Andrew Wakefield. He’s not anti-vaccine. He just thinks “This is a deliberate eugenics program, a deliberate population-control program.”

19 Aug

Remember the “ConspiraSea Cruise”? Well another story has come out on it, this time from Popular Mechanics: I Went on a Weeklong Cruise For Conspiracy Theorists. It Ended Poorly.

I feel bad for grabbing one line from the story, as the whole story is quite good. But for now, let’s just take a look at this one paragraph:

“Your bodies are owned by Big Pharma,” he said. “It’s turning into a science-fiction movie.” The audience gasped and shook their heads in disbelief. “This will be the end of the United States of America.” During the Q&A portion, Wakefield added, “This is a deliberate eugenics program, a deliberate population-control program.”

“This is a deliberate eugenics program, a deliberate population-control program.”

I’ve been told this was in response to a question about vaccines possibly being a part of a eugenics program.

This is the sort of statement Mr. Wakefield typically has avoided making public. It’s the sort of statement that plays well on the “ConspiraSea Cruise”, but in more reasoned company is clearly wrong and irresponsible. It’s the sort of statement that goes against the image of Wakefield as the “legitimate scientist who is wronged for ‘just asking questions'”.

I have no idea how Mr. Wakefield defines “anti-vaccine”. Readers here will recognize that I rarely use the term. So, let’s continue in that mode. Let’s not refer to him as “anti-vaccine”. He is strongly, and irresponsibly, and using misinformation, “anti-vaccine-program”. How can someone who believes that vaccines are “a deliberate eugenics program, a deliberate population-control program” be anything else?


By Matt Carey

85 Responses to “Andrew Wakefield. He’s not anti-vaccine. He just thinks “This is a deliberate eugenics program, a deliberate population-control program.””

  1. reissd August 19, 2016 at 18:06 #

    Vaccines. The worst eugenics program ever. As use increased, infant mortality dropped, child mortality dropped, and population and life expectancy grew. Certainly not only because of vaccines, but if vaccines were supposed to lead to eugenics someone failed miserably.

    • Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:17 #

      “All these diseases were already in decline before any of these vaccines were created.”

      Really? Oh, please do tell! The following is the US Census data on the number of measles cases during the 20th century. Please tell us when number of measles cases declined and never went up again before 1960… then tell us why the number of cases plummeted 90% between 1960 and 1970.

      Please don’t mention deaths, because mortality is not morbidity (and you claimed the diseases were declining!). Do not mention any other disease, nor any other country (England and Wales are not American states):

      Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
      1912 . . . 310.0
      1920 . . . 480.5
      1925 . . . 194.3
      1930 . . . 340.8
      1935 . . . 584.6
      1940 . . . 220.7
      1945 . . . 110.2
      1950 . . . 210.1
      1955 . . . 337.9
      1960 . . . 245.4
      1965 . . . 135.1
      1970 . . . . 23.2
      1975 . . . . 11.3
      1980 . . . . . 5.9
      1985 . . . . . 1.2
      1990 . . . . .11.2
      1991 . . . . . .3.8
      1992 . . . . . .0.9
      1993 . . . . . .0.1
      1994 . . . . . .0.4
      1995 . . . . . .0.1
      1996 . . . . . .0.2
      1997 . . . . . . 0.1

    • Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:18 #

      ” Vaccines don’t work and were never designed to do anything but destroy the slave class on all levels, in order to make them better slaves for the ruling elite.”

      Paranoid much?

      Do please answer my question about measles.

    • Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:22 #

      Yawn, it is the Pharm Shill Gambit. It is a lazy boring claim by those who have no actual evidence to support their claims, because they just repeat stuff without actually bothering to check them independently.

      Like the idiotic claim that diseases were in decline before the vaccines. This is quite common, but they proponents lie by posting graphs of mortality. The diseases did not go away, but medical care (very expensive medical care) improved and more people survived. Often with the help of artificial ventilation (starting with iron lungs).

    • Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:24 #

      By the way, John Reizer is a chiropractor. In other words: not a real medical doctor.

    • reissd August 22, 2016 at 02:11 #

      Sanitation does little or nothing against most of the disease see still vaccinate against. It doesn’t prevent airborne transmission, for example.

      The drop in measles and polio in the third world can’t be explained with sanitation or nutrition, either.

