional medication that needed taking to the same degree? Double standards.

      “The concern about the insistence of the diet in this case was, therefore, not so much about the use of the diet per se, (which is plainly not uncommon amongst people with autism, notwithstanding the clear view expressed in the NICE guidelines), but, rather, the fabricated diagnosis which led to the diet being imposed.” Assumptions have led to the view that the diagnosis was fabricated. At worst, she could be considered highly tenacious and naïve to be led by some practitioners and at best, no different than many other autism mothers out there – do they all have FII?

      “Dr Carpenter notes, however, that most of the supplements appeared to have no known toxic overdose limit.” Yet still, because you decided she lied about his conditions, this is problematic.

      “By and large, it is the sheer range and number of the treatments and their indiscriminate use on an incapacitated person that gives rise to concern, rather than the risk of any harm befalling the individual.” So it’s now a crime to have someone take a bunch of vitamins every day?

      Regarding the claim of “neurodevelopmental dystautonomia” not being in any recognised diagnostic manual, have a look here at familial dysautonomia which is a neurodevelopmental condition – for microscopic semantics you have branded her a liar again:

      “M’s life was increasingly dominated by the programme of treatment to the exclusion of other activities”. Are you sure? How is then that you describe his home life thus in total contradiction of yourself:

      “I do not doubt the devotion which E and A feel for their son. In some ways his life at home was far richer than could possibly be achieved in any care setting. The range of activities arranged for him was plainly very stimulating and beneficial.” So clearly the LA didn’t want to enrich his life the way his parents did and this is where the disputes have arisen, which therefore makes it look rather correct that as E said, they wanted to decide what to fund, to have control over it all.

      “Without exception, I accept the evidence of the social workers and care staff. Where their evidence conflicts with that given by E, I prefer their evidence and reject that given by E, and indeed A.” A shocking indictment of the justice system, where professionals are believed just because of their position, and that they all misunderstood the mother and discriminated against her. The worst I can see she has done it possibly been slightly duped by the naturopath and got on her high horse a bit with some of the care home staff – unsurprising given her devotion to her son.

      “Mr McKinstrie identifies several advantages of a return home. First, M clearly has a longstanding affectionate relationship with his parents and sister and they continue to be important people in his life. Furthermore, each is committed to M and in supporting him in what they consider to be his best interests.” Yet still, you decided that purely on the basis of what are clearly Asperger’s traits in the mother, which means she thinks a bit differently and is hyperfocused on giving her son the best, because you nor the professionals understood this, you have branded her with at least two personality disorders she most likely does not have, and have decided that M must fit in with what the LA want and his own mother is a danger to him? The worst she could be accused of is being overzealous, but clearly has been well-meaning. This whole judgement is a farce and is a dark day for many out there, who have open-minds and don’t blindly consider what the establishment says to be always correct.

      • Chris November 4, 2014 at 16:22 #


        You were deemed as someone to ignore with your links to anti-science sites with idiotic claims about vaccines, like the one that listed the studies that were analyzed in this post:

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 4, 2014 at 19:52 #

        For the record, it isn’t the claims made that led to the end of the conversation. I’ve taken on those claims many times, and have spent likely more time that Planet Autism reading the source material on both sides of the discussion.

        Leaving a bunch of links is not discsussion. It’s just spam. There was no discussion, no “I think these are important and here’s why” or “I think these are nonsense and here’s why”. Just a bunch of links. When I responded and pointed out in reasonable and substantive detail why all those links were to bad arguments, planet autism just ignored the response. Again supporting the observation that this was just link spam.

        I reject the vaccines-caused-an-autism-epidemic notion precisely because I’ve studied the claims closely. I don’t just throw links around on other people’s blogs and then claim that the host of the blog–which hosts hundreds of articles of in depth analysis of the subject–is unwilling to discuss alternatives. Right.

      • Planet Autism Blog November 4, 2014 at 20:50 #

        Unsure if Chris or Sullivan are replying to my lengthy post above. If TLDR applies to my post in question, then to be able to respond to what I have said (as opposed to going off on tangents or insinuating you aren’t bothering to read it because I posted some links) you actually do need to read it. I believe a miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. I have made entirely worthy points. Sometimes lack of response is telling.

      • Chris November 4, 2014 at 23:26 #

        “For the record, it isn’t the claims made that led to the end of the conversation

        Well, it was for me. It is obvious this person has an agenda and is not one to engage in any kind of actual discussion. So will ignore.

  9. Planet Autism Blog November 5, 2014 at 11:49 #

    @Chris (and @Sullivan): ??

    So that is your response to the lengthy and detailed post I made, at November 3, 2014 at 00:12# ?

    Classic, you have in one short admission confirmed everything I was saying in earlier posts – that none of you condemning the mother have anything to say other than hating based only on your being anti the anti-vaccine believers, *not* on the case or any of the clear likely alternatives to the what the judge felt. You have confirmed everything I suspected about you.

    • Chris November 5, 2014 at 15:47 #

      Cry me a river. You mucked up any chance of being taken seriously when you spammed this thread with a bunch of anti-science links.

      • Planet Autism Blog November 5, 2014 at 16:25 #

        No crying required, I’m quite happy that what I suspected was proven correct. No matter how many times you say the word “spam” that still won’t ever make it correct here. As for “anti-science” bit of a strange term there. Before science could prove the world wasn’t flat no-one would have believed it (for a very obvious and cliched example – but then the level of thinking displayed by some on here seems to require it) so whether or not science has yet proven the link, is neither here nor there. Either way, there are only indications of possibilities, no hard proof for your views either. Majority still doesn’t make it so. Research is funded by those with vested interests for the most part. There have been some scientific studies that found correlation, but that isn’t the reason I was posting on here so I won’t discuss the vaccine issue further. The only reason I was posting is to show that the blinkered attitudes shown by many respondents on here are from people not capable of considering alternatives that may exist. At the outset, I hadn’t read the 92 page judgement, since then I did, and I responded. If you can’t handle replying to my points, then like I said, all you’ve done is proven my suspicions. Deny, deflect and diminish doesn’t get you very far. Over – and out.


  1. A Moral Duty to Vaccinate? | Wild Homestead - October 12, 2014

    […] can truly know the accuracy of those. I absolutely would not accuse them of trying to deceive, but it has been known to happen in extraordinary […]

  2. Brian Deer: Wakefield ‘MMR mother’ fabricated injury story | Dr Mitzi Waltz - October 20, 2014

    […] Brian Deer: Wakefield 'MMR mother' fabricated injury story. […]

  3. Courts of Protection, MSBP/FII and Autism | Planet Autism Blog - November 3, 2014

    […] […]

Leave a Reply to lilady Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: