Is WDDTY Magazine Anti-Vaccine?

October 5, 2013 at 12:25 am (Anti-Vaccination) (, , , , , , , , , )

The magazine What Doctors Don’t Tell You has this week issued a bizarre statement in response to a Times article by Tom Whipple. Among other things, they seem to be upset that the article claimed “that we’d told parents in our latest (October 2013) issues not to immunize their children with the MMR”.

Here’s the part of the statement where they attempt to defend themselves against the criticism of their stance on vaccines:

We interviewed – and simply quoted – a medical doctor called Dr Jayne Donegan, who had carried out her own research into the MMR, and concluded that a child with a strong immune system shouldn’t have the vaccine. This was the considered view of Dr Donegan, not us. We were simply quoting her.

So, it wasn’t WDDTY who advised against immunisation with MMR it was Jayne Donegan. WDDTY simply quoted her. All they did was seek out an anti-vaccine doctor, interview them, and uncritically report their views. That’s all. (There’s also been an interesting exchange on Facebook, reported here: “You mistake the views of the subject of an article for the views of the publication itself, as you did with the MMR article, where we simply interviewed a doctor critical of the MMR.”)

Perhaps it might be useful if I simply quoted WDDTY? I do have a copy of their Vaccination Bible, after all.

Here’s something from their introduction:

It’s likely that you’ve already heard the case in favour of immunisation. Hence, our writings make an unabashed case against it.

I think that’s pretty clear. There are, of course, disclaimers and weasel words though.

WDDTY like to claim that they’re not trying to convince people not to vaccinate, that they’re trying to provide balance to correct an imaginary pro-vaccine bias, and that their aims are informed choice and freedom of choice rather than a decrease in vaccine uptake. You can find balanced, informed discussion of the risks and benefits of vaccines in the scientific literature, on the websites of health authorities and educational establishments, and, occasionally, in the mainstream media – WDDTY don’t add balance, they add bias by making an unabashed case against vaccination. If informed choice is really an aim, they might do better if they provided information as opposed to misinformation. And they might claim not to be trying to convince people not to vaccinate but if anybody takes heed of what WDDTY publish they will only be less likely to vaccinate – WDDTY are pushing in one direction and one direction only.

There is a chapter in the Vaccination Bible on Measles, Mumps and Rubella (not to mention chapters on MMR and autism and on ‘the Wakefield controversy’). It begins with the author confusing SSPE and encephalitis (not a promising start).

There is a claim that measles is “not the random killer that medicine would have you believe” and some wittering about what governments don’t tell you. The author refers to an outbreak with a high case fatality rate of 1 in 300 and complains that poor nutrition and lack of access to medical care may have played a part in some of those deaths; the British Green Book and the American Pink Book cite lower case fatality rates and the scientific literature makes perfectly clear that poor nutrition is a factor in high mortality rates.

Then there’s this:

Well-nourished children have little to fear from catching measles—and possibly much to gain.

According to some research, measles may be good for children.

There’s a description of the research, but no reference to the source – I can’t check for myself what the research says. Then there’s a reference to “earlier research” which is again unreferenced. It might seem unreasonable to demand citations for every claim somebody makes, but given what I’ve read in their magazine and on their website I’m not inclined to accept at face value what McTaggart and Hubbard tell me about research. Here’s a post on “the most important piece of supporting data” for a Lynne McTaggart article on HPV vaccination. And here’s something on Bryan Hubbard’s attempt to interpret a paper that found no association between autism and exposure to antigens from vaccines: WDDTY measles mmr.

And another quote, beginning the section on rubella:

Vaccinating against rubella is a pointless exercise.

Here’s the first line of the mumps section:

Mumps is usually an innocuous disease

WDDTY bend over backwards to make negative statements about vaccination and downplay the seriousness of diseases – and even make positive statements about measles. They misrepresent VAERS data. They fail to reference their sources, or cite poor quality research, or misreport the decent research they do cite. They make an unabashed case against vaccination.

To be honest, I’m struggling to understand why they might have a problem with a report that suggests they might be anti-vaccine. It’s pretty clear they are.


  1. WDDTY: My Master List | Josephine Jones said,

    […] Is WDDTY Magazine Anti-Vaccine? jdc, Stuff and Nonsense, 05/10/13 […]

  2. Dave J said,

    What Doctor’s Don’t Tell You? Why would they tell you lies, misinformation and alternative medicine propaganda? Disgusting.

  3. Pete UK said,

    I’m all for free speech, but not free bullshit; good to see you and others calling these conspiracy theorists out!

  4. Rich Smith said,

    Nice write up, thanks. The magazine wonders why it has been getting such stick from blogs and they publish material like that.
    Then they have the cheek to blame the people they interview rather than the editors.