      There’s abundant evidence the large declined in the diseases we vaccinate against are from vaccines.

    • reissd August 22, 2016 at 03:02 #

      This graph looks at mortality. Mortality went down, though didn’t end, prevaccine. Cases did not.

    • reissd August 22, 2016 at 03:03 #

      Scarlet fever is a complication of strep A. Strep A is still around, but most of the time doctors can stop it from becoming scarlet fever with antibiotics, another important advance.

      The disease has not disappeared, though.

  2. reissd August 19, 2016 at 18:07 #

    I can’t help but read this not as Wakefield is anti-vaccine, but as Wakefield is willing to say whatever pleases the crowd, another example of his lack of ethics.

    • Nancy August 19, 2016 at 18:51 #

      You are absolutely right. Wakefield will say what is required at the time depending on the circumstances. While he and his supporters immediately following publication of The Lancet paper argued that neither he or the paper had said that the MMR caused autism he was, at one and the same time, contracted and paid to be one of the experts in the MMR litigation arguing causation between measles virus in the MR and MMR vaccines and ASD and IBD. How likely was it, that he would have been retained by lawyers and funded by the Legal Services Commission for the purposes of advancing the claimants cases if he had been going around saying that the MMR was not implicated in causing ASD or IBD?

      • Brian Deer August 19, 2016 at 20:19 #

        Slight correction. The idea that he was “paid to be one of the experts” in the litigation – which he would, and does, now say himself – implies that he was someone who gave professional opinions, or reviewed scientific literature and medical practice etc, for the court. That’s what experts do.

        What Wakefield was paid to do – via a lawyer and never disclosed until I disclosed it – was to construct, from scratch, the raw evidence itself. With others, he literally fabricated the evidence that MMR purportedly caused autism. As the legal board said later, this kind of publicly funded-for-litigation research had never happened before, and they accepted that they should not have done it.

        He, of course, simply lies about the whole thing.

  3. vaccinesworkblog August 19, 2016 at 21:50 #

    Well, you all are being so rational! I am not sure the Vaxxed teams speaks this language.

  4. reissd August 20, 2016 at 00:04 #

    “vaccines are not your friend” Well, I wasn’t planning to invite them to dinner any time soon. And I’m sure the conversation would be somewhat stilted if I did. But I do appreciate my children not getting polio, hib, diphtheria, tetanus, pneumococcal disease, and so forth, and I’m willing to put up with the day of fussiness after the shots.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 20, 2016 at 01:51 #

      Sorry Dorit,

      I deleted the comment you are responding to. I think that’s our recent troll.

      • reissd August 20, 2016 at 02:03 #

        In that case, deleting makes sense.

  5. Geoff Hamer August 20, 2016 at 00:39 #

    Wakefield is like the uncle who’s no longer invited to Christmas dinner for spouting stuff like;

    “I’m not anti-Semitic, but Jews run the world! “

  6. Chris August 20, 2016 at 04:43 #

    From the article: “We were now bobbing around on the waters of pure insanity.”

  7. Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:29 #

    “Are they still giving the hepatitis B vaccine to infants? Since this was published?”

    Because it was not a good paper:

    • Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:49 #

      No. Only the ones you post and that are really bad. That one was just very bad.

      Perhaps to prevent further embarrassment you should search this site and ScienceBasedMedicine before you post more of those studies, and then read what was said about them.

      So when did the number measles cases decline in the USA before the introduction of vaccines in 1963? Here is another list of cases from one of the appendices of the CDC Pink Book:

      Disease: Measles in the USA
      (^^ first vaccine licensed)
      (^^^ MMR licensed)
      (^^^ Measles Elimination Program started)
      1989___18,193 (this is what happens when
      1990___27,786 measles vaccine coverage
      1991____9,643 is reduced)
      1993______312 (vaccine coverage returns)

    • Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:52 #

      “It’s clear to me from watching C-SPAN that there have been no valid controlled studies of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated population in the USA with the totally unvaccinated as the control group.”

      So go do it! Design a study, make sure it complies with the Belmont Report, get approved by an Independent Review Board, then write a grant to get it funded and send it to Autism Speaks, Generation Rescue, SafeMinds and the Dwoskin Family Foundation. Then get it done!

      Seriously if you want something to get done, you should do it yourself. Sheesh!

  8. Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:53 #

    Is the OPV vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule?

    • reissd August 21, 2016 at 02:49 #

      Anyone seeking to reduce the population could just not try to prevent disease.

      To remind you, population is growing, in spite of widespread use of OPV.

  9. Chris August 20, 2016 at 23:56 #

    Pro-tip: one off case reports and a newspaper article are not considered good studies.

    So, can you tell me why measles cases in the USA plummeted 90% between 1960 and 1970?

    • Chris August 21, 2016 at 00:03 #

      Why did the number of measles cases in the USA drop 90% between 1960 and 1970?

      We are not discussing deaths nor improved expensive medical treatment.

      “What year did they discover that Vitamin A helped to prevent complications from measles such as blindness, pneumonia, or death?”

      Except it does not prevent measles. Answer the question.

  10. Chris August 21, 2016 at 00:00 #

    Pro-tip: one off case reports and a newspaper article are not considered good studies.

    I guess you don’t mind making a fool of yourself. The astroturf is just idiotic.

    Now, again, why did the number of measles cases in the USA drop 90% between 1960 and 1970?

  11. reissd August 21, 2016 at 00:06 #

    Actually, you are confusing your articles. The acellular pertussis vaccine does wear off quicker than we would like, but it’s still more protection than the zero protection of not vaccinating, which is why those who are unvaccinated have higher rates of disease.

    But the other comment is drawing on a baboon study – not a human study – that showed that the in baboons, the acellular vaccine did not prevent transmission to close contacts, but the whole cell did.

    Here is an analysis:

    And of course, neither point has anything to do with the article in question, as do most of your comments.

  12. reissd August 21, 2016 at 00:08 #

    No, herd immunity from vaccines is real. And this, too, has nothing to do with this article.

    Studies showing herd immunity from vaccines works:

    You provide two studies from the times before two doses of MMR were used. The conclusions of those was that for measles, two doses of MMR are needed to achieve herd immunity – because it’s so contagious. Note your inability to provide any studies from the days after the move to two doses.

    Misusing studies is not a good way to support a claim. I urge readers to consider this when looking at the rest of the commentator’s claims – none of which have anything to do with this article.

    • Gwendolyn Dennis August 21, 2016 at 00:21 #

      At this point, I simply believe you to be another astroturfer. Have a great day marketing vaccines.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 21, 2016 at 02:57 #

        “At this point, I simply believe you to be another astroturfer”

        At this point, I know you to be someone who just repeats nonsense she reads on the internet without bothering to understand it.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 21, 2016 at 03:01 #

        Interesting how so many people got riled up about this statement by Wakefield. But don’t even comment on it.

        Either you all (a) agree with it and don’t have the guts to say so or (b) you disagree and don’t have the guts to say so.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 21, 2016 at 03:07 #

        Seriously, 63 comments so far. Many more in the trash. And none of the Wakefield supporters have had the guts to address what he said.

        Just attempt after attempt to take over the conversation.

        Any of you have a backbone?

    • reissd August 21, 2016 at 00:24 #

      More than 99% were vaccinated with one dose. The conclusion was that one dose of MMR is not enough for herd immunity from measles, our most contagious disease. Not that herd immunity doesn’t work. Again, you are misusing these studies. They don’t support your claim that herd immunity doesn’t work.

  13. reissd August 21, 2016 at 00:25 #

    “At this point, I simply believe you to be another astroturfer. Have a great day marketing vaccines.”

    A. This is not a good substitute to having an answer on the substance.
    B. Your comments are still not related to the article.

    • Sandra Dee August 21, 2016 at 01:06 #

      Merck is in court for inflating vaccine efficacy data!

      They were called out by their’ own virologists.

      Looks like even the “high efficacy vaccines” are not very efficacious at all. The flu vaccine is only about 20-50% effective defending on what study you look at.

      800μg of Al just for a 30% reduction in flu?

      Ummmm……..No fkin way

    • reissd August 21, 2016 at 01:10 #

      “Merck is in court for inflating vaccine efficacy data!”

      Anyone can sue for anything – and fact-finding is ongoing on that. Assuming the result is a problem.

