The Index

This article contains “Clickable Links” to My other Blog Articles


Will Brighton be Swallowed By The Sea?? Will Climate Change Destroy My City?

Academic References and Graphs that are supplemental to the Article about Brighton shown above
(This article is a sub-article of the main article above – which is about sea-level)
An article about Extreme Environmentalists
An article about David Attenborough
This article is really about “Sustainability,” “Agenda 21″and “One Planet Brighton”
Four definitions
Actually cities from the UK and Australia and the US and Canada have done so.


An article about how the Education System has been influenced by politicians so as to not teach Evidence Based Believing.
A description of Evidence Based Believing that also explains what “Black Swan” events are.
Inspired by my study of Karl Popper.


The vaccination problem is – basically – about the power of governments to force the public to believe gigantic lies about anything it wants to (in general) and vaccination in particular.

Government officials (especially in the UK and the USA) make dishonest claims that vaccines are “safe and effective.”

I’ll start off by quickly proving that they do lie by showing that the claim that vaccines are “safe” is definitely false.  To do that I’ll jump straight in with the following two of my blog articles:-

  1. Vaccination. Apparently governments are crazy conspiracy theorists/
    Proof that some vaccines harm some people and proof that some people lie about this.
  2. A List of Court cases in which a causal link between Vaccination and Autism has been proven:- us-government-admits-some-autism-caused-by-vaccines/

So,  Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe is a LIAR!! Anyone at all. Whether they are a doctor or a politician they are still liars!

Having proven that some vaccines definitely harm some people – I’d like to slow things down and take the time to examine what’s going on here in a broader, more intellectual way.

The Slower, More Detailed Analysis

I’ll start this more detailed analysis by saying that there appear to be two different types of proof involved in the vaccination issue.

  1. Legal proof.
    Proof to the standards of a Court of Law.
  2. Medical Proof
    In medicine – or more exactly in “Evidence Based Medicine” – proof  is called “Clinical Trials”
    (see my blog article :- Evidence Based Believing)

There is plenty of legal proof that some vaccines harm some people. (see above)

But what I think is the most glaringly significant feature of this appalling scandal ( The “Elephant in the Room”) is the absence of Clinical Trials (Medical proof).

There ought to be plenty of medical proof, especially since there is already so much legal proof.  Why hasn’t the extensive legal proof been enough to provoke the medical world into conducting large-scale clinical trials??

Well, the answer to that is – it turns out that governments keep stopping the Clinical Trials from being done.

I’ll say it again.  What is astounding about the vaccine controversy is that the doctors won’t conduct proper clinical trials even though they know that there is plenty of evidence that vaccines cause harm.

So, I repeat, it turns out that the reason that medical doctors don’t conduct safety trials is that governments keep stopping the Clinical Trials from being done.


Example 1

Even though the law says the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)should have filed vaccine safety reports every year for over 30 years they have not done so.

In 2017 Robert F Kennedy Jr (and ICAN) got the HHS to openly admit to not having filed any vaccine safety reports in over 30 years.


Example 2

The “Andrew Wakefield & MMR” debacle is about politicians (and “big pharma”) making sure that proper Clinical Trials are NOT carried out.

Here is a Timeline of what Happened to Dr Andrew Wakefield in the MMR vaccination scandal.

I also have another, different blog, here at My Other Blog


April 4th is the date that connects

  • * George Orwell  and
  • * Dr. Martin Luther King.


April 4, 1984” is the date that Winston Smith (of George Orwell’s novel “1984”) wrote on the first page of his secret diary. He knew that the surveillance state – called “Big Brother” in the novel – would execute him for having private opinions that contradicted government propaganda.

April 4, 1968 is the date of the execution of Martin Luther King, Jr. by American Deep State assassins within (or hired by) the US government, as proved by his family in a court of law.


Sustainable – What does the word actually mean?

I’ve been investigating the word “Sustainable” for a decade or so and think that the following four definitions should help the reader understand what EcoFascists mean when they use it.

I urge the reader to ask greenies and Ecofascists for definitions and then make those definitions public.  These definitions will expose the dishonesty of the whole project.

I claim that the EcoFascists deliberately constructed definitions that are absurdly open ended so as to allow them the maximum freedom to do harm to humans.

The Four Definitions

  1.  Able to Be Sustained (over some time period)
  2. “Without compromising the ability…”
  3. “One Planet”
  4. Agenda 21 / 2030

Definition 1 :- Able to Be Sustained (over some time period)

I’ve lived in Brighton, Sussex (UK) for about 20 years.  It is a city full of extreme environmentalists – (“greenies” and EcoFascists).  Over the years I’ve tried to understand the bizarre agenda of these greenies by talking to them.

I’ve asked them what they mean by the word “sustainable” and been given as a definition that it means “able to be sustained for ever.”  I stress the word “forever,” because it was only after I pointed out that “forever” is billions of billions (of billions) of years that they were willing to reduce that time period to one billion years. 

The EcoFascists are being quite reasonable when they claim that the word “sustainable” means “able to be sustained (kept going) over some time period.” But they are completely un-realistic when they claim that the time period over which a city like Brighton can be sustained is at least one billion years.

It is important to realise that “sustainable” means “able to be kept going for at least a billion years” to understand why there is a difference between “recycle-able” and “renewable“. (see below)

Local EcoFascists believe:-

a) that they can make Brighton sustainable for at least one billion years and

b)  that the way to do it is:-

  1. To implement a scheme for sustainability called “One Planet Brighton
  2. To also implement another scheme for sustainability called “Agenda 2030

Definition 2 :- “Without compromising the ability”

I got a different definition of the word “sustainable” from the then Minister for Climate Change called Ed Davies at a public meeting here in Brighton.  In response to my request for a technical definition of “sustainable” he said:-

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the people of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”

(This is a common definition originating in 1983 from the Brundtland Commission)

It is an astoundingly devious definition that is deliberately vague. 

It is the second part of the definition –  “without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” – that is going to kill us all, so I would like to expand on it.

Ability and Needs

Let’s explore the brilliance of the vagueness of the words “the ABILITY of future generations to meet their NEEDS”  We have no way of knowing what the ABILITIES of future generations are going to be, especially in one billion years time.  These ABILITIES are not only un-known but are also  unknowable.

For example – Humans might have the technology to create whatever they want similar to that imagined in “Star Trek’s” replicators and thus have the ABILITY to create whatever they want out of thin air.  We have no way of knowing what their abilities will be.

Note also the devious brilliance of the vagueness of “the ability of future generations to meet their NEEDS”  We have no way of knowing what the NEEDS of future generations are going to be, especially in one billion years time. These NEEDS are un-known and unknowable.

For example – Humans might not NEED any material resources at all – having perhaps become beings of pure light.

The use of the words “ability” and “needs” are so vague as to be meaningless and I believe that they were deliberately chosen so that they could be twisted into meaning anything at all.

The EcoFascists are interpreting the definition to mean that we must not reduce the amount of material resources that we leave future generations. This is just in case they might need it.

The only materials that we can use without reducing the quantity of are RENEWABLE materials, such as wood or cotton.

Renewable versus Re-Cycleable.

For example, if you cut a tree down to make a table you can plant another tree to replace the one that you have just destroyed.  Nature “RENEWS” that resource for us.

In this way it is possible to leave to future generations exactly the same amount of wood as you inherited. Only if you RENEW completely all that you consume can you be sure that you will leave the maximum possible amount to future generations, just in case they need it all.

EcoFascists  have decided that we have to leave future generations the MAXIMUM amount of resources that we can JUST IN CASE future generations need them.  EcoFascists  have decided that we certainly can’t reduce the amount of resources we leave them.

Not reducing the amount of resources that we leave future generations is only possible with RENEWABLE materials but it is not possible with non-renewable resources, like plastic and metal. 

Non-renewable resources like plastic and metal are not RENEWED by some process of Mother Nature. They do not renew themselves “organically” in the same way that trees, cotton and bull-rushes do.

Plastic and metal may be RECYCLE-able but they are not RENEWABLE.  

Re-CYCLING is a man-made process. For example we can re-cycle metal through smelting, but there is no (known) way to get Mother Nature to organically convert scrap metal back to pristine ingots of pure metal.

Each time we run metal through the re-cycling process we lose some of that metal into the environment – as oxides or as waste products from the smelting process.

And however small the amount that is lost in the recycling , we have COMPROMISED the ability of future generations to use that small bit to “meet their NEEDS.”  Thus the practice of re-cycling without also renewing  is thus “un-sustainable.”

Even digging the ores out of the ground and smelting them for the first time involves losing some of the metals into the environment and therefore involves possibly “compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” because for all we know future generations may need every single atom.

In fact they might “need” more atoms of a resource than there are on the whole planet.

In a billion years time, future generations might even “need” more atoms of a resource than there are in the whole UNIVERSE.

Future generations might need nothing but they might also need everything – either way we mustn’t “compromise their ability to meet their needs.”

These imaginary “future generations” might possibly need every single atom of every single metal on earth, so the only way to be sure that these imaginary future generations can meet their imaginary future needs is to make sure that not even one atom is ever dispersed into the environment.

The only way to do that is to leave absolutely all the ores in the ground.

We can’t just Re-CYCLE materials, because whenever we do we lose a little every time we go round the cycle.  If we keep re-cycling, then at some time in the next BILLION years we will have dispersed ALL our (non-renewable) material resources into the environment.  And thus possibly have deprived future generations of them.

A refinement of this argument is the “peak oil” argument.  “Peak Oil” says that we will eventually have extracted more oil from the ground than there is still left in it, because Oil is a finite resource that does not renew itself.

If our planning horizon is a billion years in the future than we will almost certainly have extracted all the oil by then, and in this way we will have deprived future-humans-in-one-billion-years-time of the oil that they might possibly need.

Humans in a billion years might not be able to meet their needs for oil.  (Assuming that they want any oil, and assuming that humans still exist and are not beings of pure light.)

Thus using oil is UN-SUSTAINABLE because oil is a finite resource that is not RENEWABLE.

The same can be said for plastic, because plastic is derived from oil.

The same can also be said for metal.  However much metal we have, if we use it we will certainly  eventually run out of it, and thus deprive future generations of it (Assuming that they want it).

EcoFascists  are interpreting “sustainability” to mean that we have to leave future generations not only all the metal that we think that that they might need, but ALL of the metal that we have now.  Which means that we can’t use ANY metal at all, because how ever little we use that bit will eventually be lost to future generations.

To summarise:-

  • We CAN only use materials that are sustainable for a billion years –  such as wood, cotton and bull-rushes – but only if we also RENEW them
  • We can NOT use materials which will run out in the next billion years – such as metal and oil.  They may be recycle-able (a few times), but they are not RENEWABLE.

I can see many problems with that policy.

If we cannot use any metal at all what are we going to use to cut wood with. Would you like to cut a plank of wood with a saw-blade made of wood instead of metal?

Would you like to harvest bull-rushes with a sickle made so entirely of wood that it included no metal at all?

Would you like to fashion a curved sickle made entirely of wood using tools made entirely of wood (ie without any metal)?  Making wooden tools using only wooden tools is going to make life very hard.

More immediate problems arise with electric cars.  Electric cars require batteries made of METAL. And their electronic controls also require plastic and metal. So, clearly they are not “sustainable.” 

Every electric car that we build deprives future generations of metal and plastic that they might conceivably need.

How could we be so selfish???

Electric cars are clearly NOT sustainable, however the cars used by the Flintstones might be.

Cars made entirely of renewable materials like wood would be sustainable. Although  I am not sure whether rock is a RENEWABLE material, so even a Flintstones car might not be “sustainable”.

The first humans to live unsustainable lives were the ones who started using metals like copper.  They selfishly did not consider that they were “compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

How could they be so selfish??? 

We have been living un-sustainable lives for thousands of years.

How could we be so selfish.???


No planes, no cars, no ships, the only trade is what you can carry on your back to market (because beasts of burden fart methane)


Farming without any machinery made of metal. Beasts of burden such as oxen will be illegal because it is cruel to animals and also animals fart methane. 
PETA will punish farmers who use animals, but not those who use humans as beasts of burden.

Definition Three – “One Planet”

EcoFascists have developed a definition of “sustainability” that is so precise that they can derive a number from it.  They have applied this definition to the city in which I live, which is called Brighton.

As you will see from my blog article, the local council have decided that Brighton consumes the material resources of three (3) planets and, since this amount of consumption is “un-sustainable,”  the council have voted to reduce the amount of consumption of resources to the correct amount which is one (1) planet’s worth.

Hence the name of the plan which is “One Planet Brighton.” 

What is wrong with One Planet Brighton is that it is two thirds less of a Brighton than three planets Brighton and three planets Brighton is what we had 2011 when the Council voted to implement the One Planet plan.

Since then the Council have systematically destroyed the city that they are supposed to look after.  They are deliberately turning Brighton into a Ghetto and a Gulag.  They call reducing a city into poverty and slavery “development.”  In fact they call it “Sustainable Development

Gentle reader – before you mock – you need to know that this “One Planet” war of attrition against humans  is almost certainly being applied in your country.

Just for one example in the USA – Seattle – see –

For more cities see:-

And watch:-

Look for “One Planet” schemes in Canada, Denmark, South Africa and the UK.


The politicians deliberately make no attempt to show that their policies are sufficient to meet their  claimed objective. They nowhere show that “One Planet” is enough to make anywhere “sustainable.”   For example they nowhere show that “One Planet Brighton” is sufficient to ensure that Brighton will still be here in one billion years.

Nether do they show that all of the parts of the plan are necessary.  For example they nowhere show that direct political control of happiness is necessary to ensure that Brighton is still here in one billion years.

Try asking EcoFascists to prove that their policies are either necessary or sufficient to achieve their stated goal. 

Try asking them what percentage of scientists say that their policies are sufficient to ensure that (for example) Brighton will still be here in a billion years.

Try asking them what percentage of scientists say that their policies are necessary to ensure that (for example) Brighton will still be here in a billion years time.

The “One Planet” plan is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve the stated goal.   The whole thing is actually a fake rationale for a totalitarian government. A fake justification for a global totalitarian government.

The politicians first created a plan for totalitarian poverty and slavery then later fabricated a rationale to justify it.  That rationale is “Sustainability”

“SUSTAINABILITY” is an excuse for totalitarian control.

  • A vast depopulation.
  • De-industrialisation.
  • A totalitarian world government

Sustainability is voluntary compliance with artificial scarcity

Sustainability is shivering in the cold and dark so that in the future they can shiver in the cold and dark.

The Age of Green is a new and terrible Dark Age.


Definition Four – Agenda 21 and Agenda 2130

The terms “Agenda 21”  and “Sustainable Development” seem to be pretty much interchangeable. See :- ” a global plan for sustainable development called Agenda 21.”

Agenda 21 was a GLOBAL plan for “sustainable development” that has recently been replaced by a newer GLOBAL plan called Agenda 2030

From Wikipedia we get the dates 1983 and 1992 by which to relate Agenda 21 and “sustainable development”

In 1983, the United Nations created the World Commission on Environment and Development (later known as the Brundtland Commission), which defined sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

In 1992, the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) or Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro, where the first agenda for Environment and Development, also known as Agenda 21, was developed and adopted.

Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are programs to achieve a goal that is deliberately not defined.

EcoFascists  deliberately do NOT define “SUSTAINABLE” even though it is the main goal of their gigantic global programs of enforced poverty and slavery.

They also deliberately don’t even attempt to prove that meeting the sub-goals specified in Agendas 21 and 2030 will actually achieve that main goal.  They don’t even try because of course they couldn’t prove it.

Neither Necessary nor Sufficient

They don’t even try to prove that their sub-goals are sufficient to achieve their main goal.

They don’t even try to prove that any of their sub-goals are necessary to achieve their main goal. 

They don’t even try because nobody is allowed to even ask them to try.  If you ask them “What percentage of scientists say that you plan will make us sustainable”  they refuse to answer, because the answer is that ZERO percent of scientists say that the plans will work.


All of the United Nations documentation is written in euphemisms that make poverty and slavery seem attractive.

For example the Sustainable Development Goal number one is: “No Poverty”

But that turns out to mean NOT that the poor will be made rich, but that the rich will be made poor.

People enjoying the standard of living of the European middle class will be forced to reduce their standard of living by at least two-thirds.  ( See my blog article about sustainable development in my home town :- Sustainable Happiness is no laughing matter )

The United Nations intend to eliminate poverty by making everybody equally poor, not by raising the poor up to the level of those who are richer.


UK cities declare “State of Climate Emergency”

December 2018

Here in the UK, three large Cities have declared a “State of Emergency” with respect to Climate.

Those cities are:-

  • Brighton (where I live)
  • Bristol and
  • London


On Thu 13 December 2018, Brighton Council declared a “climate emergency”

Go here to see a written copy of this declaration.

Go here to see a video of the Brighton Council speaking and voting on this.

Below is the words of the actual motion voted on:

This Council notes with concern the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on global climate change impacts and the recent Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reports on global species and habitat loss. Council notes also that our coastal city on the edge of the South Downs is affected by these threats, which are projected to intensify.

Further to this, Council:

(1)        Declares its recognition of global climate and biodiversity emergencies

The concerned reader should research particularly the “IPBES” mentioned above and also”Biodiversity.”



Bristol Green Councillors successfully proposed a notice of motion calling for the city to declare a state of climate emergency and bring forward carbon emissions targets by 20 years.

This occurred on Tuesday, 13th Nov 2018

Here is the exact wording of the motion voted on:


06 December 2018

“We urge the Mayor to declare a Climate Emergency, supported by specific emergency plans with the actions needed to make London carbon neutral by 2030”


“The motion was agreed by 12 votes for to 0 against”

This is from:-

Readers should also see my other blog articles on similar subjects


EXTRA NEWS – 13 March 2019

It is MUCH worse than I thought.  Below is a list of Local Governments that passed a “Climate Emergency” resolution according to the website:-

Ther are nearly 40 towns and Cities, just in the UK!!

United Kingdom:
Bradford District Council: 534,300
Brighton and Hove City Council: 273,369
Bristol City Council, (@BristolCity): 535.907
Calderdale Borough Council, Halifax: 208,402
• Cambridge City Council: 123,867
• Carmarthenshire County Council, Wales: 185,600

Cheltenham Borough Council: 117,100
Cornwall Council: 563,600
• Devon County Council: 1,185,500
• Durham County Council: 862,600
Edinburgh City Council, Scotland: 513,210
Falmouth Town Council: 21,797
Forest of Dean District Council: 86,000
Frome Town Council: 26.203
Glastonbury Town Council: 8,500
Greater London Authority: 8.174.000
Kirklees Council: 423,000
Lambeth Council: 324,431
Lancaster City Council: 142,500
Langport Town Council: 2,872
Leicester City Council: 329,839
Machynlleth Town Council, Wales: 2,235
Milton Keynes Council: 229,941
• North Somerset District Council: 212,800
Norwich City Council: 141,300 – petition
Oswestry Town Council: 17,105
Oxford City Council: 161,300
Powys County Council, Wales: 132,500
Scarborough Borough Council: 108,400
Sheffield City Council: 577,800
• Somerset County Council: 555,200
• Somerset West and Taunton Council: 149,800
• South Gloucestershire Council: 279,000
Stroud District Council: 116.627
Totnes Town Council: 8.076
Trafford Council: 233,288
Tywyn Town Council, Wales: 3,264
Vale of White Horse District Council: 126,663

Ballarat City Council, Victoria: 101.686
Blue Mountains City Council, New South Wales: 76,904
Byron Shire Council, New South Wales: 33.987
Darebin City Council, (@CityofDarebin), Melbourne, Victoria: 158.745
Maribyrnong City Council, Melbourne, Victoria: 82,288
Moreland City Council, Melbourne, Victoria: 162.558
Town of Gawler: 26,472
Town of Victoria Park, Western Australia: 34,990
Vincent City Council, Western Australia: 35.768
Yarra City Council, Victoria: 95,981

Berkeley City Council, (@CityofBerkeley), California: 112.580
Hayward City Council, California: 147,000
Hoboken City Council, (@CityofHoboken), New Jersey: 55.131
Los Angeles City Council, (@LosAngelesCity), California: 3.999.759
Montgomery County Council, (@MontgomeryCoMD), Maryland: 971.777
New Britain, Connecticut: 73,200 – resolution
Oakland City Council, (@Oakland), California: 390.724
Richmond City Council, (@RichmondCalDemo), California: 103.701
Santa Cruz City Council, (@CityofSantaCruz), California: 62.864

• Capital Regional District (CRD), British Columbia (13 municipalities and three electoral districts: Saanich, Victoria, Langford, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, Colwood, Central Saanich, Sooke, Sidney, North Saanich, View Royal, Metchosin, Highlands, Salt Spring Island, Juan de Fuca, and the Southern Gulf Islands): 383,360
• City of Edmundston, New Brunswick: 16,580
Halifax Regional Council, Nova Scotia: 208,402
Vancouver City Council: 631,486
Québec, 256 councils and municipalities: 5,752,760 – declaration
Richmond Council, British Columbia: 198,310


Vaccines – Package Inserts

What is a Package Insert?

A package insert is a leaflet inserted into the boxes that contain vaccines.
They are inserted by the pharmaceutical company that manufacture the vaccines.
They usually list the side-effects and adverse reactions that vaccine zealots claim do not exist.


Below is a section from the package-insert for MMR. The manufacturers list side-effects and adverse reactions that vaccine zealots claim do not exist



Climate Catastrophists are far, far worse than “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”

In December 2018 the United Nations held a conference about climate change in Katowice, Poland

Many commentators stated publically that this conference was the “LAST CHANCE


But in making the claim about this conferences they are also saying that all the many previous claims of “last chance” conferences are false.  After all – if the previous conferences were the last chance then this one can’t be.  And if this one is the last chance then the others cannot have been.

Previous ‘Last Chance’ UN climate summit deadlines:

Last chance! – Bonn, 2001 – A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance. That teetering edifice that is the Kyoto Protocol gets some emergency repair work this week as delegates from 180 countries gather in Bonn to work out problems that threaten to scuttle the deal altogether. – Time Magazine, 16 Jul 2001

Last chance! – Montreal, 2005 – In an open letter to delegates at the Montreal environmental summit, beginning today, campaigner Mark Lynas explains why action on climate change can no longer be stalled. “I’m scared. For 15 years I’ve watched international progress on climate change get slower and slower, even while the pace of global warming seems to get ever more rapid. With time running out for the global climate, your meeting in Montreal represents a last chance for action.” – The Independent, 28 Nov 2005

Last chance! – Bali, 2007 – World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change. Bali could be the last chance to avoid the worst effect of global warming, said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth. – The New Zealand Herald, 3 Dec 200

Last chance! – 2007: Philip Clapp, head of the Washington-based National Environment Trust, says: “Fifteen years of international negotiations have not yet produced a comprehensive agreement that will get developed countries to begin serious reductions.” He adds: “The framework for such an agreement must come out of the Bali meeting. The scientists are telling us that this is the world’s last shot at avoiding the worst consequences of global warming.” – The Independent, 2 Dec 2007

Last chance! – Poznan, Poland, 2008 – The world will “suicide” if it cannot strike a strong climate pact soon, Australian environmental scientist Tim Flannery has warned. Professor Flannery, who is attending a UN climate summit in Poland, expressed dismay at the slow progress. “Resistance is a suicidal tactic,” the former Australian of the year, scientist and author told reporters in Poland. “This round of negotiations is likely to be our last chance as a species to deal with the problem.” The Age, 9 Dec 2008

Last chance! – 2008: Humanity is approaching the last chance to prevent catastrophic climate change, according to WWF’s analysis of the latest climate science. The warning comes during UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland. “Governments in Poznan must agree to peak and decline global emissions well before 2020 to give people reasonable hope that global warming can still be kept within limits that prevent the worst,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF’s global climate initiative. – WWF, “Poznan provides last chance to curb climate change” 5 Dec 2008

Last chance! – Copenhagen, 2009 – The world faces a final opportunity to agree an adequate global response to climate change at a U.N.-led meeting in Copenhagen in December, the European Union’s environment chief said on Friday. It is now 12 years since Kyoto was created. This makes Copenhagen the world’s last chance to stop climate change before it passes the point of no return, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a climate conference in Budapest on Friday. – Reuters, Feb 27 2009

2009: Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, has warned of “catastrophic consequences” unless a new international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions is reached. Climate change is “simply the greatest collective challenge we face as a human family”, Mr Ban said in a speech on Monday in Seoul. He urged international leaders to reach a deal to limit their countries’ carbon emissions at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December. – The Telegraph, 10 Aug 2009

Last chance! – 2009: “No one said the road to Copenhagen would be easy. But the agreement we all hope to reach in Copenhagen next year represents the last chance to bring climate change under control before it is too late. There is progress, but we need to step up the pace. With resolve, cooperation and imagination, we can conclude an agreement at the end of next year, delivering the ambitious global action that is needed.”
Speech by Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner responsible for environment at a Climate Change Conference, 31 October 2008, Prague

Last chance! – 2009: The Copenhagen summit is the world’s last chance to save the planet from “catastrophic” global warming, according to a major study led by Lord Stern of Brentford, the country’s leading authority on climate change. Without an international agreement to limit global warming, temperatures are likely to rise by 9F (5C) by the end of the century – triggering mass migration, warfare and world hunger, according to the report. – The Telegraph, 2 Dec 2009

Last chance! – Cancun, 2010 – A sense of foreboding is one of the few points of general agreement among the 15,000 participants congregating for the next two weeks on this long thin strip of land, marooned between a wide lagoon and the Caribbean Sea. Jairem Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, sees it as the “last chance” for climate change talks to succeed; Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s climate chief, believes a disappointing outcome would “put the whole process in danger”. – The Telegraph (UK), 29 Nov 2010

Last chance! – Durban, 2011 – Rev. Dr. Olav Fyske Tveit, who leads the World Council of Churches, says the upcoming climate conference in South Africa is mankind’s ‘last opportunity’ to address climate change. This week the World Council of Churches general secretary, Reverend Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, called the United Nations UNFCCC COP 17 meeting a “last opportunity for the international community to be responsible in addressing climate change”, and called on the meeting to “act now for climate justice.” – Spero News, 27 Nov 2011

Last chance! – 2011: Durban climate change meeting is “the last chance”. Attended by over 200 countries, this week’s major UN conference has been described by many experts as humanity’s last chance to avert the disastrous effects of climate change. Together with around 20 000 delegates from nearly 200 countries, Ferrial Adam, the climate change and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Africa, will be attending the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which gets under way in Durban in the next two weeks, towards negotiating a new climate regime. – UCANews, 28 Nov 2011

Last chance! – Doha, 2012 – Tomorrow: the earth’s last chance with climate change? Tomorrow, the whole world talks about irreversible global warming as this year’s international climate change summit begins. Participating are 195 countries (almost all of the United Nations). There are two concurrent meetings: the 8th Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol; and the 18th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They will take place from Monday, November 26, 2012 to Friday, December 7, 2012 at the Qatar National Convention Centre in Doha, Qatar. – The Examiner, 25 Nov 2012

Last chance! – Warsaw, 2013 – Is the Warsaw Climate Change Conference a last-chance summit? The Warsaw Climate Change Conference opened on Monday 11th November. After the 2012 failure of Doha, this summit could represent a turning point in the fight against global warming. “Global greenhouse gas emissions need to peak this decade, and get to zero net emissions by the second half of this century,” announced Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in a press release dated 8th November. “We have the money and technology, the knowledge and the new economic models to get the job done in time,” she confirmed before describing the next two years as “a critical period to act faster on climate.” – Sustainable Mobility, 14 Nov 2013

Last chance! – Lima, 2014Last chance: Change needed for climate negotiations in Lima 2014. WWF issued the following statement today from Samantha Smith, Leader of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative, as the UN climate talks drew to a conclusion: “A repeat performance next year would be disastrous, not just for the progress of these negotiations, but more importantly for vulnerable communities everywhere and the natural world on which we all depend…By the time we get to next year’s meeting in Lima, we urgently need to have political will, real commitments, and a clear path to a comprehensive and fair agreement in Paris 2015, where a new global agreement on climate change has to be signed.” – WWF Global, 23 Nov 2013

Last chance! – Paris, 2015: Scientists are calling on world leaders to sign up to an eight-point plan of action at landmark talks in Paris. The key element is the goal to limit global warming to below 2C by moving to zero carbon emissions by 2050. The UN meeting in December is “the last chance” to avert dangerous climate change, according to the Earth League. – BBC News 22 Apr 2015

ALL of these claims of “Last Chance” are FALSE!!

These commentators claiming “last chance” are worse than boys who cry wolf.

US Government admits some Autism caused by Vaccines

The following is a list of cases where the US Government determined that Vaccination HAD caused Autism

So any claim that there is no link between vaccination and autism is provably FALSE

NVIC awards for Autism caused by various Vaccines (not just MMR)

Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007)

MMR vaccine was administered in March 2000.
The child was diagnosed with PDD secondary to acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM).
Michael McLaren, counsel for petitioner; Richard Abell, Special Master

Noel v. HHS (Case 99-538V, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 354, December 14, 2004)

DPaT and HiB vaccines administered in March 1997.
Seizure disorder in a child diagnosed with autism.
Clifford Shoemaker, counsel for petitioner; Laura Millman, Special Master

Freeman v. HHS (Case 01-390V, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 285, September 25, 2003)

MMR vaccine administered in July 1999.
Seizure disorder in a child displaying features of “atypical autism.”
Ronald Homer and Sylvia Chin-Caplan, counsel for petitioner; George L. Hastings, Special Master

Suel v. HHS (Case 90-935V, 1997 U.S. Claims LEXIS 210, September 22, 1997)

DPT vaccine administered in the 1980’s.
Aggravation of tuberous sclerosis in a child diagnosed with autism.
Richard Gage, counsel for petitioner; Laura Millman, Special Master

Kleinert v. HHS (Case 90-211V, 1991 U.S. Cl. Ct. LEXIS 69, February 20, 1991)

DPT vaccine administered in February 1981.
Seizure disorder in a child diagnosed with “overfocussing,” “similar in some respects to autism.”
Michael Hugo, counsel for petitioner; Denis J. Hauptly, Special Master

Underwood v. HHS (Case 90-719V, 1991 U.S. Cl. Ct. LEXIS 373, July 31, 1991)

DPT vaccine administered in 1974.
Seizure disorder in a child diagnosed with autism.
Curtis Webb, counsel for petitioner; Elizabeth Wright, Special Master

Sanford v. HHS (Case 90-2760V, 1993 U.S. Claims LEXIS 49, May 10, 1993)

DPT vaccine administered in September 1979.
Seizure disorder in a child with “autistic tendencies.”
Mari Bush, counsel for petitioner; LaVon French, Special Master

Bastian v. HHS (Case 90-1161V, 1994 U.S. Claims LEXIS 196, September 22, 1994)

DPT administered in December 1984.
Seizure disorder in a child diagnosed with autism. Testifying doctors for petitioners and HHS all agreed that while he “exhibits some autistic symptomatology, [he] is not autistic.”
Boyd McDowell, counsel for petitioner; Richard Abell, Special Master

Lassiter v. HHS (Case 90-2036V, 1996 U.S. Claims LEXIS 216, December 17, 1996)

DPT vaccine administered in 1972.
Seizure disorder in an young man diagnosed with autism. The court ruled that a diagnosis of idiopathic autism (i.e., autism of unknown origin) was not sufficient to establish a “factor unrelated” that might result in the dismissal of a claim.
Clifford Shoemaker, counsel for petitioner; LaVon French, Special Master


On separate occasions the Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration told journalists Sharyl Atkisson and David Kirby :

“The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”

I claim that the two medical conditions “encephalopathy” and “autism” are  a distinction without a difference.

MMR timeline


Below is a Timeline of events related to the MMR vaccine and the Andrew Wakefield “scandal”

The primary allegation made against Wakefield was that he had had an “un-declared conflict of interest.” Specifically that he failed to disclose to “The Lancet”  – when they published a paper of his about possible harm caused by the MMR vaccine  – that he was also being funded by Legal Aid to carry out research into possible harms caused by the MMR vaccination.

What I find the  strangest, but also the most significant feature of this sorry saga is that millions of pounds of Legal Aid  money was being spend on doing medical research.

According to journalist Brian Deer more than £3 million of legal aid had been given to “doctors and scientists” (ie NOT lawyers) to research vaccine injuries related to MMR.

Apparently the total amount of money spent on this case was £15 million

15 million pounds spent by lawyers attempting to make a case that MMR had caused autism in more than 1,000 children

“On 22 December 2006, in response to a request initiated by Deer under the Freedom of Information Act, the Legal Services Commission revealed for the first time details of how more than £15million of legal aid funding was spent by lawyers attempting to make a case that MMR had caused autism in more than 1,000 children .”


Deer says that Dr Wakefield had received about £400,000 of this, which he did not disclose to the Lancet.

Dr Wakefield says that he did tell the Lancet by letter.

Since his crime was undisclosed conflict of interest I list here the un-declared competing interests of the main players against Wakefield in this sordid affair.

You’ll need the timeline below to connect them up.


Brian Deer had un-disclosed conflicts of interest

Brian Deer was paid to write his allegations by:-

  • Paul Nuki of the Sunday Times.  Nuki had his own conflict of interests (See Below)
  • The British Medical Journal who had a conflict of interest. (Which they admit Below)

The BMJ admits conflicts of interest

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) did not disclose that it had major financial conflicts of interest in the character assassination articles it published about Dr. Andrew Wakefield.  But it did eventually admit them.

British Medical Journal (BMJ) March 15, 2012
‘The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues (BMJ 2011;342:c7452, doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452). The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturers, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines.

For further information see the rapid response from Godlee ( The same omission also affected two related Editor’s Choice articles (BMJ 2011;342:d22 and BMJ 2011;342:d378

The British Medical Journal receives most of their funding from ads sold to pharmaceutical companies

And, Anderson Cooper reported, “According to him [Brian Deer], he’s received no funding from any parties that have interests in this over the last three years.” But, the British Medical Journal, wholly owned by the British Medical Association, just paid Brian Deer to write his most recent hit piece, as Brian Deer said:

DEER: I was commissioned by the “British Medical Journal” to write the piece, yes. That’s what journalists do.

The “Sunday Times” had conflicts of interest

Paul Nuki, the Sunday Times features editor, who hired journalist Brian Deer to investigate Andrew Wakefield with the statement “I need something big” on “MMR” was the son of Prof George Nuki who was on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when MMR and Pluserix were introduced in the late 1980s.  He was one of the people who approved it’s use even though they knew there was evidence that it was harmful.

In 2009 James Murdoch CEO of News International, publishers of the Sunday Times joined the board of GlaxoSmithKline, with a responsibility to “review external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group’s business and reputation” This was immediately followed by renewed “overkill” type attacks in Times newspapers on Andrew Wakefield by Brian Deer and others.

Dr Horton – Editor of “The Lancet” had conflicts of interest

“A further deeply unsatisfactory feature is that Dr Horton (Editor of “The Lancet”) has never disclosed that his boss, Sir Crispin Davis, chief executive of Reed Elsevier (who publish the Lancet), was appointed a non-executive director of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline in summer 2003 only a few months before the Sunday Times article in February 2004 that accused Dr Wakefield.”

Plain English: Dr. Richard Horton was the editor of The Lancet, publisher of Wakefield’s study. Medical journals are for-profit entities, and Reed Elsevier is a company that own The Lancet along with many other journals.

In the Summer of 2003, the CEO of Reed Elsevier became a board member of GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world’s largest vaccine makers, and a maker of MMR.

The Davis brothers Sir Crispin and Sir Nigel.

Sir Crispin Davis was CEO of Reed Elsevier, publishers of the Lancet, when Lancet editor Richard Horton denounced Andrew Wakefield to the BBC but was also a non-executive director of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline

Sir Nigel Davis was the High Court judge who upheld the Legal Services Commission to withhold funding from the MMR case a week later without disclosing a family connection to the case.

Sir Crispin gave evidence against Andrew Wakefield to a Commons committee as CEO of Reed Elsevier, cross-examined by Evan Harris, in which he neither disclosed

  1. His GlaxoSmithKline directorship or
  2. His brother’s judicial involvement in the case.

Dr Evan Harris, a doctor and an MP had conflicts of interest

Dr Evan Harris, the former MP, who

  1. accompanied Brian Deer to make accusations against Andrew Wakefield and colleagues, and
  2. led a debate under privilege in the House of Commons making further allegations of unethical practices

is the son of paediatrician Prof Frank Harris who sat on the Committee on Safety in Medicines and the Adverse Reactions to Vaccine Committee ARVI in the early 1990s when Pluserix MMR vaccine had to be withdrawn

He was also a Glaxo Wellcome funded Fellow and an active British Medical Association member.

Professor Dennis McDevitt – the wannabe Chair of the GMC hearing that lynched Wakefield

Professor Denis McDevitt was due in July 2007 to chair the unprecedented British General Medical Council hearing of the case of Doctors Wakefield, Murch and Professor Walker-Smith.

McDevitt and the GMC failed to declare McDevitt’s personal involvement in approving the dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine in 1988.
He only stood down after

  • Jamie Doward of the Observer,
  • Martyn Halle, freelance journalist for the Sunday Express,
  • Andy Wilks of the Mail on Sunday,
  • Jenny Hope of the Daily Mail and
  • Heather Mills of Private Eye

challenged the GMC over the matter.

More about McDevitt

GMC Challenged On MMR Inquiry Chief’s Vaccine Firm Links
London, England & Scotland/May 2007/JWock/

The Chairman of the General Medical Council’s inquiry into MMR vaccine doctor Andrew Wakefield, Professor Dennis McDevitt, is being challenged over undisclosed personal interests.

On 11th July this year an unprecedented 14 week GMC hearing chaired by Professor McDevitt was due to commence into charges against Dr Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital relating to the controversial vaccine. However, previously secret government minutes reveal Professor McDevitt was himself a member of a 1988 government safety panel which approved Pluserix MMR as safe for vaccine manufacturer Smith Kline & French Laboratories (see HYPERLINK

Apparently these un-declared conflicts of interest do not tarnish their actions, yet somehow Dr Wakefield’s did.



According to one independent UK investigator, Alan Golding, who obtained Freedom of Information documents on the case, in “1986 Trivirix, an MMR compound containing the Mumps Urabe strain AM-9, was introduced in Canada to replace MMRI.

Concerns regarding the introduction of MMR in the UK are recorded in the minutes of the Joint Working Party of the British Paediatric Association and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) Liaison Group on June 26th of that year.

Such concerns were soon to prove well grounded, as reports began to come in of an increased incidence of aseptic meningitis in vaccinated individuals. Ultimately, all MMR vaccines containing the Urabe strain of mumps were withdrawn in Canada in early 1988.

MMR was withdrawn in Canada BEFORE Urabe containing vaccines were licensed by the Department of Health for use in the UK…

The report adds, “Smith-Kline-French, the pharmaceutical company who became Smith-Kline-Beecham and were involved in UK manufacture at that time, were concerned about these safety issues and were reluctant to obtain a UK license for their Urabe-containing vaccines.

As a result of their ‘concern’ that children might be seriously damaged by one of their products, they requested that the UK government indemnify them against possible legal action that might be taken as a result of ‘losses’ associated with the vaccine, which by then was known to carry significant risk to health.

The UK government, advised by Professor Salisbury and representatives from the Department of Health, in it’s enthusiasm to get a cheap MMR onto the market, agreed to this request.”

The UK government indemnified the manufacturers of the vaccine against legal action from people harmed by the vaccine


Three brands of MMR introduced by Department of Health .


Investigations into the claims of injury started in 1991 when applications for legal aid were first being filed

Nearly 2000 children alleged to be suffering from autism, deafness, bowel disorders and other serious injuries caused by the vaccine filed legal claims against manufacturer Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. Investigations into the claims started in 1991 when applications for legal aid were first being filed.

Dr Wakefield was retained as an expert witness in the legal claims.

Wakefield disclosed his status as an expert witness funded by legal aid in a letter to the Lancet in 1998 –  so this was known to The Lancet.

The vaccine was given to 85% of MMR vaccinated children between 1988 and 1992. Labour MP Jack Ashley said at the time of the 1992 withdrawal that correspondence with Minister Virginia Bottomley MP confirmed government knew of the problems in March 1991, some 18 months earlier.


Two brands, Pluserix and Immravax were withdrawn in the UK by September 1992 because they contained a mumps strain known as Urabe which had caused meningitis in some children in the UK.

Pluserix MMR caused very high levels of adverse reactions and was withdrawn by the manufacturers on very little notice in late 1992 leaving the Department of Health in an embarrassing position

Pluserix-MMR manufactured by SmithKline Beecham was withdrawn in the UK on the 14th September 1992 because of “reports of mild transient meningitis.”

Immravax made by the French company, Merieux UK Ltd. This was also withdrawn on the same date and for the same reason as Pluserix-MMR – because of “reports of mild transient meningitis.”.


The Measles Rubella Campaign of 1994

In November 1994 the government begins a measles and rubella vaccination campaign – Booster
a most urgent warning sent out November (1994)  to doctors and the parents of 8 million children by the Department of Health, saying “definitely” there would be a measles epidemic in 1995 that would infect between 100,000 and 200,000 children and that “around 50 children, mostly of secondary school age, would die” – that is, if children of between 5 and 15 were not revaccinated.

It was called a re-vaccination campaign because the children had previously been vaccinated, depending on their age, with the measles vaccine or with the MMR. This massive re-vaccination took place in November and December 1994.

But this must surely be an admission  that the first vaccination against measles didn’t work, otherwise why would a second one be required??

Some doctors and scientists said that the re-vaccination was not necessary.

The campaign to vaccinate 8m school children in the UK followed public health specialists’ forecasts of a measles epidemic on a scale not seen since the 1950s. Parents were told that up to 200,000 people could be infected, and there would be up to 50 deaths among children in an outbreak.

In the event, only 35 measles cases were diagnosed in the first four months of 1995, just two of them in children.


Friday, 3 November 1995

More than 500 children suffered serious reactions following last year’s measles vaccination campaign, which some scientists believe was unnecessary.

Tom Sackville, Parliamentary Secretary at the Department of Health, said last night that one quarter of the 530 cases were of the “immediate allergic type reactions from which no serious or long-lasting effects were known to have resulted.”

Three-quarters suffered “late-onset” serious reactions, such as arthritis or flu-like symptoms but none suffered any long-term damage, a spokesman for the Department said. “The Medicines Control Agency has checked them all out and found no causal link.”

But parents of more than 170 children who, it is claimed, developed crippling illnesses after the immunisation, last night dismissed suggestions that no child suffered long-term damage.

They claim their children, aged between five and 16, have been left with problems ranging from partial paralysis and incontinence to seizures and brain damage, and up to 100 promised they would continue with legal action for compensation. The parents say appropriate warnings about the risks were not given.

Jackie Fletcher, founder of JABS, a parents’ support group ,said: “The ministers are out of touch with what has happened if they truly believe that no child suffered long-term damage.”

=== JABS ===

9 August 2010

MMR campaigner from Warrington wins £90,000 payout

Jackie and Robert Fletcher << see “Jabs”>>

The mother of a Cheshire teenager who was left severely brain damaged by the MMR vaccine has won a compensation award from the government.

Robert Fletcher, 18, from Warrington, suffered a fit 10 days after he had the vaccination when he was 13 months old

His mother Jackie received the £90,000 payout from a medical assessment panel last week.

The family successfully appealed after their application for compensation was originally turned down in 1997.

In 1995 Dr Wakefield became an expert witness in this case, retained by the solicitor on behalf of the parents making the claim.


In October 1997

  • Dr Andrew Wakefield and
  • Professor Walker-Smith from the Royal Free Hospital, London,
  • JABS and its legal representatives

took part in a meeting with the then Health Minister, Tessa Jowell, also the Chief Medical Officer, Principal Medical Officer and others.

During the course of the one hour meeting a full list of children, then affected, was presented.

We asked that the Government should instigate a scientific investigation of the children believed to have been damaged


In 1998 The Lancet published the now controversial study by Dr Andrew Wakefield’s Royal Free Hospital London research team into links between autism and the MMR vaccine.

Wakefield, AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A et al. Early report: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive development disorder. The Lancet: 1998;351:637-41.

This paper exlicitly states that it is NOT a proof.  See – the fantastic “Did not prove” quote:-

March 1998

Wakefield sparked a furore with the government later to involve Prime Minister Tony Blair when at a March 1998 press conference he suggested single measles jabs be made available alongside MMR.

April 2000

Dr. Andrew Wakefield testifies before the (US) Government Reform Committee Hearing on Vaccines and Autism, April 6, 2000, Chairman: Representative Dan Burton.
“Top UK Doctor Ties 170 cases of Autism to MMR Baby Vaccine,” London Telegraph, 1-21-01

(For more info on Dan Burton see my documentary //////


Wakefield publishes a paper called “Through a Glass, Darkly.” In it he attacks the Committee On The Safety Of Vaccines.

TITLE:   Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine: through a glass, darkly.
KEYWORDS: Safety of MMR vaccine, pre-licensing studies, adverse events.
AUTHORS: Wakefield AJ, Montgomery SM.
JOURNAL:  Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev 2000; 19(4):265–83.
This paper alleges that early studies of the MMR vaccine indicated a safety problem, and the licensure was premature. It focuses on pre-licensing studies of the MMR vaccine and the documentation of subsequent adverse events.

Six pre-licensing studies are quoted (four from the US, one from Japan, one from the UK) prior to licensing of MMR in the UK (1988). They criticise the small patient sample sizes (174 to 10,000) and short follow-up time (max. 28 days) to detect adverse events.

The authors argue that gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms reported from these trials were ignored or overlooked, and suggest that GI symptoms are worse with the combined MMR vaccine rather than the single antigen measles vaccine alone. They highlight concerns over the potential for interference between the components of vaccines, particularly in view of the immunosupressive properties of the wild measles virus. In conclusion, they state ‘a significant index of suspicion exists for MMR, autism and inflammatory bowel disease, without adequate evidence of safety’.

November 2000

Wakefield appears on a TV program called “60 Minutes”
Meanwhile in America, a ferocious anti-vaccine movement took off after Wakefield toured US autism conferences and, in November 2000, appeared on the CBS network’s 60 Minutes programme linking MMR with what he called an “epidemic of autism”.

Jan 2001

On 22/1/01, the UK DoH launched a £3m publicity campaign for MMR and rejected the Wakefield & Montgomery “Through A Glass Darkly” MMR safety-test paper

Jan 2001

“Top UK Doctor Ties 170 Cases Of Autism To MMR Baby Vaccine”
By Lorraine Fraser – Medical Correspondent Jan-21-2001

May 2001

The 31st May 2001 edition of Private Eye, an independent UK publication, contained the following report on the GlaxoSmithKline Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine.

“A landmark ruling in the French appeal courts against UK vaccine manufacturer GSKpassed almost unnoticed by the British media. The courts reached a decision that vaccine damage had taken place, based on serious, precise presumptions and similar evidence…. This has huge importance for the 3,000 UK families now seeking to sue SmithKline and another company over damage they say was caused to their children by the MMR jab.”


“Private Eye” publish a 32-page MMR Special Report

During the early 2000s Private Eye published many stories on the MMR vaccine controversy, substantially supporting the interpretation by Andrew Wakefield of published research in The Lancet by the Royal Free Hospital’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group, which described an apparent link between the vaccine, autism and bowel problems.

Many of these stories accused medical researchers who supported the vaccine’s safety of having conflicts of interest because of funding from the pharmaceutical industry.

Initially dismissive of Wakefield, the magazine rapidly moved to support him, in 2002 publishing a 32-page MMR Special Report that supported Wakefield’s assertion that MMR vaccines “should be given individually at not less than one year intervals.”

The British Medical Journal issued a contemporary press release[19] that concluded: “The Eye report is dangerous in that it is likely to be read by people who are concerned about the safety of the vaccine. A doubting parent who reads this might be convinced there is a genuine problem and the absence of any proper references will prevent them from checking the many misleading statements.”

Subsequently, editor Ian Hislop told the author and columnist Ben Goldacre that Private Eye is “not anti-MMR”.[20]

In a review article published in February 2010, after Wakefield was disciplined by the General Medical Council, regular columnist Phil Hammond, who contributes under the pseudonym “M.D.”, stated that “Private Eye got it wrong in its coverage of MMR”, in maintaining its support for Wakefield’s position long after shortcomings in his work had emerged.[21]

Autumn 2003

Almost 2,000 families whose children became autistic or had other serious adverse events after MMR attempted to take legal action in the UK, against MMR manufacturers
1. Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd,
2. Merck and Company Inc,
3. SmithKline Beecham & French Laboratories Ltd and
4. SmithKline Beecham Plc.

The trial date for families versus GSK was originally fixed for October 2003 in the High Court of Justice in London, and then delayed until early 2004. However, in autumn 2003, the UK Legal Services Commission, under the management of a newly-appointed Chief Executive, suddenly withdrew funding from the cases, claiming that there was little chance of success and that it was not the role of the LSC to fund research. This was after £15m had been spent, and the estimate was that a further £10m would be necessary.

An appeal against that decision is lodged.

February  2004

5th February 2004 – Deer‘s first letter of complaint to the GMC (of 2)

February  2004

Brian Deer made allegations during a meeting at the Lancet on the morning of February `18, 2004

February 2004

On Saturday 21 February 2004, Lancet Editor Richard Horton pre-empted the Sunday Times stories. Horton was reported in The Times claiming he would not have published the MMR part of The Royal Free’s Lancet paper had Wakefield’s paid involvement in the MMR litigation been disclosed.

The Sunday Times had waited until Sunday 22 February 2004, 5 days before judgment in the MMR child litigants’ High Court challenge to the withdrawal of legal aid, to publish its stories attacking Wakefield. Prime Minister Blair was reported in the press on the issue as was Health Secretary Reid.

Dr Horton Lancet  Feb 2004

Dr. Horton (Lancet Editor) has given conflicting accounts about the purpose of the Legal Aid Board research grant awarded to Dr. Wakefield.

Brian Deer alleged during the meeting at the Lancet on the morning of February `18, 2004, that the Lancet Case Series was funded by the Legal Board and therefore that Dr. Wakefield had failed to disclose this funding source, which, if true, would have been an actual conflict of interest under the then-applicable disclosure rules at the Lancet.

Dr. Wakefield was easily able to refute that allegation during his (and colleagues) meeting with Dr. Horton later that same day by explaining that the Legal Aid Board funding related to an as yet unpublished virology study while the Lancet Case Series was funded from the Royal Free and NHS.

Based upon this explanation,
Dr. Horton immediately retreated from any of an actual conflict to a claim of a possible perceived conflict of interest.

February 2004

Sunday 22rd February 2004, The Sunday Times published an ‘expose’ by Brian Deer that accused Dr Wakefield of a series of ‘crimes’ and serious ethical irregularities. In this article the then Secretary of State for Health, Reid asserted that Dr Wakefield should be reported to the General Medical Council. Within a week of the article being published,  Brian Deer had complied with this instruction and handed a summary complaint in to the GMC. Later that year Deer also reported in a Dispatches programme about Dr Wakefield’s work in North America.

27th February 2004

An appeal by the plaintiffs against withdrawal of legal aid was unsuccessful.

The parents’ lawyers then obtained leave for a judicial review of the LSC’s decision. This was held in February 2004.
The judge upheld the LSC’s original decision. The UK legal action has stalled due to lack of funding.



Judicial Review of withdrawal of Legal aid for trial of big pharma was denied on 27th February 2004 in a secret judgment by High Court Judge Nigel Davis. The reasons remain unpublished today. Evidence given in open court at a different hearing included the allegation from a parent that an official admitted to her that legal aid was withdrawn after government pressure.

Parent Elaine Butler demands an inquiry “We believe the evidence shows very clearly that our children were damaged by this vaccine. If it was so important to the government, then they should have ensured the case went to trial with full funding so everyone could see the evidence in open court. The additional amount that would cost compared to all the money spent by the government and NHS on attacking Wakefield and promoting MMR is trivial. …. People in the UK are 60 times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by measles and the official government figures show that disparity will continue to increase over time. ”

March 2004

On 15th March 2004 Dr Evan Harris (who is also an MP)  launched an unprecedented and defamatory Parliamentary attack on Wakefield and his Royal Free colleagues. This was based on material in documents Sunday Times freelancer Deer had obtained and passed to Harris. Harris used the opportunity to raise allegations The Sunday Times chose not to publish.

January 2010

GMC finally brought in its verdict against the three doctors in January 2010

  1. All three found guilty
  2. Wakefield & Professor Simon Walker struck off.


Dr Peter Fletcher, a former chief scientific officer at the Department of Health makes statements to the Mail on Sunday in 2006 :

“A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of “utterly inexplicable complacency” over the MMR triple vaccine for children.

“Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, “the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history”.

“He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.”

“He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.”

“But he added: “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”

Vaccination – Apparantly Governments are Crazy Anti-Vaxxers

I intend to show here that there is plenty of evidence that some vaccines harm some people.  It is the people who claim that vaccines don’t harm some people that are “anti-science” and “crazy conspiracy theorists


I’ll start with some very strong evidence from the Vaccine Injury Table produced by the US governments’ HRSA.  You can see it in higher resolution  here at  I have taken some screen shots from it and I insert them below.

Screenshot o1:-Headed “VACCINE INJURY TABLE”



Item 1 on screenshot 1 refers to:

Petitions for Compensation filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

So – the US Government has a program for compensating people who have been injured by a vaccine!!

But how can this be if no-one has ever been injured by a vaccine??
They must be crazy, tin-foil hat wearing anti-vaxxers!!

Item 2 says:-

injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions and DEATHS resulting from the administration of .. vaccines

But how can this be if no-one has ever been injured or killed by a vaccine??

Items 3, 4 & 5 say:-



A. Anaphylaxis

(See below that “Anaphylaxis” may be fatal)

You will notice Item 5 says that the vaccine for MMR has “Anaphylaxis” as an injury associated with it.

Screenshot o2:-Page Number 2


Item 1 on page 2 says:-


The Vaccine against polio can give you polio!

I’ll say that again – The polio vaccine can give you polio, according to the US government.

Items 2 & 3 on page 2 say:-


A. Anaphylaxis

Screenshot o3:-Page Number 3

Item 1 of page 3  says:-


The vaccine for “Seasonal influenza” has “Anaphylaxis” as an injury associated with it.

Lower down it says that “Guillane-Barre Syndrome” is also associated with the vaccine for seasonal flu. I describe Guillane-Barre in my video documentary mentioned below.

Item 2 of page 3  says:-

Human Pappilomavirus  (HPV) vaccine has “Anaphylaxis” as an injury associated with it.

Screenshot o4:-Page Number 4


Item 1 on page 4 says:-


Anaphylaxis is an acute, severe and potentially lethal systemic reaction.

Item 2 on page 4 says:-

Death, if it occurs, usually results from an airway obstruction.

So – just to summarise the above.

  • The US government believes that some vaccines harm some people
  • It believes it so much that it has constructed a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVIC)
  • NVIC publishes a table of Vaccine Injuries for which it gives compensation
  • That Vaccine Injury Table mentions “injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions and DEATHS resulting from the administration of .. vaccines”
  • One of these injuries is Anaphylaxis.
  • Anaphylaxis is acute, severe and potentially lethal.
  • Some vaccines, such as MMR, HPV and Seasonal Flu, KILL some people.

An article about The Amount of Money paid in Compensation to vaccine injured families.

The article lists “death” as one of the side-effects of vaccination

According to pro-vaccine zealots, the US government has paid out $3 billion dollars because they are anti-science,” “anti-vaxxers” and “crazy conspiracy theorists

So – Governments and Law courts are Vaccine “Deniers”.

People who claim that some vaccines harm some people are dishonestly called “Vaccine DENIERS” by paid liars in the Public Relations industry.

Surprisingly, the governments of both the UK and the USA claim that vaccines can be harmful, as also do the manufacturers of those vaccines.


I am one of the people that claim that some vaccines harm some people and have been victimised for this claim.

Brian Deer, the journalist who destroyed Andrew Wakefield over the MMR controversy also abused me personally and publically because of my support for Dr Wakefield.

Back on Tuesday 11th January 2011 I attended a talk given by Brian Deer at a local event called “Skeptics in Pubs” here in Brighton UK.

The talk was called “MMR, Autism and Andrew Wakefield” and strap-lined as “Brian will talk about the investigation and reveal why the Brighton area was the secret epicentre to what went on to become a global health crisis”

During the lecture I was actually assaulted by one of Brian’s cronies for just sitting there listening attentively.

At the end of his talk Brian lied horribly and said

  1. “Nobody has ever been harmed by a vaccine” and
  2. “Nobody has ever received (monetary) compensation for having been harmed by a vaccine.”

Both of those public statements are lies and Brian Deer knew that they were lies when he said them.

The earliest newspaper article that I could find written by him was about someone who received compensation for a vaccine injury. So he cannot pretend that he didn’t know, given that he had written an article about that person.

For more about Brian Deer see:-

My first ever amateur documentary was about vaccination.  I made it back in 2009.

Here it is in three parts

Part 1:-

Part 2:-

Part 3:-


UK Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979

If you’re severely disabled as a result of a vaccination against certain diseases, you could get a one-off tax-free payment of £120,000. This is called a Vaccine Damage Payment.


The government has paid out £3.5m to patients left disabled by vaccinations since 1997, it has been revealed.   Wednesday, 16 March, 2005


the UK Vaccine Damage Payments Unit have paid out 1367 vaccine damage awards between 1978 and 2005 .

SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO MMR (the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine )

‘In 1995 the Government’s vaccine damage tribunal paid £30,000 compensation to James Smith, of Gateshead, for brain damage after he was given MMR at the age of four. James died nine years later aged 13.’

A rogue strain of the measles, mumps and rubella [MMR] vaccine caused deafness in children, the Government has admitted.


The government’s own concession that the MMR can in fact cause permanent brain damage

Robert Fletcher received £90,000 who in August 2010 as a payout for epilepsy and severe mental retardation that he suffered following the MMR jab;


Because I was paid £85,000 in compensation for my daughters death by the Government. The decision that MMR led to my only daughter’s death was confirmed by doctors and agreed at a tribunal.
Carol Buxton Daily Mail 18th May 2004  also


More than 1,000 families who believe their children were harmed by MMR jabs are embroiled in a lengthy court fight for compensation.

They include youngsters suffering from autism, brain damage, arthritis, bowel disease, epilepsy and immune system disorders. Some conditions are acknowledged – but rare – side effects of the controversial triple vaccine.

Many parents involved in the class action applied unsuccessfully for compensation under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme.
London Evening Standard | March 16 2005

Politicians Demand Direct Control Of “Happiness” in order to Stop Climate Change

Most of the readers of this blog will know how fake the PROBLEMS of the “Global Warming Apocalypse” are. But most will not have heard of the fake SOLUTIONS to these fake problems which are being imposed all over the world.

One such solution is the “One Planet” program being implemented as:-
* “One Planet Brighton” in Brighton UK where I live
* “One Planet Wales” throughout the entire country of Wales
* “One Planet Fremantle” in Fremantle, Australia
and coming soon to an area near you.

These “solutions” are totalitarian political programs.

So totalitarian that – for example – politicians get to take direct political control of HAPPINESS

(see my blog article:- “Sustainable Happiness Is No Laughing Matter“)

The justification for this maniacal power grab is:- the “Global Warming Apocalypse
Politicians claim that we have to give them direct political control of HAPPINESS in order to stop the climate changing.

I try to lead people to see the dishonesty of the rationale underlying this solution by asking the questions:-

“What percentage of scientists say that giving politicians direct political control over happiness will stop the climate from changing?”
(Answer – zero)
“What percentage of scientists say that we can stop the climate from changing?”
(Answer – zero)

The solutions are as fake as the problems.

You won’t understand how the fakery manages to persist until you understand how powerful the fakers are.
(see my blog article:- “The Power that Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Alarmists have over the Main Stream Media“)

The Climatist claims of apocalypse are immune from rational discussion because they are POLITICAL lies.  Climatists don’t respond to facts and reason because they are bullies who are deliberately lying.

Scare stories about the environment are being used to justify the imposition of a totalitarian government.  The phrase “for the good of the planet” is being used as an excuse to micromanage every aspect of human lives.  False fears about the environment are being used to justify an ultra-luddite de-industrialision of both the city and the farm.

It is not science – it is politics.
It is about the “solutions” NOT the “problems.”
The problems are being faked in order to justify the fake solutions.

I think that is worth mentioning that the IPCC reports are written by Politicians NOT scientists

You can help expose the fakery of their rationale with the “What percentage of scientists say” question.

eg :-
“What percentage of scientists say that “once we hit two degrees, the Earth’s natural equilibrium could be irreversibly disrupted”?
“What percentage of scientists say that wind farms will stop the climate from changing?”
“What percentage of scientists say that a carbon tax will stop the climate from changing?”
and don’t forget
“What percentage of scientists say that giving politicians direct political control over happiness will stop the climate from changing?”

Environmentalists Are Totally Racist

In 2013, a prominent environmentalist called David Attenborough made the statement “Humans are a plague” (in the “Radio Times”)

What kind of person could think of every human that they they were a plague?

To say humanity is a plague is to say that Black people AND Gays AND Jews AND Women are a plague.

So Attenborough’s statement is Racist AND Homophobic AND Anti-Semitic AND Misogynist all in one go, and yet no one is allowed to challenge it.

Attenborough is not just Homophobic, Racist and Anti-Semitic he is a liar as is evidenced by

BBC withdraws Human Planet series after whale hunt scenes exposed as more fakery

The environmental movement is far more racist than the nazis ever were.

After all the nazis thought that at least SOME human lives had value, but Eco-Fascists are convinced that no human life has value.

They are racist about the entire human race.

They think of all of humanity the way that the Nazis though of the Jews.
And they intend to DO to humanity what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Environmentalists think of the entire human race the same way that the Klu Klux Klan thought only of black people.  And they intend to do to all of humanity what the KKK did to black people – force them to live in poverty and fear.

The Green Klux Clan is far more powerful and dangerous than the Klu Klux Klan ever were.

The Age of Green is a new and terrible Dark Age!

Environmentalism is:-

People who think humanity is a plague passing laws that treat humanity as if it were a plague.

Evidence Based Believing

In a previous blog article I put the case that the education system deliberately produces Evidence FREE believers.  After long study of ex-teacher John Taylor Gatto and others I have come to believe that politicians have twisted the education system such that most educated people (and especially Medical Doctors and Scientists) have been kept deliberately ignorant of Evidence BASED believing (EBM) .

So, I thought I’d explain what I think that Evidence BASED Believing is.

I have to start by saying that because Evidence BASED Believing is literally un-orthodox you won’t be able to find one particular book that specifies simply and plainly what it is.  I personally think that the nearest single book would be “The Logic Of Scientific Discovery” by Karl Popper which I discovered while doing decades of (amateur) research on the topic of “The Scientific Method.” (I also dutifully read my Feyerabend, Kuhn and Lakatos. Also my Kant, Hume and J S Mill).

I think that “Science” is the Best Example of Evidence Based Believing

I think that science is an uneasy alliance of two contradictory Epistemologies:- Rationalism and Empiricism.

says that only the mind can perceive truth whereas the senses (sight, touch, taste etc) are misleading
says that only the senses can perceive truth whereas the mind (thoughts, reasonings etc) are misleading

I claim that Science is Rationalism tested by Empiricism.

In matters of Science Rationalism and Empiricism are like the two ends of a spectrum with no exact line separating them in the middle.

There is no exact line of separation because it is very hard for humans to give a rational account of pure sensation.  It turns out to be impossible for humans to completely dis-entangle the mind from the senses.

The Experimental Method

There is a special kind of event in Science called an “Experiment.”

In a scientific experiment the Rationalism occurs first (in terms of time-sequence) because it requires a fair bit of thought to design a good experiment.  However, once the experiment has started it is the Empirical part – (the Seeing, Hearing, Touching, Tasting, or Smelling) that is the most important part.  In science the Empirical outranks the Rational.  The thought may occur first – timewise – but the Sensation is considered to be stronger evidence than the thought.

An experiment IS a comparison between:-

★ what the theory says should be being sensed (Empirically) and
★ what is actually sensed.

In a proper scientific experiment no matter how much you believed you would see something, if you didn’t actually see it then that negative experience should outweigh your rational belief that you should have.  The most evidentially significant part of an experiment is where the experimenter notices a difference between what the theory says they should be seeing and what they are actually seeing.

In short, Science is:-

Rational beliefs that have been tested Empirically
Experiments have to be designed Rationally, but their most evidentially significant component is the Empirical part.

Richard Feynman states the Essence Of Science In 61 Seconds :=
If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong

The Empirical beats the Theoretical


The clearest example of Empiricism “outranking” Rationalism (Experiment “outranking” Theory) is “The Black Swan” example from Karl Popper.

Most people think that all swans are white, and would treat the assertion “All Swans are White” as having been “verified” by hundreds of thousands of observations of white swans

Most europeans accepted “All Swans are White” as “verified and proven” until some BLACK swans were observed in New Zealand.

A Black Swan may be observed with your own eyes

The upshot of the “Black Swan” example is that it forces the realisation that you can never prove a generalisation by empirical observation.   No matter how many white swans you observe it is not practically possible to empirically prove the generalisation “All Swans are White.”

However, you can disprove it by empirical observation.  You only have to observe one black swan to dis-prove the generalisation that “All swans are white”.

Numerically speaking, you only have to observe one black swan once to outweigh millions of observations of white swans.  Yet today most scientists would take “All the swans that we have seen so far have been white” as proof of the generalisation that “ALL Swans are White.”

(To most scientists the fact that “Some As is B” seems to be the proof that “All As are B.” A technique often called “Induction”)

However, to Empirically prove that all swans are white would require the empirical observation of every swan that ever was, is or ever will be.  And that is practically impossible.  Empirical proofs take forever, are staggeringly expensive, and often require a time-machine.

Consider the view of the Maori naturalist in New Zealand who empirically observed only black swans.

Maori Naturalist looking for swans and – seeing only black ones – feeling justified about becoming more and more subjectively certain that all swans are BLACK

How many swans would he have to have seen before he had empirically PROVED that “All Swans are Black?” The answer is:- He would have to have seen all the swans that ever were, are or ever will be.

An empirical proof requires an empirical inspection of ALL of the things in question.

The Empirical proof of “All A’s are B” requires the direct “eyes-on” visual inspection of ALL of the A’s that ever were, are or ever will be.

So, my version of Karl Popper’s assertion is:-

You can’t empirically prove a generalisation although you can empirically DISPROVE one.

Experiments don’t prove a theory – They fail to disprove it.

The English biologist Thomas Huxley commented on this problem over a century ago:

“The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

A “black swan event” is “an ugly fact” that slays a beautiful hypothesis


The most important “Black Swan” observation in science occurred on May 29, 1919 when Eddington conducted an empirical observation of a solar eclipse to compare Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity against two other fundamental theories of Western science and mathematics:-

1. Newton’s Law of Gravity and
2. The Geometry of Euclid.

That ONE empirical observation disproved TWO fundamental theories of Physics and Mathematics.

EUCLID’s Geometry

Eddington’s observation showed that space was NOT as defined in Euclid’s geometry.  It showed that space could be curved, warped and bent in ways forbidden by Euclidian geometry.

The light passing the sun was bent because the space through which the light was passing had been bent by the sun.  Eddington’s experiment involved space being empirically observed to be bent and therefore not Euclidian.

NEWTON’s Law of Gravity

Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity  held that gravity was not a force that “forced” objects into circular orbits.  Gravity was not a kind of invisible elastic band that applied a pulling force to the Earth and Moon thus causing a circular orbit.  Relativity held that objects were orbiting one another because they were bending the space through which they were moving.  Orbits were circular because space was being bent not because there were forces being caused by masses which is what Newton’s theory claimed.

Newton’s Law of Gravity held that gravity was a force that pulled planets into circular orbits. This pulling force was caused by the masses involved, but space was not affected by these masses.  Space remained inert and aloof to anything that it contained.

Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity held that the orbit of the Moon around the Earth was circular because their masses were causing space to bend. The changes in direction of motion of the Earth and Moon were not being caused by a force. Orbits were circular because masses caused space to bend not because masses induced forces.

There was no “force” of gravity.

Prior to Einstein the two most “verified,” “proved” (and indeed revered) claims in Maths and Physics were from Euclid and Newton.

For mathematicians the Geometry of Euclid was the most perfect piece of reasoning that humans had ever produced. For thousands of years it was the gold standard of “Rationality.”  For mathematicians its combination of axioms and postulates completely PROVED its theorems.

For scientists, Newton’s theory of Gravity had been successfully used to predict the location of previously unknown planets such as Neptune and Uranus.  Since the observations matched the theory, this theory was held to be “proven science.”

But, Eddington’s (empirical) observation disproved both of those two theories.

ONE empirical observation disproved TWO fundamental theories of Physics and Mathematics at the same time.

The Eddington observation was a “black swan event” that killed TWO beautiful hypotheses at the same time!.

The many millions of empirical observations that had been held to “prove” or “verify” Euclid and Newton – didn’t.

Experiments don’t PROVE anything, they just CORROBORATE.
Well, more exactly, experiments don’t prove generalizations such as “All A’s are B”.
An experiment can prove “One A is B”, or perhaps “Some A is B.” but it can’t prove “All A’s are B”.

I think that the following comic poem expresses it well:-

“Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in night
God said “Let Newton Be” and all was light.
“Not so fast – the devil howling “Ho!”
“Let Einstein Be” restored the status quo.”

And that is where evidence based believing stands today.

You cannot PROVE a scientific theory – neither by pure reasoning nor by accurate observation.
You can TEST a theory by observation but the best that that test can provide is CORROBORATION, not proof.
An observation that DIS-PROVES a theory carries more epistemological weight (“truth value”) than billions of observations that CORROBORATE it.
It is always possible that some future observation may dis-prove your theory.

A consideration of these facts should make people much less certain of their claims about science and what “scientists say.”

Scientific theories are just Hypotheses and suppositions and assumptions.


My definition for evidence is:-
The result of an empirical test of a theory

I further contend that it is not “proper” science until you have tested your theory by an empirical experiment.

We should be able to say to anyone making a claim about the physical world.
“Show us the result of the empirical test of your claim.”

A proper evaluation of a theory requires two things:-
1. The theory – a collection of reasonings . 
2. The results of at least one empirical test of that theory.


Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) has a special case of Evidence Based Believing.

EBM’s version of an empirical trial (or “experiment”) is called a “clinical trial.”

And the “evidence” in “Evidence Based Medicine” IS the results of the relevant clinical trials.

Doctors who practice Evidence Based Medicine are aware of the clinical trials that have (and have NOT) been done.

However, most doctors practice “Evidence Free Medicine”.
Most doctors:-

  • don’t know what the relevant evidence is
  • don’t care what the relevant evidence is
  • If you gave them the relevant evidence they wouldn’t know what to do with it.

They have been kept deliberately ignorant of Evidence Based Believing by the Education system. (See my blog article on “The Education System“)