Dr Andrew Wakefield
We are told that to question vaccines makes you a baby killer. Quite often this baseless alarmism pumped out by the MSM is littered with disinformation. For example in the recent Mirror article published by the anonymous FleetStreetFox (Susie Boniface) she, or her editors, provided us with this distressing image.
baby with measles
The article calls for any who refuse to vaccinate their child to be imprisoned for 'child abuse' and decries 'the spread of anti-vax propaganda.' Which is ironic because the headline image, chosen to drive this critical message into your consciousness, is pure propaganda of the very silliest and sickest kind.

baby photoshopped

If you question which way the photo-shopping went consider if it is likely a medical professional would handle an infectious baby without gloves.

Elsewhere we read about the 'disgraced' Dr Andrew Wakefield who made 'bogus claims' about the measles vaccine in 1995. Other than the fact that FleetStreetFox has got both the year and the type of vaccine wrong, she is right about the disgraced part. Though, given her inability to report even basic facts accurately, and her apparent reliance upon photo-shopped images to support her serious analysis, we might question the veracity of some other statements in her diatribe.

I've explored some of the evidence which does raise questions about both the efficacy and safety of some vaccines. As a person who is not medically qualified I am certainly not advising anyone to avoid vaccination. Presumably 'FleetStreetFox' isn't a doctor either, yet she is seemingly content to dish out medical advice.

Everyone deserves an opportunity to be informed. So we will look at the evisceration of Dr Wakefield, not particularly for the evidence he highlighted, which has been more thoroughly explored by others, but because it reveals the reason why the vaccine debate has become little more than an adversarial 'slanging match.'

Whenever you mention any concerns about possible vaccine safety the Wakefield case is immediately thrown in your face as 'proof' that such apprehensions are baseless. For millions, the story of Dr Wakefield is about as far as their knowledge goes on vaccines. This is understandable as it is constantly reinforced by the mainstream media (MSM.) For most people it is the episode which defines the stupidity of the 'anti-vaxxers.'

I recommend that everyone looks at his case in detail. Because, if you do, Wakefield's professional assassination actually demonstrates one of the main reasons why we should perhaps be more sceptical about vaccines.

eradication of measles

The eradication of measles due to vaccines is a common claim. However, that is not what the data necessarily demonstrates.
We are currently in a situation where the state is rapidly moving towards compulsory vaccination virtually unchallenged. It enjoys the overwhelming support of the population it intends to forcibly inject, because they think the Wakefield debacle tells them everything they need to know about the 'anti-vaxxers' who are imploring them to wake up. The science is beyond question. All vaccines are all equally brilliant and anyone who questions the certain science is an idiot. Pointing out that certainty is the antithesis of the scientific method just shows what a dingbat 'anti-vaxxer' you are. Consequently, the projected corporate profit growth is mind bending.

Understanding how Dr Wakefield was publicly humiliated and destroyed should raise significant questions for any capable of critical thought. In 1998 Dr Andrew Wakefield, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, was one of three leaders of a case series study which was published in the British medical journal the Lancet. Case series studies are called for when it is suspected a group of patients had a near uniform but unexpected response to treatment. They are a specific type of study and do not require control groups nor a double blind approach to research, prior to publication.

In this case series the question was why, following an MMR vaccination, did these children all show symptoms of severe gastrointestinal problems and thereafter developmental delays. The study indicated that the children had severe digestive system damage and possible mitochondrial dysfunction.

Of the twelve children studied, all of whom had been diagnosed with either Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD,) encephalitis or full Autism, eight first exhibited bowel symptoms within two weeks of receiving the MMR vaccine, with three showing an almost instant reaction. Of the other four, three developed symptoms within two months. All had demonstrated normal development prior to receiving the vaccine. Two of the children experienced other medical problems, causing some developmental delays, which were corrected before both resumed normal development, prior to vaccination.

1867 Vaccination Act

The ‘anti-vaxxer’ is nothing knew. Following the 1867 Vaccination Act the people of Leicester rioted after the smallpox death rate went up following compulsory vaccination.
Dr Wakefield's and his team were looking specifically at the children's gastrointestinal symptoms. They found what they suspected was a previously unknown disorder which they hypothesised, could be linked to ASD and Autism. Given the reason for the case series study, it would have been nonsensical for Dr Wakefield to have reported the results without mentioning the MMR vaccine. Some of the children's parents were angered when Dr Wakefield concluded there was no proof of a link and further investigation was required. He stated:
"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue."
Dr Wakefield did not claim that ASD, encephalitis or Autism were caused by the MMR vaccine. Quite the opposite, he stated the study did not prove any link. However, as part of his previous research, Dr Wakefield made a detailed review of the MMR safety studies. He concluded they were inadequate, especially in comparison to the safety studies carried out for the individual measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. Therefore, in light of both the Lancet case series study and his separate review of the medical literature, Dr Wakefield stated the following:
"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."
Something rarely mentioned, and certainly never by the MSM, about Dr Wakefield's findings in relation to his separate review of the MMR vaccine safety studies is that they were fully corroborated by the leading systemic scientific review journal the Cochrane Review who stated:
"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre‐ and post‐marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."
When Dr Wakefield released the Lancet study, in February 1998, parents could choose to opt for the individual or 'monovalent' vaccines in preference of the combined MMR. This had become an increasingly popular choice since 1992 when the previous MMR vaccine Pluserix was withdrawn after it was found it could cause aseptic meningitis. In 1998 Dr Wakefield recommended only that parents continued to be offered the choice. He had made this abundantly clear to the then UK Health Minister, Tessa Jowell and the UK Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, in a private meeting in October 1997.

Never, at any stage, did he recommend parents avoid vaccinating their child. Many took his suggested preferable alternative of the monovalent vaccine and their children were vaccinated, as normal, just not with the MMR.

It therefore seemed odd to many why, in September 1998, as MSM driven fears rose, the UK Government decided to withhold the import license for the monovalent vaccines. MMR vaccine rates were already in decline prior to the release of Dr Wakefield's findings but overall coverage remained quite high, as parents opted for the single vaccines. However, when the UK State withheld the monovalent licenses, denying parental choice, not only did MMR uptake decrease more sharply it ended any possibility of children receiving the alternative.

SmithKline Beecham's (SKB) new MMR vaccine Priorix coincidentally came on to the market in 1998. SKB became GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) two years later.

MMR vaccine Priorix
Consequently overall infant measles vaccination rates dropped from nearly 92% in 1996/7 to its lowest level of 79% in 2003/4. If the UK state had any concern at all for the welfare of British children they would not have withdrawn the monovalent licenses. Their decision was obviously not based upon any consideration for child infection rates. The sharp decrease in overall measles protection for British children started only after the government decided not to offer the monovalent option. Many parents were never going to opt for the MMR, because the Urabe strain variant had already been proven to give children brain damage, but they were content to use the monovalent, seemingly safer alternatives.

Wakefield was simply the patsy, blamed for the decline, while the population were forcibly transitioned onto accepting the new MMR vaccine. The fact that he never, at any stage, said there was a proven link between MMR and Autism was ignored completely.

The obliteration of Dr Andrew Wakefield's reputation and career is an object lesson in how this feudalistic system actually works. Almost immediately the MSM started making false statements. 'Fake news' in other words. In February 1998 the BBC made the following claim "Child Vaccine Linked To Autism" The Independent wrote " Doctors Link Autism To MMR Vaccination." Virtually the entire MSM wrote and broadcast similar headlines, declaring a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. A link which Dr Wakefield specifically stated was unproven.

He acted with honesty and integrity throughout. His destruction largely, but certainly not exclusively, came from the 'award winning' investigative journalism of Brian Deer. Deer apparently used the private investigative firm Medico Legal Investigations to uncover the 'evidence' to expose Dr Wakefield. Medico Legal Investigations are almost exclusively funded by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). ABPI is an immensely wealthy lobby group for Big Pharma.

Deer has strenuously denied this but there seems little doubt. In their own publication MLI stated:
"The extraordinary tale of the problems found in the paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield (as published in the Lancet) concerning MMR and autism were shared with MLI in strict confidence whilst Brian Deer's fine piece of investigative journalism was underway. We were asked to advise on matters that were clearly quite alarming."
Brian Deer

Brian Deer – Award winning investigative journalist.
Deer worked for Rupert Murdoch's News International empire. His 'freelance' work has allowed some to claim he was not associated with News International. So presumably he wasn't paid for his work which was almost exclusively published by the Sunday Times managed by James Murdoch. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in vaccine development. They run the Murdoch Children's Research Institute which receives considerable funding from GSK, of which they are major shareholders.