      The flu vaccine was never considered a high efficacy vaccines. Our measles, rubella, polio, hib, diphtheria, tetanus, etc’ are high efficacy vaccines. Thanks to vaccines, they are under control, though measles – the most contagious – is brought back by non-vaccinating.

  14. Gwendolyn Dennis August 21, 2016 at 00:26 #

    At least half the population, that is the generation x and baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of the diseases for which they had been vaccinated for very early in life. At least 50 percent of the population has been unprotected for decades. Let me repeat: we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50 percent or less of the population having vaccine protection. Herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades, and no resurgent epidemics have occurred.

    • reissd August 21, 2016 at 00:39 #

      The mistaken assumption behind this claim is that vaccines’ immunity wanes quickly. That’s true for a few of our vaccines, but not for others. Even ignoring the fact that most of our population had, for example, natural chicken pox and we have quite a few people still with natural immunity to measles or mumps, it’s just not true. Many vaccines do, in fact, provide longterm, probably life-long immunity. That’s true, for example, for polio, the measles and rubella components of MMR (and mumps in less people). See:

      For more discussion.

    • SoCalGal August 21, 2016 at 00:46 #

      Let this sink in Mrs. Dorit: Despite high levels of vaccination coverage, pertussis circulation cannot be controlled at all. The results question the efficacy of the present immunization programmes.

      Gwendolyn has done a good job in showing that vaccines are ineffective and that herd immunity is a flawed concept, mainly because vaccines do not confer adequate immunity.

      Now that everyone can agree that vaccines are pointless, let us examine how dangerous they are as well.

      They are worse than worthless Mrs. Dorit.

      The original data from the Verstraeten Study shows very high relative risks for autism and thimerosal dose:

      This shows the pharmacokinetics of Aluminun adjuvants into the brain:

      As does this one:

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 21, 2016 at 02:40 #

        “Gwendolyn has done a good job in showing that vaccines are ineffective and that herd immunity is a flawed concept, ”

        Wow. You deny herd immunity too?

        I know you have an explanation for why measles didn’t spread after the Disneyland outbreak. What is it?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 21, 2016 at 02:49 #


        the topic above is Wakefield’s statement that vaccines are a deliberate eugenics program, a deliberate population control program.

        The fact that you let such an egregious statement stand suggests strongly that you agree with it.

        Do you have the guts to distance yourself from this statement? Or are you equally wrong headed?

        That will be your next approved response.

    • brian August 21, 2016 at 00:51 #

      Could you please cite the numerous articles that must have been required to support your bold assertion that “at least half the population . . . had no vaccine-induced immunity for any of the diseases for which they had been vaccinated.” I suppose that you must have articles that support the profound failure of each and every vaccine.

      Thanks. I’m interested because I’ve read the medical literature almost daily for four decades and I’m completely unaware of any credible data that supports your assertion; you’ll be doing me a favor by pointing me towards the mountain of evidence, vert closely related to my field, that I’ve apparently missed.

    • reissd August 21, 2016 at 00:57 #

      The pertussis vaccine is one of our less effective – and still, the unvaccinated are 23 times at risk of getting the disease compared to the vaccinated, and areas with low rates more vulnerable to outbreaks.
      Jason M. Glanz, et al., Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children, 123 PEDIATRICS (2009).

      Saad B. Omer, et al., Geographic Clustering of Nonmedical Exemptions to School Immunization Requirements and Associations With Geographic Clustering of Pertussis, 168 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 1389(2008).

      Varun K. Phadke, et al., Association Between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States
      A Review of Measles and Pertussis, 315 JAMA 1149(2016).

      In other words, even that vaccine works, though less well than we would like, and the rest even more so.

      As to the alleged data about safety, you provide one link to preliminary data on thimerosal – something studied all over the world since, and found not an issue. it’s not 1999 anymore.

      Then you provide, starting from the bottom, a study in rabbits that did not find problems with aluminum adjuvants; apparently put online illegally, by the way, in violation of copyrights. And a mouse study drawing on the theory of ASIA, which is not accepted in the scientific community because it’s undefined – anything can be captured – and the data doesn’t support it:

      That’s not evidence of safety problems with vaccines.

    • Lawrence August 21, 2016 at 01:02 #

      Completely untrue…..unless you care to provide actual citations.

  15. brian August 21, 2016 at 00:31 #

    1. The pertussis problem seems not to be due to mutation and the appearance of pertactin-negative strains (since the available vaccine protects against both pertactin-positive and -negative strains); instead, the resurgence of pertussis is likely related to the replacement of an effective (whole cell) vaccine with a less robust and long-lasting (acellular) vaccine largely due to the fears of anti-vaccine activists. (It turned out that the cases of “vaccine encephalopathy” allegedly caused by the earlier vaccine–which fortified the anti-vaccine movement and lead to the founding of organizations such as the egregiously misnamed National Vaccine Information Center–was clearly caused by pre-existing mutations rather than by vaccination, as anyone who can understand the medical literature can readily apprehend.)

    2. Measles was indeed declared to have been eliminated in North America only a few years ago. However, it’s clear that the ease of international travel facilitates transmission of viruses, as the Disneyland measles outbreak suggests–and, as that outbreak also shows, the only thing between us and a widespread outbreak following the introduction of a jet-setting pathogen is the herd immunity provided by high vaccination uptake. This is a powerful argument in favor of maintaining high vaccination uptake. In fact, a sustained ca. two percent drop in MMR uptake would ensure that the US would fall below the required herd immunity level and lead to widespread outbreaks with much more serious effects than were common only a few decades ago. The unvaccinated precious snowflakes in the Waldorf school near my home rely on their neighbors accepting their vaccines–which is why “Doctor Bob” Sears advised that people like you not post anti-vaccine information which will inevitably leave precious snowflakes at increased risk of disease.

    3. I believe that that the case that you cited is the only known case of transmission of vaccine-strain measles virus. You seem to be conflating shedding of mumps virus with measles measles virus–and you have ignored that vaccinated individuals who become infected with mumps shed less virus than do unvaccinated patients.

    • Sandra Dee August 21, 2016 at 01:10 #

      Sears advised that people like you not post anti-vaccine information which will inevitably leave precious snowflakes at increased risk of disease.

      As will vaccination invariable will leave them with an increased risk of Gullaine-Barre, SIDS, and Autism.

    • reissd August 21, 2016 at 01:18 #

      Vaccines do not cause autism or SIDS, and reduce the risk of GBS, which is usually caused by viral infection.

    • brian August 21, 2016 at 01:40 #

      Hey, Sandra, since SIDS deaths are by definition not attributable to any cause, can you explain why you seem convinced that SIDS deaths are caused by vaccines? Citations to the peer-reviewed literature will be appreciated. Ditto for ASD. Thanks.

  16. Sandra Dee August 21, 2016 at 01:02 #

    The studies show how aluminum is transferred into the brain by macrophages.

    Did you not see that?

    Are you going to pretend that it doesn’t distribute into vital organs?

    • brian August 21, 2016 at 01:44 #

      I must have missed where you addressed the 16th century statement from Paracelsus that “the dose makes the poison.” I tried to keep that in mind when I led or participated in numerous animal and human toxicology studies over the years. You?

      • Gwendolyn Dennis August 21, 2016 at 01:54 #

        Some medical doctors know what is actually going on in regards to vaccines. From the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. “Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe”.
        “Although health authorities including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claim that childhood vaccines are safe and recommend combining multiple vaccines during one visit, a review of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows a dose-dependent association between the number of vaccines administered simultaneously and the likelihood of hospitalization or death for an adverse reaction. Additionally, younger age at the time of the adverse reaction is associated with a higher risk of hospitalization or death.

        These findings are so troubling that we expected major media outlets in America to sound an alarm, calling for an immediate reevaluation of current preventive health care practices. But 4 years after publication of our study, this has not happened. Could it be because, according to Robert Kennedy, Jr., about 70% of advertising revenue on network news comes from drug companies? In fact, the president of a network news division admitted that he would fire a host who brought on a guest that led to loss of a pharmaceutical account. That may be why the mainstream media won’t give equal time to stories about problems with vaccine safety.

        Conclusion: The safety of CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule was never affirmed in clinical studies. Vaccines are administered to millions of infants every year, yet health authorities have no scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants are likely to receive. National vaccination campaigns must be supported by scientific evidence. No child should be subjected to a health policy that is not based on sound scientific principles and, in fact, has been shown to be potentially dangerous.” Read.
        “Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe”.

        Click to access miller.pdf

      • reissd August 21, 2016 at 02:02 #

        Miller isn’t a medical doctor. His paper treated raw reports as valid, which makes it worthless.

        To remind you, before licensing a vaccine, manufacturers have to do concomitant study showing its safe with the schedule.

        And there are many studies of combinations.

        This bad paper doesn’t change the data. Our schedule, as the institute of medicine found recently, is safe.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 21, 2016 at 02:15 #

        Gwendolyn Dennis,

        Join the discussion. That means comment on what the article is about or what the discussion is about. If you want to come here and just spam unrelated comments (as you have just done), you will be asked to leave.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 21, 2016 at 02:25 #

        Gwendolyn Dennis,


      • reissd August 21, 2016 at 01:54 #

        Rotavirus vaccines carry a rare risk of intussusception, about 1.5:100,000. The risks of rotavirus infection, however, are higher, and include intussusception.

        Now, what does this have to do with the article?

        I hope our host will remove all off-topic comments. It’s troubling that commentators don’t even seem to know what the article is about.

      • Pickles McFigglesworth August 21, 2016 at 02:43 #

        The dose makes the poison only for water soluble non-accumulative chemicals. Thinks like fat soluble toxins and heavy metals can add up, making it idifficult to establish dosage guidelines.

  17. brian August 21, 2016 at 01:15 #

    Thanks for the link.

    Did you note the difference in protective antibody titers between those who received the currently recommended two doses of MMR and those who receive only a single dose? Do you note that infection was unsurprisingly more common among those who had received a single dose, which is about 93% protective, than among those who had received the second dose, which is about 97% protective? Did you understand why a second dose is recommended? Did you note that none of the students who mounted an antibody response became infected?

  18. Leicester Robbins August 21, 2016 at 01:55 #

    There has been cases of mumps outbreaks among vaccinated populations as well.

    Mumps vaccines are about as effective at preventing mumps as a hammer is at preventing broken fingers.

    • reissd August 21, 2016 at 02:03 #

      Before the vaccine there were 200,000 cases of mumps a year, now there are a few thousands.

      The mumps vaccine isn’t as effective as the measles. It’s still reasonably effective.

  19. reissd August 21, 2016 at 02:05 #

    This sounds like an attempt to get around the fact that there is no evidence that the tiny amounts of vaccine ingredients are harmful, in fact, the evidence is that vaccines are safe.

    This theory doesn’t work without data and against the data, either.

    • brian August 21, 2016 at 07:27 #

      Could you please cite the studies that show that “trace amounts of thimerosal . . . in vaccines” are harmful to humans? Thanks.

    • Troels August 21, 2016 at 11:58 #

      Pickles McFiggleswοrth, said:

      Could you please cite what is meant by “trace amounts”?

      It was you who used the term “trace amounts”, brian just repeated it. How about you tell what you meant by it.

    • brian August 21, 2016 at 15:02 #

      Pickles McFiggleswοrth introduced the term “trace amounts” into this discussion by claiming:

      There is plenty of evidence against trace amounts of thimerosal and . . . in vaccines.

      FDA uses “trace amounts” to denote the extremely low concentrations of thimerosal, detectable by sensitive instrumentation, that remain after it is used in intermediary steps in vaccine manufacture, in contrast to the much higher concentrations of thimerosal that were added as a preservative to the final preparation. I asked Pickles to cite “plenty of evidence” that exposure to trace amounts of thimerosal (in FDA’s example, <0.03 microgram Hg/0.5 mL dose of Tripedia) in pediatric vaccines cause harm in humans.

      However, this is quite far off the topic of this post, which is that Andrew Wakefield is a lying weasel.

  20. reissd August 21, 2016 at 02:10 #

    That’s misunderstanding of shedding, at least if you mean shedding the disease to others. Having tiny amounts of RNA excreted doesn’t mean you’ll infect others, and your study shows no infection.

    We do have a few cases of shedding of rotavirus to siblings or parents. It’s very rare and requires contact with poop.

  21. reissd August 21, 2016 at 02:16 #

    A. Notice that this is an immunecompromised child, who should not be getting varicella vaccine at all.

    B. If the weakened vaccine virus does it to this child, what do you think the wild virus would do? This child needs those around vaccinated, depends on herd immunity.

    C. The meningitis vaccine is something else.

    Dear readers, once again the commentator misuses an article. The most generous interpretation is that she doesn’t understand the articles, just looks for something that sounds vaguely like a problem with a vaccine. This makes her as bad a source on vaccines as if she were intentionally misrepresenting, which is the other option.

  22. Pickles McFigglesworth August 21, 2016 at 02:29 #


    Probably. Why else would they use mercury and aluminum? There are safer adjuvants and safer preservatives.

    • reissd August 21, 2016 at 02:47 #

      Please name them. Add evidence that they are, in fact, safer than the tiny amounts of aluminum salts as adjuvants.

      And note you still haven’t shown the current adjuvants or preservatives are unsafe in the amounts in vaccines.

      • reissd August 21, 2016 at 04:40 #

        So no supporting data?

      • reissd August 21, 2016 at 04:45 #

        I think you do need to support your claims, yes.

      • brian August 21, 2016 at 05:42 #

        Pickles McFigglesworth wrote: “A safer and more effective vaccine than thimerosal is phenoxyalcohol.”

        Nice. As Pickles must know, neither is a vaccine.

        Pickles also suggested that mercury-containing thimerosal and aluminum were used in vaccines for eugenic purposes, rather than because, say, honest people wanted to preserve vaccines and enhance their efficacy.


        Of course, “Pickles” only appeared here in response to a post that showed, yet again, that Andrew Wakefield is a lying weasel. That says a lot.

      • Narad August 22, 2016 at 19:46 #

        Pickles McFigglesworth wrote: “A safer and more effective vaccine than thimerosal is phenoxyalcohol.”

        Given the disjointedness of the comments, I take it that the obvious Fendlesworth tipoff has been noted.

    • Chris August 21, 2016 at 05:06 #

      And not relevant to the above article, or to the vaccine Wakefield falsely vilified: MMR (which contains neither).

      • Chris August 21, 2016 at 05:51 #

        No, Wakefield is definitely a fraud who was paid to vilify some MMR vaccine (which one was never determined, the UK introduced three in 1988). Apparently the legal defense funds were for those families affected by the ascepitc meningitis from the Urabe mumps component in two of those MMR vaccines (which the UK removed in 1992). But Wakefield went off on his own for some reason (money) and decided to look for something something with measles.

        And there has never been adjuvants nor thimerosal in any version of the MMR vaccine in the USA.

        It is amazing how Wakefield calls vaccines a eugenics program when one component of the MMR vaccine, rubella, killed lots of babies and is a known cause autism.

      • Chris August 21, 2016 at 06:04 #

        Only because you are a Wakers Fanboi I will clarify:
        “rubella, killed lots of babies and is a known cause autism.”

        This refers to the full wild rubella disease, which causes a great deal of harm to unborn babies when their mothers are infected.

      • Chris August 21, 2016 at 07:11 #

        “So Chris, I have seen tens of thousands of posts by you over the last 6 years or so. Do you get paid to do this?”


        And Wakefield is still a fraud, and no MMR used in the USA and that UK have contained thimerosal nor aluminum adjuvants.

    • Chris August 22, 2016 at 00:18 #

      Impersonation by sock puppet troll.

  23. Wendy Stephen August 21, 2016 at 11:06 #


    The UK MMR litigation was set up to investigate all claims (irrespective of condition) following administration of either an MR or MMR vaccine. It was on that basis that Legal Aid was awarded to the claimants. It was not specific to any particular situation ie the claims alleging aseptic meningitis or in respect of any particular brand of vaccine. Only with the passage of time did it become clear that despite what had been intended, only claims arguing a correlation between measles virus in the vaccines (irrespective of brand) and the conditions ASD and IBD were being legally worked up and progressed through the courts. I myself initially thought that my daughter’s case (not an ASD or IBD claim) was being progressed alongside the others only to later find out, it was in abeyance alongside ten other types of claims which did not allege ASD or IBD.

    The sting in the tail came when having believed that the ” other conditions” were in a queue and our time would come after the ASD and IBD claims were dealt with, we lost our legal aid when those claims failed to secure further legal aid, on account of the fact our lawyers admitted that they could not make a case for them.

    • Chris August 21, 2016 at 22:41 #

      I was thinking of you when I mentioned it.

      • Chris August 22, 2016 at 03:13 #

        Perhaps you should bring in a dictionary, and then attempt to learn the difference between the words “morbidity” and “mortality.” At least that would keep you from creating more infantile sock puppets.

  24. reissd August 22, 2016 at 17:50 #

    Wakefield may have a theoretical point. I agree that big pharma needs close supervision and its claims need to be examined by external studies. But in the specific case, he has none, and in fact, his claims have been shown, again and again, incorrect – in ways that suggest knowing misrepresentation.

  25. Wendy Stephen August 25, 2016 at 23:16 #

    I have now seen Vaxxed and I cannot believe how the historical facts pertaining to the problematic Urabe mumps strain are being manipulated to suggest relevance to the CDC whistleblower story. Noticeably what’s missing as Wakefield refers to the “meningitis” detected following administration of Urabe containing vaccines is that it was laboratory confirmed mumps meningitis, with the Urabe strain isolated in the CSF of recipient children, both in Canada and the UK, which resulted in the brands being withdrawn from use.

    Dourado et al, in their paper “Outbreak of Aseptic Meningitis Associated with Mass Vaccination with a Urabe – containing Measles -Mumps -Rubella vaccine” 2000, in the absence of “virologic confirmation” stated that their results suggested a “causal link between the MMR mass immunisation campaign and the aseptic meningitis outbreak”.

    Only the Urabe containing Pluserix MMR was used in the campaign and the paper concluded that it was ” reasonable to regard the Urabe mumps strain as the main risk factor associated with the aseptic meningitis outbreak following the mass immunization campaign in Salvador”

    In Vaxxed, Andrew Wakefield, relying on the paper by Dourado et al, advises that “the younger you got the MMR vaccine, the greater the risk of meningitis”

    Given that Dourado et al only included data following administration of Pluserix MMR and were satisfied that cases of mumps meningitis were of the Urabe strain and induced by the vaccine, it follows that an interpretation of their findings can only be in respect of Pluserix brand and not visited on “the” MMR vaccine in general.

    There were a number of brands of MMR, differing in not only components, but also in excipients and dosages, making them entirely different products.Some, including MMR II, which was the only brand used in the US, didn’t even have the Urabe strain in them.

    What the Brazilian experience identified was that the younger a child got the Pluserix MMR, the greater the risk of them contracting Urabe strain mumps meningitis.

    How can any aspect of that be visited on “the” MMR vaccine?

    • Chris August 27, 2016 at 20:10 #

      “How can any aspect of that be visited on “the” MMR vaccine?”

      It is one reason why I ask Wakefield fanbois and fangrrls about which MMR the 1998 Lancet was about. I often get nothing in response, but I keep imagining that they are looking confused.

      • Wendy Stephen August 28, 2016 at 10:13 #

        Chris, maybe this will help. As you probably know, the Lancet children were anonymised in the publication but at the time of the GMC hearings into the conduct of the three doctors, a number of parents of the Lancet children published letters of support for the doctors identifying themselves by name and the fact that they were the parent of specific numbered children within the group. For example, Rosemary Kessick identified herself as the mother of child 2 and Isabella Thomas as the mother of two children ( child 6 and 7). An internet search for articles involving these two parents uncovers a number stories where Ms Kessick is said to be suing Smithkline Beecham and Ms Thomas, Merck, on behalf of their children.

        That suggests, that within the Lancet group, at least two of the three MMR brands used in the UK, were involved.

      • Chris August 28, 2016 at 19:34 #

        Plus there was an American child with the Merck MMR II … Yes, I know this. I ask this of the Wakers fans to see if they can answer it. They cannot, nor can they fathom why it is relevant.

        They are so wrapped up in Wakefield’s rhetoric that they never bother to ask basic questions. Even though the Urabe mumps issue was not a secret:

      • Chris August 28, 2016 at 19:35 #

        Note: the underlined letters are link to an archived press statement.


  1. The Woo Boat, part 3: Andrew Wakefield goes full Mike Adams antivax – Respectful Insolence - August 23, 2016

    […] of statements are the purview of Mike Adams or Gary Null, not (until now) Andrew Wakefield. As Matt Carey notes, these sorts of claims might play well on a conspiracy cruise with an audience full of believers in […]

Leave a 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: