The lies the Government tell when it comes to vaccines

Christina England

In 2006, I was lucky enough to to be given permission to interview Professor Gordon T Stewart at his home in Edinburgh and he really opened my eyes to just how devious the Government really is and how information is withheld from the public for many years on the adverse reactions to vaccines. Prof Stewart who was 91 at the time of the interview, wanted the truth to be told, about what really goes on when it comes to the Department of Health agreeing to a vaccine being given to the general public. To back up his evidence he gave me the unique experience of examining with him an array of letters, documents and papers that he had kept over many years, some of which have still never been seen by the public today. He explained exactly what evidence he had, the in depth studies that he had carried out and about his research. He explained about how shocked he had been about the attitudes of the Department of Health, the Joint Committee of Vaccine and Immunization and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, when he presented them with his evidence and how they chose the ignore the facts in favour of mass vaccination. After studying much of his research and many of his letters, I agree after much thought that the public do indeed have a right to know the truth, especially about what really goes on behind closed doors.

Professor Stewart had been speaking out on the adverse reactions to vaccines since 1950’s.

His main work was surrounding the Whooping Cough and DPT vaccine. Over the years he has written letter after letter raising concerns with the Department of Health and the Government. Most of his concerns were ignored but they were discussed at meetings involving the Joint Sub Committee on Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation and evidence can be found to support this.

Professor Gordon Stewart’s views make him unconventional among medical men.

Here is a little of Professor Stewart’s background:

GORDON T. STEWART, M.D Emeritus professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow Consultant physician, NHS (Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine), Emeritus Fellow, Inf Dis Soc of America. Former consultant, New York City, US NIH, WHO, UNICEF etc.


1951 Infectivity and virulence of tubercle bacilli. Lancet 2; 562

1952 do J Hygiene, Cambridge 50; 37.

1962 Organisation of Clinical Trials Lancet 1, 1394

1968 Limitations of the germ theory Lancet 1; 1077

1969 Determinants of sickness in US Marine recruits Amer J Epid 89;254

1969 Resistance factors in the control of tuberculosis J Inf Dis 120; 389

1976 Immunisation against whooping cough Brit med J 1; 93.

1976 Immunisation against whooping cough ibid 1; 583

1976 (with WR Bassili) Whooping cough: epidemiological evaluation of immunisation and other factors in the control of infection. Lancet 1; 474.

1977 Vaccination against whooping cough: efficacy versus risks. Lancet 1; 234.

1977 Whooping cough vaccination. Lancet 1; 804

1978 Whooping cough vaccination Brit med J 2; 768

1978 Pertussis vaccine: the United Kingdom’s experience: Invited position paper at the NIH Symposium on Pertussis at Bethesda, Md.,1978. US Government Printing Office: 1979.

1979 Toxicity of pertussis vaccine. frequency and probability of adverse reactions. J Epid Comm Health 33; 150

1979 Infection and immunisation Scot med J 24; 47

1979 Deaths of infants after triple vaccine Lancet 2; 353

1979 Whooping cough in Hertfordshire, UK Lancet 2; 473

1979 Whooping cough in Shetland, UK Brit med J;

1980 Vaccination and notification rates for whooping cough Lancet 1; 1299

1980 Pertussis vaccine: benefits and risks. New Eng J Med 302; 634

1981 Whooping cough in relation to other childhood infections. J Epid Comm Hlth 35; 139 1981 Pertussis vaccine and acute neurological illness in children Brit med J 282, 1968 (with John Wilson)

1981 Medicine and the Community. Chapter 3 in “Legal Issues in Medicine” ed MacLean, SMM, Gower Pub Co., Aldershot, UK.

1982 ABC of whooping cough Brit med J. 284; 1263

1983 Whooping cough in the United States and Britain New Eng J Med 308; 464

1983 Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine Brit med J 287; 287

1983 Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine: Report commissioned by the Chief Scientist, Dept of Health and Social Security (UK) on Risk-benefit of pertussis vaccines in UK, 1964-82 (pp 135).


Pretty impressive I am sure that you will agree.

So here is a top M.D and a Emeritus professor of Public Health, who knew exactly what he was talking about and who tried desperately to get the authorities to sit up and take notice of his advice. Sadly however, his advice fell on deaf ears, as all the evidence I am about to expose shows very clearly and the UK Government took no notice of him what so ever, seemingly viewing him as more of an annoyance than a help.

In one of his papers Whooping cough vaccination—Prof Gordon Stewart he said the following about the whooping cough vaccine.

The contrary view, with which I am identified; is that vaccination has been at best only partially effective in controlling whooping cough and has never been proved to be adequate in protecting infants below one year of age who are in the United Kingdom at least, the only group of children whose health is seriously menaced by whooping cough.

As I view the problem, the marginal advantages of the vaccine in children over one year of age have to be offset against adverse effects of the vaccine itself, which are very common indeed and may be followed occasionally by irreversible brain damage, paralysis and mental deficiency. Because of this danger, or for fear of it, many parents and doctors are reluctant to vaccinate their children.”

Prof Stewart again and again showed his research to the authorities, and it is important to remember that he did not pluck his figures out of thin air nor did he make up evidence, this was something he had studied and researched for many years and he naturally expected that the Government would sit up and take notice, but true to form they did not. has decided it is high time to expose a couple of Professors Stewart’s letters and show our readers just what does goes on behind the scenes and the type of evidence that our Governments choose to ignore when it comes to using our children as pincushions.

Letter number 1 was written to Mr P Allen the Secretary of the Committee on Safety of Vaccines on the 13th February 1980.

The letter begins by pointing out that it is very important that all information should be made available to the public about a vaccine. Prof Stewart writes about information regarding the whooping cough vaccine.

In reply to yours of 11th February, I am sorry to say that I do not agree with you that there is nothing more that can or should be done; Let me say again that the important matter confronting us is the safety of the vaccine. It is not in the public interest to withhold additional information relating to the safety of a vaccine, which has come to our attention as a result of a collaborative programme and which is highly germane to our report.

The letter continued a little later to say-

The situation changed when Dr Pollock, saw fit to assure the public on more than one occasion that the vaccine was ‘perfectly safe’, that fears which had been expressed were groundless and that parents and doctors could therefore use it without fear. The reassuring statements issued by Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and Professors Dudgeon and Miller were in the same vein, although the NCES to which they refer is nowhere near completion”

Then the letter says (and this is worst part)-

This was so much at variance with what, by that time, our Committee knew to be the case that a caution if not a corrective statement was certainly called for. The lack of a corrective statement amounts to a repetition of the same dismal history which caused the problem in the first place and led to the Ombudsman to blame your department in no uncertain terms.”

I might mention that Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and Professors Dudgeon and Miller were on the the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunization at the time.

Another letter written by Professor Stewart that I came across on my travels, is one written by him to a Dr John Badenoch, who was none other than the Chairman of the JCVI at the time. This letter was written on 15th May 1981 which was more than a year after the first one. He appears very angry and says:-

Report on Whooping Cough 12.5.81

The editorial in the BMJ reassures Doctors that pertussis vaccine can safely be given to 600,000 infants and that only two will have serious reactions with permanent disability. This is a dangerous conclusion to draw from your report”

He later says:-

The assertion made on pages 179 and 182 that attack rate is significantly affected by rates of vaccine acceptance is statistically untenable and the Department has admitted this in correspondence with me.”

The problem I see with all this, is that many thousands of children suffered permanent disability and death through having the whooping cough vaccine and the Government sat back with their fat cigars and allowed this to happen.

The (4/18/97) The Tainted History of the DPT Vaccine says this about Professor Stewart research

“By 1972, six major US pharmaceutical companies had developed a purified (acellular) form of the pertussis vaccine which was virtually reaction-free. Unfortunately, the purification process yielded less of the active component necessary to confer immunity increasing the cost of production from cents to dollars per dosage. Acellular vaccine production was abandoned. In 1977, British researcher Dr. Gordon T. Stewart, of the Department of Community Medicine at the University of Glasgow, documented adverse reactions to DPT vaccine and evaluated the benefit to risk ratio for children in the United Kingdom. His research demonstrated that 1 of every 54,000 children receiving the vaccine suffered encephalopathy (brain disfunction) with rare instances of mental retardation ensuing. Other symptoms included fits of screaming, unresponsiveness, shock, vomiting, localized paralysis, and convulsions.Of the 160 adverse cases he examined, 40 percent demonstrated hyperkinesis (increased muscle movements accompanying brain dysfunction), infantile spasms, flaccid paralysis, and partial or complete amentia (severe mental retardation).

He determined that adverse events were severely underreported or overlooked, that no protection from the disease was demonstrable in infants, and that claims by official bodies that risks of whooping-cough exceeded those of vaccination were very questionable. He estimated the risk of transient brain damage and mental defect to occur in 1 out of every 10,000 vaccinated, and risk for permanent brain damage to occur in 1 out of every 20,000 to 60,000 vaccinated.

Sweden banned the pertussis vaccine from its vaccination program in 1979, related to concerns of safety and its questionable effectiveness. This country decided it would rather endure the disease as opposed to the vaccine. (Mr. Williamson correctly points out that the United Kingdom experienced outbreaks of pertussis during this time period, however, 100,000 cases with only 36 deaths was viewed by many as minor compared to the potential loss from mass immunizations of millions of citizens with a defective vaccine — do the math yourself — a potential for 900 deaths annually in this country alone from the vaccine.)

In 1980, German researchers, Tonz and Bajc, compared incidences of seizures caused by the pertussis vaccine in Germany with those in America. German children suffered seizures at the rate of 1 per every 4800 infants immunized while American children demonstrated a rate of 1 seizure for every 600 infants immunized.”

At the moment there is a large push for children to be vaccinated against whooping cough, I would urge parents to read the evidence and weigh up the risks against the benefits and realise that even a vaccinated child can still get whooping cough Whooping cough still infecting millions of vaccinated children

It is a fact that the Governments do lie and hide facts in a bid to push parents into vaccinating their children as my evidence has shown. Next time you open your newspaper and read about a vaccine and how ‘perfectly safe’ it is, please think twice, it might not be as safe as the Government lead us to believe.

Click here to see both letters.

About the author

Christina England, BA Hons