  5. Oliver Dowding said,

    All very predictable – and I am sure you will say that of my views. But these are not mine, they are the comments from Lynne McTaggart herself and well worth reading, digesting and not dismissing.

    “The sheer hypocrisy of News International, which published the original story about us. That company, which owns The Times, is owned by the Murdoch organization. The Murdoch organization also owns HarperCollins. HarperCollins published three of my books, including a book entitled What Doctors Don’t Tell You, a culmination of many years of research for WDDTY the newsletter.

    Harper liked the book so much they published it twice, first in 1996 after paying a team of lawyers at Carter-Ruck, the UK’s top libel firm, to spend hundreds of hours of legal time carefully sifting through all of the scientific evidence supporting statements I made in the book to ensure the material was rock solid. It was only published after they were satisfied that every last statement was correct.

    WDDTY was a bestseller for Harper – so much so that they asked me to update it and published the new version in 2006. It’s also been an international bestseller, currently in some 20 languages around the world.

    At one point, I was also a columnist for the Times and ran a story highly critical of the MMR vaccine.

    Besides being a demonstration of how shoddy journalism has become, what interests me about this episode is that it offers evidence of the enormous shift that has occurred in the press’s notion of its role in society. The Times seems to be suggesting that their role is to ‘protect’ the public by censoring information that departs from standard medical line.

    Determining what is fit for public consumption, or indeed how its readers should treat their illnesses, is emphatically not a newspaper’s job – ours or anyone else’s.

    Our job as journalists is simply to inform – to report the facts, even when they are inconvenient truths, as they are so often in medicine, particularly with such things as vaccines or alternative cancer therapy.

    For despite all the grandstanding and pink ribbons and prettily turned phrases, the fact remains that the whole of modern medicine’s arsenal against cancer is both blatantly unscientific and ineffective. When not manipulated, the bald statistics reveal that chemo only works 2 per cent of the time .The War on Cancer from the orthodox perspective is decisively being lost.

    Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of people are being cured by other methods of cancer treatment. Millions if others who have cancer or whose loved ones have cancer want to know ways to treat cancer that are less dangerous and more effective. That qualifies as news, and it’s our duty as the press to report that. It’s my job to deliver well researched information, and that’s supposed to be the Times’ job too.

    Several months ago, I met Patricia Ellsberg, the wife of Daniel Ellsberg. Back when I was a student, deciding whether or not to be a journalist, Ellsberg, an employee of the CIA, came across hundreds of pages of documents revealing America’s shameful role in the Vietnam war.

    Ellsberg felt this was news and it was his duty to leak these papers to the New York Times. The Times felt it was their duty to publish these revelations, these inconvenient truths. Then President Nixon attempted to censor these leaks by attempting a legal embargo on The Times – a blatant attempt at government censorship.

    The Ellsbergs (faced with life imprisonment – was anybody ever so brave?) turned on a photocopy machine, made multiple copies and leaked the documents to the Washington Post.

    And when Nixon went after the Post, the Ellsbergs smuggled the papers to 17 other newspapers. Not one paper blinked. Not one paper decided this information wasn’t fit to print – or that the public needed to be ‘protected’ from a lying presidency.

    But these days, the press – far less ‘free,’ now largely owned by huge corporations, including in the pharmaceutical industry (Murdoch’s son was on the board Glaxo Smith Kline) – has now become the party with powerful vested interests to protect. Today the press is the Richard Nixon of the piece.

    Back when the NY Times was publishing The Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post published the Watergate disclosures, newspapers wouldn’t be caught dead being associated with some industry backed body, especially one with the track record of carnage enjoyed by Big Pharma, as the Guardian now is.

    But today newspapers are haemorrhaging money, and so have to have industry backing and its consequent influence. The public, which wants the truth, knows this and rejects this industry public relations by boycotting newspapers. Presently, the Guardian is losing £100,000 a day, and the Times is losing £80,000 a day. People don’t believe newspapers anymore. They know they have to go elsewhere for their news. That’s why they come to publications like ours.

    As Deep Throat once told Woodward and Bernstein, when they were investigating Watergate: if you want to find out the truth, just follow the money.

  6. Oliver Dowding said,

    While I am here, maybe this report from Jon Rappenport will help set some background – we don’t all swallow what mainstream offers, even if we utilise some of its output.

  7. jdc325 said,

    Hello again Oliver,

    Thanks for dropping by and commenting.

    You’ll note that I linked to the statement your lengthy quote comes from in the first sentence of my post. I didn’t address every problematic assertion made in the WDDTY statement, but chose to focus on one in particular.

    If you aren’t interested in the topic I wrote about and would prefer to discuss something else then I’m happy to do so. We could pick something from the lengthy quote you posted. Perhaps you want to talk about the rather unlikely-sounding claim that Lynne’s book was checked by libel lawyers for scientific correctness? Or the long-debunked zombie argument that chemo only works for 2% of patients?