In 2009 James Murdoch became a non-executive director on the Board of GSK who manufactured and profited from the Priorix MMR vaccine. Deer not only 'uncovered' the evidence to destroy Wakefield, he brought the case against him to the General Medical Council and then reported his interpretation of those proceeding to the British public and the rest of the world. This clear conflict of interest in Deer's so called 'journalism' was never questioned throughout his long running, single minded destruction of Dr Wakefield.

I reference the Andrew Wakefield Wikipedia page here because it more or less describes the narrative we have all been told to unquestioningly accept. It reads as follows:
"He [Dr Wakefield] was a gastroenterologist until he was struck off the UK medical register for unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty for authoring a fraudulent research paper that claimed a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism and bowel disease."
So firstly we note the lie that Dr Wakefield claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. He did no such thing. He merely recommended further research and the continued use of the monovalent vaccine, in the meantime, while further study could be undertaken into the possible MMR risks. Which wouldn't have been the first time such risks had emerged.

It is true that he was struck off for unethical behaviour in 2010 by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC.) Claims that he was unfit to practice all originated from Brian Deer, who, at the time, was working for the GSK's board member who had the specific remit for 'corporate responsibility.'

The allegation of unethical behaviour, which Deer 'uncovered' and reported to the GMC, alleged that Wakefield didn't disclose the fact that he had been paid by the legal team representing some of the children's families in a group action law suit against the vaccine manufacturer. Specifically Deer alleged that this undermined the Lancet study, because it was a clear conflict of interest which Wakefield didn't disclose to the Lancet before they published. This was all absurd tripe that Deer seemingly 'made up' while he fastidiously didn't disclose his own enormous conflict of interest.

da troof

Da troof!
The slight problem with Deer's fantasy was that he appeared to be conflating two distinctly separate studies. In 1996 Wakefield met with and agreed to be an expert witness for a class action lawsuit brought by some of the parents legal team. We might indeed question if medical experts should be paid by law firms as expert witnesses. Does this represent a clear conflict of interest, perhaps so?

However, it is extremely common practice and the pharmaceutical industry pay whole teams of such 'medical expert witnesses' vast sums to 'represent' them in court. For example another harsh critic of Dr Wakefield's was Dr Paul Offit, who even wrote a book (of sorts) vilifying his fellow professional researcher. Not only has Offit been paid by Merck, and others, to represent them in court he is actually a patent holder for the Merck licensed rotavirus vaccine Rotateq. That he sat on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory panel during their oversight of the clinical trials of his own vaccine and then inaccurately and incorrectly criticised Wakefield for doing something far less contentious is stomach churning. Of course, Rotateq was approved by the CDC, with Offit's advice, and entered onto the U.S vaccine Schedule without any question at all.

The questionable activities of people like Offit are rarely, if ever, questioned by the MSM who destroyed Dr Wakefield. Clearly it wasn't because he was acting as an expert witness but rather that he was acting as an expert witness for the wrong side.

The notion that the Lancet study was funded by law firms was total bilge. The study was awarded £55,000 from the Legal Aid Board. This did raise concerns at the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust because the directors were concerned that a study, which could potentially lead to legal action against the NHS, was funded by Legal Aid. In response Dr Wakefield sent an email to the Chief Executive which stated:
"There are no preconditions to our grant. Furthermore, there is no intention whatsoever on behalf of the Legal Aid Board or its agent to take action against the National Health Service; it is against the manufacturers of vaccine that any future action will be taken if and when our studies indicate that is a valid strategy."
The allegation, made by Deer and others, that Dr Wakefield was being deliberately evasive or 'hiding' a financial conflict of interest was either the result of shoddy journalism or a lie. While Dr Wakefield was paid as an expert witness at other times, the clinical protocols for the entirely separate Lancet study had been written and created by Wakefield's colleague Professor John Walker-Smith. It had been he, not Wakefield, who had selected the children for the case series study. Wakefield's role in the Lancet study was to collate and finalise the research for publication, he was not the clinical director.

Prof. Walker-Smith [Clinical Director]

Prof. Walker-Smith [Clinical Director]
Professor Walker-Smith, a renowned paediatric gastroenterologist and an esteemed scientific researcher, had "blanket ethical clearance" to conduct research. As the clinical director of the Lancet study ethical clearance was largely assured. The colonoscopies, lumbar punctures, MRI scans, and other invasive procedures were all ethically considered to be appropriate clinical indicators by Professor Walker-Smith. Dr Wakefield wanted further ethical clearance to carry out additional blood work and Professor Walker-Smith requested and received this additional clearance from the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free School of Medicine in January 1997.

The Wikipedia entry, based mainly on Deer's evidence free accusations, states:
".....children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures ....... Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board."
This is a wholly inaccurate statement and is wrong in every single respect. Wakefield did not need ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board because he wasn't the clinical director. Professor Walker-Smith had ultimate ethical oversight of the Lancet study which he devolved to others, including Wakefield, as necessary. However, Walker-Smith did have ethical approval, so the claim was false on that basis too.

Deer wasn't the only one, involved in Dr Wakefield's destruction, with unexplained memory lapses when it came to disclosing conflicts of interests. For example The British Medical Journal, often referenced as authoritative by many who accuse 'anti-vaxxers' of child abuse, also suffered financial amnesia. If we look at the Wikipedia page on Dr Wakefield we learn:
"In January 2011, an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ described Wakefield's work as an elaborate fraud."
The British Medical Journal were syndicating articles, written by an employee of one of GSK's board members, without bothering to mention that relationship. Similarly they didn't mention that they were themselves financial partners of Merck who, like GSK, as manufacturers of the MMR vaccine 'MMRII,' had a lucrative incentive to discredit Dr Wakefield's published study.

In response to the complete and utter failure to disclose this vital and highly relevant conflict of interest, the BMJ's Editor in Chief Fiona Godlee said:
"We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so."
If Dr Wakefield had unethical conflicts of interest, which he didn't, I wonder if saying "oh well, I forgot," would have worked for him. Somehow I doubt it.

Fiona Godlee

Godlee – Not bovered.
Much has also been made of the Lancet's retraction of the 1998 study. Perhaps this was based upon their evaluation of the 'da science' but they too just couldn't remember who paid them. The Lancet received payment from the Merck subsidiary Univadis who proudly announced:
"Through a unique global medical literature service called Just Published, clinical specialists regiseterd on Univadis will receive free access to the full texts of recently published articles from the Lancet. This new service will be available on [the Univadis website].
We also learn from the Wikipedia page:
"In April 2010, Deer expanded on laboratory aspects of his findings in a report in the BMJ, recounting how normal clinical histopathology results (obtained from the Royal Free hospital) had been subjected to wholesale changes, from normal to abnormal, in the medical school and published in The Lancet."
At the risk of repeating myself this wasn't true either. Deer made these allegations after his previous unsubstantiated allegations had seen Dr Wakefield struck off the medical register by the GMC. Possibly emboldened by his success, he really went for it by trotting out more nonsense.

His claim that Dr Wakefield had made 'wholesale changes' were examined by microbiologist David Lewis. Dr Wakefield didn't even complete the histopathology reports. They were submitted by his pathologist colleagues Amar Dhillon and Andrew Anthony. Upon reviewing these original reports David Lewis concluded:
"I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets..... they suggest that he diagnosed "colitis" in a number of the children........The grading sheets and other evidence in Wakefield's files clearly show that it is unreasonable to conclude, based on a comparison of the histological records, that Andrew Wakefield 'faked' a link between the MMR vaccine and autism."
Wikipedia also informs us:
"other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism."
Remarkably this information is actually accurate, though misleading. Many of the Big Pharma funded follow up studies were 'unable' to find evidence of a possible link. Many others did.

For example in 2006 (before Wakefield's GMC hearing) U.S researchers found that bowel inflammation was possibly associated with children who went on to develop Autism. Again, like Wakefield, they stressed this did not prove MMR was associated to ASD, but they did corroborate the potential link between ASD and gastrointestinal problems, which was the core finding of the Lancet study. Similarly the American Society for Microbiology stated:
"Many children with autism have gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances that can complicate clinical management and contribute to behavioral problems.....Here we describe an association between high levels of intestinal, mucoepithelial-associated Sutterella species and GI disturbances in children with autism."
There are many more, which I discuss elsewhere, broadly supporting The Lancet study findings. The Wikipedia contributors must have just forgotten to mention them.

The other main allegation made by Deer, which the evidence roundly rebuts, was that Wakefield was intending to cash in on his own vaccine alternative to the MMR. The obvious point that this rather contradicts his prevailing narrative that Wakefield is an 'anti-vaxxer' appears to have eluded him. However, seeing as Wakefield was actually working on a vaccine follow up medication, the patent for which was held by the Royal Free Hospital, not Dr. Wakefield, this doesn't really matter because that claim wasn't true either.

However it did matter to the unfortunate Dr. Wakefield. It was Deer who launched the original complaint with the GMC that lead to him losing his medical license. Deer has flatly denied this, claiming it is all part of a smear campaign by loony 'anti-vaxxers.' You can view a copy of his original submission the GMC here.

Prior to Deer making the formal complaint, not a single person associated with the Lancet study had felt the need to report Dr Wakefield, or anyone else, to the GMC. No one at the Royal Free, none of the parents nor any of his colleagues, even the Lancet found both his study and conduct perfectly acceptable. They didn't retract the study until after the GMC hearing decision. Only Deer, a journalist who worked for a GSK board member in cooperation with Big Pharma's private investigators, backed by their own industry lobby group, thought Wakefield needed to be made an example of.

Given how woeful his evidence was, it seems astounding that the GMC accepted his complaint, even more so that they thought it sufficient to strip Wakefield of his licence. However, perhaps the apparent fact that the Chairman of the GMC Fitness to Practice Panel, Dr. Surendra Kumar, was a GSK shareholder may have helped. Dr Kumar is also a prominent supporter of compulsory vaccination. It could boost his dividend no end.

anti-vaxxer mind

The anti-vaxxer is, quite literally, insane. It’s like a proper disorder. Massive financial corruption does not exist. It will all be fine.
The anti-vaxxer is, quite literally, insane. It's like a proper disorder. Massive financial corruption does not exist. It will all be fine.

Of all the disinformation and deception in the Wikipedia record of the official narrative, that everyone, other than stupid 'anti-vaxxers,' seemingly accepts without reservation, one stands head and shoulder above the rest.
"A British Administrative Court Justice noted in a related decision-There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr. Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked".
Ignoring the fact the 'administrative court justice' was basing his opinion only on the science he did know about, the cringing duplicity in this Wikipedia misinformation would make Smeagle baulk. That 'justice' was Sir John Edward Mitting and the 'administrative court' was the High Court of Justice In England. The High Court of Appeal overruled only by the Supreme Court. What this stunning propaganda piece in Wikipedia desperately doesn't mention is the vast bulk of his ruling. He completely exonerated the clinical director of the Lancet study Professor Walker-Smith.

In what can only be described as one of the worst GMC decisions in history, one clearly riven with highly questionable conflicts of interest, a strong whiff of corporate corruption and borderline criminality, GSK shareholder Surendra Kumar had also led the decision to strike off Professor Walker Smith. That was a mistake. Had he not, perhaps some could still legitimately claim reason to question Dr. Wakefield today. Given, Sir John Mitting's ruling they absolutely cannot.

He ruled that the GMC's decision demonstrated "inadequate and superficial reasoning," they reached the "wrong conclusions" and added:
"The panel's determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it."
The clinical director of the Lancet study, for which Dr Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license, was not guilty of any scientific malpractice at all. As the lead of that study, it stands.

Therefore, the idea that Dr Andrew Wakefield was struck off for "unethical behaviour, misconduct and dishonesty for authoring a fraudulent research paper that claimed a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine," is quite simply false.

His behaviour was provably ethical, he was neither dishonest nor engaged in any misconduct. The paper he published was not fraudulent and it made no claim that there was a proven link between ASD and the MMR. He was quite clearly 'struck off' because he had the bravery and ethical fortitude to question Big Pharma. It is clear that his colleagues urged caution and, in hindsight, rightly warned him not to even suggest the need for further research. Unlike Dr Wakefield, they had not reviewed the MMR vaccine safety studies to the same extent. So Dr Wakefield, genuinely concerned for the welfare of children, spoke out, urged caution and called for further research.

Of course Dr Wakefield was denied legal aid and was not represented at the High Court. Had he been, given all the other evidence we have explored here, it is practically beyond reasonable doubt that he too would have been exonerated.

But that was never going to be allowed. He is the sacrificial lamb and a stark warning to any scientist, medical practitioner or researcher who dares to challenge the corporate dictatorship. The MSM's annihilation of Dr. Wakefield served two purposes. Firstly to convince a misinformed public that any who suggest vaccines may not all be wonder drugs are 'evil' and also to put the fear of God into the scientific community.

Any doctor, researcher or scientists has to think long and hard before they ever consider going against the edicts of the pharmaceutical corporations. If they decide to rock the boat they do so knowing they will be publicly demolished by the court of the MSM. The state will then use that MSM created narrative and Big Pharma's bought and paid for research, to destroy their careers, reputations and livelihoods in court. The scientific evidence is irrelevant. They now know this because they stood by helpless and witnessed the destruction of some of their most respected and esteemed colleagues based upon nothing but smears and false allegations.

Any research department that stands up against Big Pharma risks financial ruin. Funding for independent research is miniscule compared to the billions invested by Big Pharma in academia. Corporations now invest more in biological and pharmaceutical R&D than governments. Traditionally major drug research has been funded via the state and philanthropic foundations. Especially in the early stages of development.


Dead keen on vaccines.
Many of these foundations, such as the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, are operated by individuals with major shareholdings in the pharmaceutical corporations. State funding too, often comes from surprising sources. For example the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have been major investors in pharmaceutical research, including vaccines.

Thanks to the ubiquitous promotion of the utterly incoherent Wakefield narrative, scientific researchers and medical professionals are well aware of the threat. Both to themselves and their employers.

Merck were forced to withdraw their arthritis control drug Vioxx after it was found to cause heart attacks. They settled a $4.85 billion law suit in the U.S and were being pursued by victims' families around the world. Emails were entered into evidence in the Australian Federal Court which revealed their corporate policy for dealing with medical professionals, or scientists, who dared to question their authority, threaten their profit margins or undermine 'public trust.' Merck created hit lists of professionals to be 'discredited' or 'neutralised.' For example one Merck executive wrote:
"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live."
This is why it is now impossible to have a sensible discussion about vaccine safety. The nexus between the pharmaceutical corporations (Big Pharma,) the mainstream media (MSM) and the state is designed to ensure the corporate hegemony of all health care. It is this corporate control mechanism which pollutes objective science, obfuscating and destroying any that threatens its business model. While science still produces the evidence, which brings some vaccines into question, this is not reported by the MSM and is ignored by the state, who have a symbiotic relationship with Big Pharma.

The vast majority of people who are certain that all vaccines are safe have absolutely no idea at all about how this system works. They are predominantly the hapless victims of state run MSM disinformation. More concerned with the footy or the latest celebrity 'news,' they live in a cozy bubble where the state wraps its loving arms around them. They actually appear to believe that the state, which is an amalgam of profiteering corporations, corrupt officials, puppet politicians and a compromised judiciary, has their best interests at heart and would never knowingly harm them or their children. The naiveté in this puerile faith is staggering.

As Mark Twain allegedly observed, "it is easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled." Consequently anyone who questions vaccine efficacy or safety has to accept the inevitable backlash. The state don't care and aren't really interested, they intend to compulsory vaccinate everyone no matter what. If it harms people, that's none of their concern.

The tragedy is that people, who rely solely on what they are told by their nanny state and its MSM propagandists, have been so easily convinced to accuse their fellow citizens, who are merely trying to alert them to a potential risk, of being 'child abusers.'

It seems the psychological risk is too great for many of these individuals to ever contemplate any suggestion that all is not as they have been indoctrinated to believe. Despite blatant corporate corruption at the very highest level, doing so could presumably shatter their fragile delusions, leaving them lost and bewildered in a frightening world they cannot face. This is called cognitive dissonance.

On the back of their ignorance, intolerance and refusal to even look at the mountain of evidence that justifies some skepticism, it appears the rest of us may very well face compulsory injection at the hands of ruthless multinational corporations based upon research partly funded by the military industrial complex.

I, for one, am opposed.