  8. Chris Preston said,

    I find it surprising that Oliver Dowling would bother to copy and paste that long piece from McTaggart, given the howler in the first sentence of the second paragraph Oliver copied:

    “Harper liked the book so much they published it twice, first in 1996 after paying a team of lawyers at Carter-Ruck, the UK’s top libel firm, to spend hundreds of hours of legal time carefully sifting through all of the scientific evidence supporting statements I made in the book to ensure the material was rock solid.”

    Sorry, Lynne and Oliver, most lawyers know next to nothing about science, so their ability to sift scientific evidence to ensure material is rock solid is nil.

    Fancy making such an obviously outrageous claim as a key part of your defence.

  9. Nash said,

    With measles it’s not just death that is to worry about. A significant side effect of measles is that it can cause deafness.

  10. dingo199 said,

    Hmmm, let’s see….

    A magazine that highlights every opinion critical of vaccines, and cherry-picks quotations and snippets that cast vaccines in a bad light?

    A magazine that sources know anti-vaccine journalists/doctors for its citations?

    A magazine that never publishes anything about the benefits of vaccination, nor an analysis of risk benefits, nor any articles from independent sources which give a true, unbiased indication of the incidence of reactions?

    A magazine that uses headlines and scary quotations specifically designed to make people think vaccines are killers, or harmful, yet are utterly useless?

    A magazine that promotes the idea that the diseases are harmless, or so minor that alternative quack remedies for them are all one needs in life?

    No, they could never be thought of as “anti-vaccine”, could they?
    Perish the thought.

  11. jdc325 said,

    It seems I have been barred by passionate free speech advocate Lynne McTaggart from commenting on this thread: and my comment has been removed.

    Here it is:

    Lynne, I have a couple of questions.

    1. You state that your magazine has “a team of journalists who are highly experienced in reading and interpreting medical literature” and “eight doctors” on an editorial panel. How then did you manage to publish a piece that reported on a study into antigen exposure and misrepresented it as being a paper about MMR? Why, instead of using the adjusted odds ratios, did this piece use figures taken from the confidence intervals of unadjusted odds ratios?

    2. You also wrote this: “In all our 24 years of publication, we have never told a single parent what to do vis a vis vaccination. We report information about certain vaccines being ineffective or having many side effects. That’s reporting, not advice. In fact, for many years we held vaccination debates allowing advocates pro and against vaccination to have their say.” But it is a fact, is it not, that your ‘reporting’ is entirely anti-vaccine? You do after all state in your vaccination bible that you “make an unabashed case against” immunisation. You bend over backwards to make negative statements about vaccination and downplay the seriousness of diseases – and even make positive statements about measles.

    3. Why do you state (more than once, and on one occasion using CAPS LOCK for emphasis) that Tom Whipple called your accounts department? He actually called your “accounts and management” department. And your editorial department. And emailed you, and another office member. Repeatedly referring (here and elsewhere) to your accounts department while omitting to mention (a) that department’s full title, (b) the call to the editorial department, and (c) the two emails that were sent could mislead those reading your statements, could it not?

  12. John Sidney Gilmore said,

    Dear Mr Dowding,

    To compare McTaggart to Daniel Ellsberg is, lemme see, what is the word or phrase I’m looking for…well off into not even wrong territory.

    There is NOT a comparison to be made there. WDDTY is NOT The Pentagon Papers.

    In fact, more like the opposite: as jdc points out, posts of his have been removed by McTaggart; Josephine Jones (and presumably others are blocked by McTaggart; tese are not the actions of someone who truly believes in freedom of speech or freedom of the press, but more like the actions of a propagandist who does not like to be either challenged or to trouble themselves with facts and evidence.

  13. John Sidney Gilmore said,

    Dear Mr Dowding again,

    You quote the famous Deep Throat Watergate line (erroneously linking McTaggart to Woodward and Bernstein) about following the money.

    I have in front of me a copy of WDDTY: it is full of advertising for various “supplements” and “therapies”, some of which are mentioned favourably in articles in the magazine.

    What should I conclude from following that money?

    Or do McTaggart and Hubbard donate all those pages to various companies out of the goodness of their hearts?

  14. Tetenterre (@Tetenterre) said,

    Oliver Dowding wrote: “As Deep Throat once told Woodward and Bernstein, when they were investigating Watergate: if you want to find out the truth, just follow the money.”

    Oh dear! That was in the movie, but not in real life. In other words, dear Oliver, it’s fiction. Made-ee up-ee stuff. You should recognise that sort of thing: it’s just like many of the “facts” on your web site and in the recent pronouncements of the WDDTY brigade.

  15. WDDTY – Tesco choose profit over people | Western Sloth said,

    […] Tesco choose profit over public health.  The fact that they are not willing to discuss concerns formally is insulting and only further highlights their motivation.  Even high-lighting how hypocritical and contradictory they are behaving towards their corporate values is not enough to make them turn their back on what I can only assume is a small profit driven by WDDTY.  Tesco are currently running a campaign with Unicef and Pampers called 1 pack = 3 vaccines – on one hand helping to secure tetanus vaccinations in the developing world and on the other selling lies from an aggressively anti-vaccine magazine. […]

  16. mythbuster said,

    “With measles it’s not just death that is to worry about. A significant side effect of measles is that it can cause deafness.” Nasher

    This is a typical medical anecdote with no context. Undernourished people die from disease, it’s why vaccines don’t ‘work’ in third world countries.

    It may surprise you to know that Jayne Donagen won a high court case in 2009 that it was not in the best interests of the child to vaccinate when a proper review of the evidence was presented in a high court case.

    Until she sat down to review evidence as the expert witness she was a vaccine believer. But as a result of objectively reviewing the evidence, a job she was eminently qualified to do, she was unable to lie in court.

    She is not anti vaccine, she is pro evidence, she starts her talks by saying this.

    Her conclusion was that there was no evidence to support the efficacy claims for any vaccine on the infant schedule. The high court accepted her evidence and the court ruled ‘not in the best interest of the child to vaccinate’.

    It is the efficacy evidence that is dishonest, untruthful and misleading. It is a shame that so many so called intelligent people have not done this exercise themselves and choose to lazily rely on an out of date beliefs and anecdotes that vaccines are useful or work at all.

    Thank the stars for people like Jayne and WDDTY so we can feel more assured there is something more real than the tide of sewage pumped out by people who still seem to support vaccination when the evidence, or lack of it says otherwise.

    I suggest all of you go to a talk by Jayne and watch her dismantle the subject in a sane logical way, the only way to break a cycle of abuse is to stop abusing.

  17. mythbuster said,

    “What should I conclude from following that money?” john sidney gilmore

    Maybe that taxpayers money, the health service we all pay for isn’t funding a mass scam.

  18. mythbuster said,

    John sid gilly – Josephine Jones is some crank troll, why shouldn’t anyone ban a smear like her? You need to go to a talk by Jayne Donagen GP and find out what the ‘evidence’ that you are basing your vaccine belief on is made of.

    As the peer reviewed ‘evidence’ crumbles, so does the belief – I dare you to sit and listen, then go check out what she unearths.

    “Tesco chose profit over public health” western sloth

    Well they do, on each till they advertise the flu vaccine as effective and we all know from Cochraine that it has no efficacy evidence to support any of the claims made for it.

    Well done for spotting that, at least they sell WDDTY so let’s hope people don’t read how shit flu vaccine is after they have had a jab!

  19. Chris Preston said,

    The troll is back with some more ant-vaccination lies.

    Jayne Donegan is a homeopath, so of course she doesn’t accept the evidence basis for vaccination. If you accept that magic water can cure disease, then your thinking is already awry.

    She also didn’t win a High Court case. What actually happened was she was not sanctioned in her fitness to practice case by the GMC after a High Court judge said of her evidence before a lower court:

    “Dr Donegan’s report was based on no independent research, and most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own. Not to mince words, the court below was presented with junk science.”

    That must have hurt.

  20. mythbuster said,

    No Chris you are a liar. the first case the GMC won on a technicality because citing raw data was argued by the GMC to not be following ‘academic protocol’ and quoting conclusions. We all know that medical peer review is about as honest as…….. she argued on appeal that the conclusions in the vaccine efficacy papers that she had been asked to review bore little resemblance to the data that they were based upon.

    The ‘junk science’ comment was directed at not quoting conclusions. The appeal was about challenging the perverse nature of vaccine conclusions, ie when the papers showed no benefit or actual danger the conclusions were still ‘ the best way to protect is to jab’!

    On appeal this critique was accepted so the lower court ruling means nothing, if the papers are junk science it is no defense to call a pot black!

    You assume the ‘efficacy vaccine papers’ are fact, when we go below the surface we find perverse science, twiddling and weasel words, sorry you don’t like that being pointed out, but I cannot apologise for your moronity.

    I suppose asking you to go to a talk by her and see vaccine paper after paper taken to pieces would be hard for a medical bible basher like you, but I would love to see your out of date, biased, misinformed view torn to shreds in front of ordinary public, so let us know which meeting you are going to and we will bring plenty of popcorn!

    It is time the public saw that vaccine ‘evidence’ is totally corrupt, the placebo issue is the tip of the iceberg, how is ‘testing a vaccine’ against most of its constituents considered a scientific process! and calling it a placebo trial!

    Sod magic water, vaccine efficacy EBM is magic shit! and you believe in it! LOL

    by the way you have an adware virus on your blog, see your last post. Better get a vaccine.

  21. Chris Preston said,

    The anti-vaccine liar is at it again. A short description of the whole sorry episode can be found here

  22. jdc325 said,

    Mythbuster, I’ve been trying to find this 2009 High Court case that Donegan won but I’m having trouble tracking it down. I did find this though:

    Just ctrl+f “accepted” to some of what Donegan conceded to be true. Like accepting that there is no evidence that the virulence of vaccine-preventable diseases is diminishing, that tetanus vaccine has reduced mortality from the disease, or that pertussis can be severe (and that in a papers she quotes it is described as “one of the more serious diseases of childhood”), she also accepted the correlation between an increase in vaccination and a decrease in notifications, that measles was at the serious end of children’s diseases, and that the side effects of MMR are usually transient.

  23. jdc325 said,

    The two posts above mine each contain an accusation that the other poster is a “liar”. Now, I’m not really a fan of accusing people of lying and personally I don’t believe either of these posters is a liar. For what it’s worth, I think mythbuster is “mistaken” and Chris Preston is “correct”.

  24. mythbuster said,

    ” she also accepted the correlation between an increase in vaccination and a decrease in notifications”

    Yes but we all know GP notifications ie medical anecdotes not confirmed by serological testing are as reliable as fuck all. What she accepted was that GPs fiddle the stats by downgrading what’s important when they need to!

    “For what it’s worth, I think mythbuster is “mistaken” and Chris Preston is “correct”. j20

    Beautiful example of medical bias here, if a GP tells us there is less measles it’s true and if the concurrent mortality rate goes up it is an anti vax lie! Chris Preston is an anagram of ‘inserts porch’ so every name tells a story.

    It is not possible to debate here, there is no debate, it’s the cherry pickers sanitarium.

    You can scrabble all you like over bits of this case but the important bit is how it ended. On appeal the judge accepted Jayne’s damning critique of the whole sorry medical peer review con of vaccine efficacy and it was ruled that it was not in the best interests of the child to vaccinate. The GMC lost the case and had to put this up on their website!

    This ruling was on the GMC website for 5 weeks and then they took it off!

    Bit like septic sites that claim to be scientific and then edit every post that points out the holes in the septic view of life.

    You are pasting pops ups in your posts, but separating that from the utter shit that you continual post is rather a challenge.

  25. Chris Preston said,

    Seriously troll, if you are going to go around spouting lies it is helpful to have ones that cannot be so easily disproved.

    If there had been a High Court decision about this it would be published by the High Court, not on the GMC website. The High Court has published no such decision as far as I can determine.

    It is like the rest of the stuff you write. Evidenceless rubbish.

  26. mythbuster said,

    So how many Asian parents are told on the day of the birth of their child that the BCG that is being insisted upon being given has been shown in RCT placebo trials to increase the amount of TB?

    I found the GMC ruling fairly easily, it is called doing a google! The GMC makes it clear that all of the evidence that Jayne referred to was currently accepted pro vaccine ie the papers she was asked to review for the high court. From posting on this forum it is now obvious to me that ‘people’ like Chris and Chris don’t read the papers that are handed to them by their septic masters, so thank you for demonstrating that your position is paper thin and your basis for critique – no existent.

    GMC Panel Findings
    24th August 2007

    “The Panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants.

    You demonstrated to the Panel that your reports did not derive from your deeply held views and your evidence supported this. You explained to the Panel that your approach in your report was to provide the court with a alternative view based on the material you produced in your references. That material was largely drawn from publications that were in fact in favour of immunisation.

    It was clear from your evidence and the evidence of your witness that your aim is to direct parents to sources of information about immunisation and child health safety to help them to make informed choices.

    You told us that there are many books by doctors and others in this and other countries who seriously question vaccination and they cite a lot of history, proofs and medical papers to support their arguments. You did not use any of those publications because you did not think that the Court would regard those as satisfactory support or references for your recommendations. You largely used what was available in refereed medical journals.

    The Panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent and unbiased.

    Accordingly, the Panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct.”

    Next you will be advertising viagra, it’s a logical septic progression we are dealing with here.

  27. Chris Preston said,

    Troll, let me remind you that your claim was that Jayne Donegan won a High Court case in 2009. Pointing to a GMC ruling in 2007 does not support your original claim.

    2007 is not the same as 2009.

    The GMC bears no resemblance to the High Court.

    So should we just cut to the chase and agree that you are full of it?

  28. mythbuster said,

    Hi rumplechristian. Still the issue you can’t discuss is that Jayne is sound, capable and the high court accepted her evidence. The court was therefore unable to make a ruling that the child in question was to be vaccinated as it was not in the best interest of the child to do so.

    You are an arse, so is your other arse. Vaccination is a complete arse.

  29. mythbuster said,

    So how many Asian people are told that Germany banned the BCG after it was shown to be useless?

    silence will assume guilt

  30. Chris Preston said,

    Troll, every thing you write is manifestly different to reality. The High Court did not accept Jayne Donegan’s evidence. In the case the judge wrote:

    “The evidence of Dr Donegan is treated with great reserve. She has deeply held feelings on the risks of immunisation. She allowed this to over-rule her duty to provide objective unbiased opinion considering all the relevant facts including those which detract from her opinion.”

    At appeal the appeal judge wrote:

    “The judge concluded that the medical evidence relied on by the two mothers to show that vaccination is dangerous and unnecessary was untenable. Dr Donegan’s report was based on no independent research, and most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own. Not to mince words, the court below was presented with junk science.”

    It is about a comprehensive dismissal as you could get of expert evidence in a court case.

  31. jdc325 said,

    mythbuster, can you provide a link to the judgement in this High Court case you’re talking about?

    I can find this: which is the case where Dr Donegan was criticised by the judge and made all kinds of interesting concessions to the mainstream positions on vaccines and disease.

    I can also find this: which involves appeals over the above case being dismissed (and Donegan being criticised by a Court of Appeal judge for presenting junk science).

    Then there’s this: in which the GMC apply for permission to issue a summons against Doengan (and which contains a reference to previous criticism of Donegan: “The expert evidence of Dr Donegan, which was not accepted and indeed criticised by the trial judge and in the Court of Appeal on appeal”).

    I can’t find this 2009 High Court case you are talking about where Donegan’s evidence was accepted by the judge and they advised against vaccination.

    It’s funny, I can find court cases involving Donegan, Chris can find court cases involving Donegan, yet you can’t find any. Not even the one you are talking about.

    So, mythbuster, where’s this 2009 case where Donegan was victorious in the High Court?

  32. jdc325 said,

    Wow, it sounds like there is some scandal over Germany banning the BCG vaccine. Shocking stuff. Let’s see…

    Here is a paper on BCG vaccine policies around the world.

    While most experts agree that BCG is efficacious against severe forms of childhood TB, its efficacy against TB in adults is highly variable [7]. As a result of the uncertain efficacy of the BCG vaccine, countries have developed very different BCG vaccination policies.

    Now if you’d like to provide citations that support your claims that BCG vaccine was “banned” in Germany and that it was “shown to be useless”…

  33. jdc325 said,

    There’s also this, mythbuster: which refers to “the favourable tuberculosis situation in both parts of Germany (low tuberculosis incidence and very low infection risk)” and says this: “BCG vaccination should be recommended only in enhanced-risk groups”.

    So, they recommended a change in vaccine policy whereby only some individuals would be vaccinated and this was partly because they considered that there was low risk of infection with the disease in Germany.

    It doesn’t say anything about the vaccine being “useless” or “banned”. Probably because neither of your claims is true.

  34. mythbuster said,

    I too could quote out of date judgements and make a fallacious point, that seems to be your expertise, as does ignoring anything that doesn’t fit into your very small box. Seeing as no one else is really interested in the rantings of pseudo septic scientists I will leave you with that.

    Happy new year

  35. mythbuster said,

    Every time I have bothered to read in depth any paper you have posted to ‘prove vaccination works’ what I find is exactly the opposite. I can no longer be bothered to point this out to a couple of cunts like you and can only suggest you get help.

  36. jdc325 said,

    I too could quote out of date judgements…

    No you can’t. At least, not one that matches the description you’ve given in the discussion above.

    Funny that. You were so keen to talk about this non-existent 2009 High Court case that Donegan triumphed in, yet now you don’t want to talk about court cases at all. Or anything else, if we take your comment at face value.

  37. jdc325 said,

    Every time I have bothered to read in depth any paper you have posted to ‘prove vaccination works’ what I find is exactly the opposite.

    Thank you for bothering to read in depth the paper I posted. I am sorry that you haven’t read the discussion you are participating in as carefully, though.

    If you had, you would have noticed that far from posting that paper to prove vaccination works (you will note, if you actually read the discussion, that I have made no claims regarding TB vaccination’s efficacy or effectiveness) I posted it in response to unsupported claims you have made that the vaccines is useless and was banned in Germany. Neither claim is true. The vaccine’s effectiveness in adults is controversial, and a number of countries have dropped booster jabs (while maintaining vaccination for children) or limited the vaccine to high-risk groups (partly due to low risk of infection).

  38. dingo199 said,

    I think the last time mythspreader read anything “in depth”, he was reading a copy of the Sun in his bath.

  39. mythbuster said,

    Ha Ha. Chris posted a 1962 paper, bit like the Sun, which was supposed to demonstrate why they don’t do proper RCT placebo (with real placebo) trials on vaccines like the MMR anymore.

    The first pilot study anecdotally according to doctors with no serological confirmation showed 100% success for the vaccinated group.

    In the second much larger trial, that was blinded, the picture was very different, in short a fucking disaster. Instead of admitting that the first trial was useless due to no blinding they come up with a weasel about having no serological proof in the second trial to confirm the disaster. funny that, in the first trial doctors anecdotal diagnosis was perfectly acceptable.

    What I have learned here is that the papers you seem to think prove something are in fact a joke, so I thank you for exposing what a bunch of idiots you are.

    I have a full transcript of Jayne’s trial, it is a wonderful source of exposure showing how every paper that she took apart was flawed from top to bottom. I can only assume that none of you have ever read a medical peer reviewed paper proving fuck all!

    that is all you have, worthless paper.

    don’t assume I am a he.

  40. Oliver Dowding said,

    I admire mythbuster for your perseverance in the face of not one wolf, but a whole pack, often indulging the usual rotational sniping tactics – whether intentionally or not.
    There is no spare change to be found here, as all the “minds” are, generally firmly fixed. Despite some thinking that of me, mine is not one-track.
    I’ve only had time to note the comments and not enough to read the papers – which holds no long-term “professional” value to me anyway.

  41. jdc325 said,

    I have a full transcript of Jayne’s trial…

    That’s very nice Mythbuster. I’m very pleased for you.

    I’m not sure what this has to do with the 2009 High Court case you’ve been telling us about. Still can’t find the judgement?

  42. jdc325 said,

    the usual rotational sniping tactics

    What, like presenting evidence in support of our claims and asking Mythbuster for evidence in support of his / her claims?

    Is that the sort of thing you have in mind Oliver?

  43. mythbuster said,

    “I admire mythbuster for your perseverance in the face of not one wolf, but a whole pack, often indulging the usual rotational sniping tactics – whether intentionally or not.
    There is no spare change to be found here, as all the “minds” are, generally firmly fixed.” Oliver

    Well there is nothing scary here, rather pathetic really – it’s like talking to catholics about evolution. The thing is it is really useful to find out what papers they seem to think supports the now mythical idea that vaccination is any kind of therapeutic. It is tiresome to read them but what actually happens is when one does they all fall to pieces in a pile of anecdotal tosh.

    This really helps the case for taking it all apart, so don’t be put off with their Jehovah standpoint, see it as an ‘intelligence’ gathering exercise, and I use the word lightly, they hold an exclusively empty view on most things.

    Really funny ones are people like Josephine Jones, so paranoid she actually filters every comment just to make sure there is no blaspheme.

    All in all rather an entertaining thing to be doing, bit like outing paedoes but not nearly so nasty.

    Go to a talk by Jayne, she would wipe the floor with them over and over again, she is an inspiration because she went against all she was taught because she couldn’t lie in court.

    Most of these idiots don’t read the papers they quote in part, we should all start posting critique of the papers, it has nothing to do with pro or anti vaccination, it is all about evidence and to date there is no efficacy evidence for any vaccination out there.

  44. mythbuster said,

    Hey j20, still waiting for your thoughts on that crap 1962 MMR paper that showed us when the trial was not blind doctor’s anecdotes were evidence but when the trial became blind suddenly the vaccine failure was all about diagnosis failure! The lord cannot be wrong – you guys are priceless.

  45. Oliver Dowding said,

    @jdc – I know what I have in mind, thanks.
    Its one of the interesting things with social media, internet forums when one finds people quick to fire off “x” or “y” but then ignoring retorts that they find uncomfortable.
    This happens at all levels of the corporate and political world.
    Ever read Private Eye? Worth shelling out a few £ for an annual sub to see who scratches who’s back, who hides what etc etc. Murky world. Yet, when were they last taken to court?
    There are other good sources beside them.

  46. mythbuster said,

    The only value in reading a peer reviewed medical paper published in pubmed is to expose how crass the requirements for ‘pass’ actually is.

    It would be well worth having a blog called crassmed pointing out all the double standards, fiddled placebos and bribe fixing contributing to this pot of malice.

    this would be far more productive rather than wasting time talking to tossers called Chris and j20, X box junkies.

    Also naming the blog twats that posted them as ‘evidence’ would be useful so that an online profile of these jerks could be put up there with Ernst, Singh and the other fishpie jerk, whatshisbum.

  47. Chris Preston said,

    Mythbuster has a “full transcript of Jayne’s trial”. Well that must be an unusual object, because Jayne Donegan hasn’t been on trial.

    What did occur was a fitness to practice hearing of the GMC. In that Donegan took apart no papers and showed no papers were flawed. What is abundantly clear is that Donegan had selectively quoted from books and papers in producing her report and drawn conclusions opposite of what the authors of these books and papers drew. However, because she had provided all the books and papers, the GMC concluded that someone could have looked at them to find the true context of the quotes and the authors’ conclusions.

    In the fitness to practice hearing Donegan frequently back-tracked on the evidence she had given as an expert before the High Court.

  48. mythbuster said,

    Nice one Chris, the issue is that the ‘conclusions’ which in academic circles are what you are supposed to quote when referring to a paper ie as evidence, were successfully challenged as bullshit.

    The vaccine ‘placebo’ is only the tip of the iceburg, 1962 MMR fiddles like using no blinding and only doctors clinical obs to produce stats on efficacy and then in larger blind trials that totally fail claiming lack of serological proof as a way to weasel out of the result..

    Jayne opened up the ‘lack of evidence trail’ , most medical peer review papers are limited to discussions on decoration on restaurant success if we used gastronomy as an analogy, instead of food quality and hygiene.

    What is needed is a total overhaul of why the medical peer review evidence database with regard to vaccination is so perverse. I know this negates your weak position regarding just playing quote pong but demonstrating how crass and poor quality vaccine evidence is.

    Every paper you quote has so many holes in it, I really do wonder how the authors get out of bed on it. Paul Offit is another ‘vaccine moonie’, you know the guy who said children’s immune systems could cope with 10,000 vaccines! This medical anecdote is often quoted by the Chris’s of this world as ‘evidence’, LOL if it wasn’t so sick.

    I love the idea of chris and chris sitting watching TV shitting it waiting for the next announcement on the latest flu scam, apparently it’s camel flu next.

    Wonder why we never get ‘Buckingham Palace flu?’ it’s always 3rd world countries that get named. it is a bit like the next release for X box or upgrade for apple, or Bill Gates variant Polio!

  49. Chris Preston said,

    I like the way this becomes a moving goal post feast. One claim of the troll is shown to be wrong and it just morphs into a different anti-vaccine lie. I doubt anyone but Oliver Dowding is convinced by the antics of the troll.

  50. mythbuster said,

    Hi Jehova Preston, how does it feel to be on a chocolate boat slowly going down. The rubber goal post is the lot of the medical peer review world, doctors anecdotes and pretend flu pandemics.

    Will you be getting your flu shot Chris, or is that for ‘other’ people?

  51. mythbuster said,

    Apparently, according to medical mythology, you can ‘catch’ measles. Explain

  52. mythbuster said,

    ” They fail to reference their sources, or cite poor quality research, or misreport the decent research they do cite. ” right at the top from the twat that wrote the start of this thread.

    This statement is bonkers. It is the mission statement of this blog and those of cyber idiots like Josephine Jones! maybe you should put an ad in wddty, kindred spirit and all that.

    In addition, the vast majority of medical peer reviewed papers published here as a ref are complete crap with regard to any kind of quality, poorly matched cohorts, no placebo, no blinding the list is endless. How are we supposed to polish turds exactly?

    please advise

  53. jdc325 said,

    Apparently, according to medical mythology, you can ‘catch’ measles. Explain

    Try this link, it might help:

  54. jdc325 said,

    ” They fail to reference their sources, or cite poor quality research, or misreport the decent research they do cite. ” right at the top from the twat that wrote the start of this thread.

    This statement is bonkers. It is the mission statement of this blog…

    You can say that, but can you provide examples of me failing to reference my sources, citing poor quality research and misreporting the decent research I do cite? There are plenty of examples of WDDTY doing so and I will happily point you to them. So, those examples of me doing so…

  55. mythbuster said,

    It’s the total bull about subjects like whooping cought vaccine failure that make me laugh J20. I mean doesn’t Chris read anything but Ofit the Prophet on vaccination? Here is a copy of what’s going on over on that stupid thread about whooping cough. Thoughts please.

    Wow that’s septic weasel words by Christ for “I so can’t handle the holes in the ‘vaccines are holy’ sic, I’ll make up some Jehovah style reply that gives the impression I’m soo cool about it”

    Are you sure that you are not a devotee of Ofit the Prophet Chrissy? No comment on the CDC talking about primary whooping cough vaccine failure then, or is that too close to the nuts?

    Official CDC data tells us the US and UK have the highest whooping cough vaccine uptake ever and the highest outbreaks of whooping cough and also they tell us that non vaxxers are not to blame.

    How do you spin that into “non vaxxers kill babies”? or “its not the vaccine that is a failure its…………….”

    Was that your longest sentence or do you need to “try again”.

    LOL Chrissy, LOL

  56. The WDDTY Vaccination Handbook - WWDDTYDTY said,

    […] Is WDDTY Magazine Anti-Vaccine? ( […]

  57. The WDDTY wars: why they don’t want you to read all about it » WWDDTYDTY said,

    […] Is WDDTY Magazine Anti-Vaccine? ( […]

  58. The WDDTY Vaccination Handbook - Plague of Mice said,

    […] Is WDDTY Magazine Anti-Vaccine? ( […]

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: